Is he based?

[Anonymous No.15721588]

>Triggers low IQ atheists
>Admired by high IQ atheists
>Outstanding debater
>Family's patriarch

Is he based, frens?

>muh sean carrrrooll
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gye1XE0kVJY

Btw, his last video with CosmicSkeptic is a carnage kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOfVBqGPwi0

[Anonymous No.15721595]

>>15721588
He's a literal conman. But by all means, keep buying what he's selling

[Anonymous No.15721610]

>>15721595
>His website, his videos, his articles, everything is free.

Ok bro

[Anonymous No.15721864]

For me it is the Plantman.

[Anonymous No.15721913]

>>15721588
>Family's patriarch
Isn't this guy a liberal Christian?

[Anonymous No.15721934]

Absolutely based guy. All he does all day is read and write when he’s not debating, very intelligent, and constantly reading the literature to help his case. If I recall correctly, Sam Harris said he’s the one Theist that “put the fear of God” into his atheist colleagues.

[Anonymous No.15721941]

didn't he once use the cerberus as an analogy to explain the trinity

[Anonymous No.15722004]

>>15721588
>regurgitates the Kalam argument
>'woah based'
it isn't 2008, no one cares about christian v atheist debates anymore

[Anonymous No.15722046]

>>15722004
The kalam is still valid
>muh so 2008 lol
Stfu zoomer

[Anonymous No.15722054]

>>15722046
cringe...

[Anonymous No.15722064]

>>15722054
>cringe

[Anonymous No.15722141]

>>15722054
based

>>15722064
cringe

[Anonymous No.15722168]

>>15722141
Cringe

>>15722064
Based

[Anonymous No.15722179]

>>15721588
no try reading real philosophy. This guy is not well respected outside of evangelical circles.

[Anonymous No.15722184]

>>15721588
He's just good at talking, he knows how to respond, most people aren't good at neither.

[Anonymous No.15722302]

>>15722179
“ According to Nathan Schneider, "[many] professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, [Craig's] books and articles are among the most cited".[5] Fellow philosopher Quentin Smith writes that "William Lane Craig is one the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time."[138] In 2016, The Best Schools named William Lane Craig among the 50 most influential living philosophers.[139]”
From his Wikipedia page

[Anonymous No.15722329]

>>15722168
Based
>>15722141
Cringe

[Anonymous No.15722343]

>>15721864
I hope his air conditioner is ok

[Anonymous No.15722454]

Ok, I watched the entire video with CosmicSkeptic and WLC, here are my takeaways:

CS, as WLC said, is taking a type of mereological nihilism, where he thinks that the only things independent of subjective conscious interpretation that come into being are fundamental particles, and everything else are just the product of the arrangement of the fundamental particles. Therefore, he critiqued the third proof of the Kalam coming from inductive reasoning.

I, however, see this as a necessary compromise for the Atheist. He has to accept a type of Materialism for this thing to work, and do CS is a perfect example of this. This Mereological Nihilism is the only way to get rid of the third proof coming from inductive reasoning, however, it itself brings up a question:

Descartes said that we can objectively know that we exist through our own conscience experience, however, this itself is a subjective interpretation of our consciousness. So, therefore, does consciousness not have a cause? Because, if a consciousness came into being then that means that a conscious being would of needed to subjectively categorize it, and therefore we create a chain of conscious observers, creating a type of “Measurement problem” where everything needs a consciousness to observe and interpret objects so it isn’t just a grouping of fundamental particles. However, does this not imply an unmoved mover? Wouldn’t a fundamental consciousness have to come about from this? This essentially is just an ontological proof coming from a critique of the Kalam.

Also, CS said that there is nothing objectively real except for the fundamental particles, however that is coming from a interpretation of his consciousness. If his consciousness was not objective, that means that whatever interpretation he makes is subjective, meaning that the interpretation of mereological nihilism and it’s idea of fundamental parts could be subjective, therefore destroying the entire idea of fundamental particles being the only objective thing existing.

Thirdly, CS says that Universes could be the only thing that could come out of being without a cause because of the inherent nature of the Universe, however, this would imply that there would be some law of this existence that says that such a law is possible, and that somehow through some type of hidden law coming from potential universes there exists this high probability of universes being the only thing to come into existence without a cause. However, this itself is not nothing, and implies a further substrate of natural and physical laws that had to come into being.

