So were are you when reason is needed ?

[Rev Devilin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6Mz21jTaA&feature=watch_response_rev
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 37) William Lane Craig

Thunderf00t's vid is an interesting concoction of mistakes logical/reason scientific
and if these mistakes are not addressed they become misinformation
So when reason is needed were are you ?

 

[Inferno]

What exactly is your problem with the video? I think Thunderf00t was very clear and what he said was pretty much true.

 

[bluejatheist]

Do explain the mistakes Thunderf00t makes.

 

[australopithecus]

So when reason is needed were are you ?

I think we were busy not taking the name of this forum seriously.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6Mz21jTaA&feature=watch_response_rev
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 37) William Lane Craig

Thunderf00t's vid is an interesting concoction of mistakes logical/reason scientific
and if these mistakes are not addressed they become misinformation
So when reason is needed were are you ?

I don't recall it being my job to babysit thunder.

If he wants to come here and make "an interesting concoction of mistakes logical/reason scientific," whatever that means, I'll gladly call him on it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What the fuck is this happy-crappy?

No, seriously.... what the fuck is this?

 

[Rev Devilin]

Do explain the mistakes Thunderf00t makes.

If I have to explain the blatantly obvious then you must be a tourist here in desperate need of education, here let me help you get started
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Move your mouse over the above link click it a new web page will open read it and then think about it

What exactly is your problem with the video? I think Thunderf00t was very clear and what he said was pretty much true.

The capacity for reason is weak in this one
I would explain but I would have to use some big words that you might have trouble understanding, like inductive reasoning deductive reasoning valid logical argument and so on

So when reason is needed were are you ?

I think we were busy not taking the name of this forum seriously.

Thank you for your honesty australopithecus

 

[sturmgewehr]

You still not pointing out the mistakes Thunderfoot makes.

you can go on dodging this but in the end you have to tell us which part of His Debunking WLC made no sense.

 

[Nashy19]

Aww sweat! a troll thread

 

[Rev Devilin]

You still not pointing out the mistakes Thunderfoot makes.

you can go on dodging this but in the end you have to tell us which part of His Debunking WLC made no sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUhWI9fWyrQ Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYF8q_uvkcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNoerf39rhc

There are more just ask if you are unable to find them yourself

Although if this has to be explained to you, I would not consider it unreasonable to assume that either you lack the skills required to continue any such discussion in an adult fashion, or that you have the skills yet you have decided to play the wilful ignorance card thus you have engaged in sophistry rather than reason
This may be a false dichotomy if so I'm open to a reasonable explanation

 

[Rev Devilin]

Aww sweat! a troll thread

Or perhaps a name and shame vid is in the offing

 

[Prolescum]

1. This is a discussion forum. When and if something is posted, it is either ignored or discussed. If you are incapable of explaining your contention in writing, you have no cause to condescend to respondents who ask that you explain your position.

2. The League of Reason is the name of the forum; there is no actual "league". (See about section)

3. Thunderf00t has never, to my knowledge, posted here.

4. Thunderf00t does not represent any other members here except where a member explicitly states that he does. (See about section)

5. There is no duty upon members to correct or otherwise dispute some crap by some bloke on YouTube.

6. Insulting members in the manner of a stereotypical YouTube pseud desperate for credence will only result in your own ridicule; stop it now before you embarrass yourself further. Seriously.

7. Consider apologising for your unwarranted pomposity and begin again.

8. Welcome, provisionally.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Do explain the mistakes Thunderf00t makes.

If I have to explain the blatantly obvious then you must be a tourist here in desperate need of education, here let me help you get started
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Move your mouse over the above link click it a new web page will open read it and then think about it

What exactly is your problem with the video? I think Thunderf00t was very clear and what he said was pretty much true.

The capacity for reason is weak in this one
I would explain but I would have to use some big words that you might have trouble understanding, like inductive reasoning deductive reasoning valid logical argument and so on

Wow. Such a condescending post from someone who wrote "were" when they meant "where" in the title of this thread.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Did tfool stop his hatemongering videos finally?

 

[DepricatedZero]

ok I watched the video. The real relevant part is the first 4 or so minutes, the rest is just posturing tripe about science and god-bashing.

I think all his raging and fear-mongering rotted his brain. The OP does have a point. While we all know William Lane Craig is full of shit, tfool's "debunking" is terribly flawed. He's making a faulty comparison. He's comparing his made-up bad-logic to Craig's bad-logic.

Craig's argument is affirming the consequent: 1) If A then B 2) B 3) Therefore, A. tfool's argument is a sweeping generalization. Both are logical fallacies, both are wrong, but for vastly different reasons.

Craig is wrong because his premise relies on its consequence.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause, things don't come into being from nothing.
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

tfool is wrong, not because he's purposefully committing the same fallacy he accuses WLC of - but for a different reason entirely. tfool presents:

1) Objects which are pushed move faster than they were moving
2) A can of spam is an object
3) Therefore, a can of spam moving at light speed will exceed light speed when pushed

This is a sweeping generalization because, even if the first premise is proven to be true (it is not, incidentally), it ignores the fact that something would already have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order to transfer its momentum (push) to the spam. I understand that it was meant to be wrong, but the fact that he makes a faulty comparison leaves his argument flopping on the ground like a fish out of water.

Note that in this case being wrong does not necessarily mean being incorrect. It is the case that Craig is full of shit and he's otherwise spot on in ridiculing him.

And I much prefer watching TWAT debunk WLC, for the record.

 

[sturmgewehr]

You still not pointing out the mistakes Thunderfoot makes.

you can go on dodging this but in the end you have to tell us which part of His Debunking WLC made no sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUhWI9fWyrQ Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYF8q_uvkcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNoerf39rhc

There are more just ask if you are unable to find them yourself

Although if this has to be explained to you, I would not consider it unreasonable to assume that either you lack the skills required to continue any such discussion in an adult fashion, or that you have the skills yet you have decided to play the wilful ignorance card thus you have engaged in sophistry rather than reason
This may be a false dichotomy if so I'm open to a reasonable explanation

You verbal rant aside, I saw the vids u posted, Thunderfoot is fallible but who cares the Kalam Argument is lame too and putting thunderfoot's rant aside he did a good job with the Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

You obviously didn't come here to discuss anything.

 

[DepricatedZero]

The second vid linked by the OP
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYF8q_uvkcU)
is spot on as well, echoes what I posted above

the problem with the Kalem argument is something else entirely, as that vid says.

I didn't bother with the third. I watch videos to watch, I come here to read. It seemed to be making the same point though - that the issue of logic tfool brings up isn't the issue.

The Kalem Argument(I spell that right?) is problematic because it makes assumptions about the nature of the universe that we cannot know. It assumes it was created or had a beginning. It discounts a number of cosmological models out of hand, and ignores the massive knowledge gap we have about what exists outside of the universe. It's also a false dilemma: "either the universe was created or it came from nothing" - there are other possibilities. The universe is an exception to the rules of physics we know, because it is the bounds of physics, and we don't fully understand physics at any rate, let alone the true bounds of reality

 

[australopithecus]

The capacity for reason is weak in this one
I would explain but I would have to use some big words that you might have trouble understanding, like inductive reasoning deductive reasoning valid logical argument and so on

Although if this has to be explained to you, I would not consider it unreasonable to assume that either you lack the skills required to continue any such discussion in an adult fashion, or that you have the skills yet you have decided to play the wilful ignorance card thus you have engaged in sophistry rather than reason

Ok, this is what is going to happen next: You are going to stop insulting people who have asked you to elaborate on your problems with Thunderf00t's criticisms of WLC. Once you've done that you will do us the courtesy of laying out your objections rationally and with a large dose of the civility you have lacked so far.

Are we absolutely clear on this point? Because if not I can assure you that your time on this forum will be brief.

Thank you for your honesty australopithecus

Honesty has nothing to do with it. If you had taken the time to educate yourself on the forum, as opposed to insulting anyone who asked you to expand on your objections, you would have easily noticed that "The League of Reason" is actually just a tongue-in-cheek joke made by Th1sWasATr1umph. There is no league, none of us claim to be White Knights for Rationalism on the Internet, and I'd wager that not a man (or woman) amongst us would claim to be consistently rational. We are not obligated to roam YouTube en mass waiting for someone to say something stupid and then pounce.

Your mistake is taking the name of this forum too seriously. Your mistake, not ours.

**EDIT**

To flesh out my position:

I think Thunderf00t is a dick and demonstrably has a history of making bad arguments based on faulty reasoning. However, in the course of this thread you have employed the same tactics he does when faced with people questioning your position. You can hardly call bullshit if you're doing what he does without coming across as a hypocrite. I have no doubt his video may contain bad logic, however it is your assertion it does so the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate this, insulting people who have requested you to show the faults is bad form and, frankly, dickish.

 

[nemesiss]

ok I watched the video. The real relevant part is the first 4 or so minutes, the rest is just posturing tripe about science and god-bashing.

I think all his raging and fear-mongering rotted his brain. The OP does have a point. While we all know William Lane Craig is full of shit, tfool's "debunking" is terribly flawed. He's making a faulty comparison. He's comparing his made-up bad-logic to Craig's bad-logic.
tfool is wrong, not because he's purposefully committing the same fallacy he accuses WLC of - but for a different reason entirely. tfool presents:

1) Objects which are pushed move faster than they were moving
2) A can of spam is an object
3) Therefore, a can of spam moving at light speed will exceed light speed when pushed

This is a sweeping generalization because, even if the first premise is proven to be true (it is not, incidentally), it ignores the fact that something would already have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order to transfer its momentum (push) to the spam. I understand that it was meant to be wrong, but the fact that he makes a faulty comparison leaves his argument flopping on the ground like a fish out of water.

not completely.
through the usage of gravity and angular momentum you could "push" an object to gain speed.
i know they used the slingshot effect to send satilites far into the solar system (for fuel effeciency).
in a hypothetical situation, you could have an object move around an object at extreme high speed, where it gain speed almost equal to the speed of light. in this scenario there was no object moving faster then the speed of light.
(perhaps this method can be used for interstellar travel..?)

another example (which probably is better) would be the CERN, where they make objects move nearly at the speed of light through the usage of magnetism, and then let them collide.

i do agree that it might have been better if thunderf00t would have spend more time on this, instead of rushing over it.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Thunderfoots point is right on the money and despite your objections it is correct.
So let's adress your objections:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUhWI9fWyrQ

Do you even know what is the scientific definition of causality? Of course not. And you will find it particulalry surprising that it doesn't say that "everything that happens has a cause" at all.
Do you know what are the limits in which its aplication is valid? That neither.
And what the hell do you know about the nature of the universe to be able to tell that such would even apply? Zero!
Because all I see is a phylosophical argument not backed up by something that relates to the real world.
And if there is something that it is blatantly missing from this self professed knowledgeable in philosophy, is the fundamental notion that beyound "I think therefore I am" there is absolutly nothing you can deduce about the real world from pure philosophy, it is impossible and that is why science is not philosophy. And this argument is exctly that, a pure philosophical argumet trying to postulate something about the real world. Every single argument WLC has ever made or could ever make in the future about something real fails for this exact reason, WLC is doing philosophy, not science, all you have to do is to find the logical falacies.
You complain about creation ex-nihilo. Are you joking? First because no one thinks that the universe came into being ex-nihilo, sencodly this is exactly what you need to postulate a creator God. How is that for a logical dissonance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYF8q_uvkcU

It does seam that "Epydemic2020" doesn't know how reasoning works either.
We have something called "objects" (not the same usage of objects as in the Thunderfoot example), and objects can hold multiple properties.
And thuderfoot argument goes something like this:

1. An X with property A when aplyed property B has property C
2. An Y is an X with property A
C. Therefore when Y with property D when aplyed property B it has property C

Now this becomes glaring obvious that the argument is valid. It is irrelevant that in the conclusion the object Y is qualified with an extra property D, because Y with an addiional property still qualifies for the validity criteria of premiss 2.
Example:
1. Every tall person is blue.
2. Everyone in the room is a tall person
the emidiate conclusion is:
C. Everyone in the room is blue
but it is an equally valid arguemnt to add another property:
C. Everyone in the room named Greg is blue

The only diference between the 2 is that I limited the scope of my conclusion on the second.

Now replace "X with property A" for "object", replace "aplyed property B" with "push", "property C" with "moves faster", "Y" for "can of spam" and "property D" for "traveling at the speed of light" and you have thunderfoots argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNoerf39rhc

This is a double face-palm back flip. He is complaining that Thunderfoot premises where not necessarily true, THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT OF THUNDERFOOTS ARGUMENT! BECAUSE NEITHER ARE WLC PREMISES NECESSARILY TRUE!
Have you not whatched his video?
Because the only justification I would allow for that mistake is if he didn't watched the video at all or if he was to stupid to understand the argument. And given that you haven't spoted this either, imagine in which category you fall in.

And as a side note, after all this the kalam cosmological argumet doesn't even end with the conclusionthat there is a God, you haven't got an inch closer to proving God even if I granted the entire argument, premisses and conclusion.