Of course, one may say that these laws are kinda like numbers, not coming into being in the first place, however that creates a problem for the mereological nihilist, because it creates these types of platonic forms that exist eternally, debunking the materialistic nature of mereological nihilism in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15722470]

I wrote a paper on him, almost ten years ago. I got assigned to him due to my teacher. Back then I thought he was a nobody.
His book had some flaws and he didn't argue properly.
He had more than 4000 friends on Facebook and I became one of them.
God bless him.

>>15722179
>>15722302
That list seems to be based on citation analysis and other stuff.
Based on discussions and spent time with christians I would argue that christians are going to be more influenced by christian philosophers than atheistic middle-class normies. Then again giving the average 4channeler seems to be more influenced by reading Nietzsche, Guenon, Stirner or Aurelius.
In fact based on that I just started a new thread:
>>15722467

[Anonymous No.15722484]

la creatura...

[Anonymous No.15722486]

>>15722454
Not to mention, one can bring up the Chinese room thought experiment, where an AI knowing syntax doesn’t actually understand semantics, basically bringing out an exterior conscious objective existence instead of a subjective interpretation. If a Mereological nihilist had to deal with this then they would say there would be no difference between an actual Chinese speaker and someone in the Chinese room with the book of instructions, further complicating the entire argument for they’re denying consciousness is objective in the first place, which itself is one of the only objectively verifiable and falsifiable claims via Descartes.

TL;DR, CS’ entire argument against the Kalam has tons of things wrong with it, and someone can pull God out of all of it.

[Anonymous No.15722489]

>>15721588
>2 hour+ long videos of soi-aids-ridden effete faggots podcasting
gee, I'd better clear my schedule

[Anonymous No.15722598]

>>15721588
>bro just watch my 2 and a half hour video of me in my hip flannel shirt telling you why WLC actually didn't get totally wrecked
I'm gonna pass. I would recommend everyone watch the actual debate instead.

[Anonymous No.15722601]

>>15721588
I thought /lit/ said this CosmicSkeptic guy was an edgy atheist bro? I'm only 20 minutes in but he is already better than ever 'debate athiest' I have ever seen.

[Anonymous No.15722615]

>>15722601
He’s not really that edgy, he’s a great guy actually. See his debate with Matt Dillahunty, the staple edgy atheist, on veganism. Cosmicskeptic completely embarrassed him because he showed that Matt really didn’t have a basis in his ethics system for eating meat. Anyway, after you watch the video, read my critiques of Cosmic Skeptic’s arguments.
>>15722454
>>15722486

[Anonymous No.15722678]

>>15721588
I agree that he btfos atheists as a theist, but the kalam argument does not justify Christian dogma and never will. I’d say he’s based but not truly redpilled

[Anonymous No.15722695]

>>15722678
It does justify God though.

[Anonymous No.15722967]

>>15722678
Thats why he use other arguments for that

[Anonymous No.15723010]

>>15722678
There's always some big brain atheist pointing this out as if anyone says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15723099]

>>15722695
God needs no justification.

[Anonymous No.15723120]

>>15723099
Cringe

[Anonymous No.15723134]

>>15722598
Imagine modelling your physical appearance after the zoomer meme and then making 2 and a half hour videos of your face.

[Anonymous No.15723155]

>>15723120
Are you saying He does?

[Anonymous No.15723162]

>>15723134
>Gee, I can't refute the astrophysicist who comments on the debate for two hours... I'm going to insult the presenter!

[Anonymous No.15723167]

>>15723155
Yes we do need a reason to believe God exists. Even if we didn't that doesn't mean we can't have a reason to believe he exists.

[Anonymous No.15723187]

>>15723162
I'm not part of this "debate" at all champ. Your defensive response is precious though, thank you.

[Anonymous No.15723566]

>>15723167
>Amazing Self-Contradiction

>Anselm prays in all inwardness that he might succeed in proving God's existence. He thinks he has succeeded, and he flings himself down in adoration to thank God. Amazing. He does not notice that this prayer and this expression of thanksgiving are infinitely more proof of God's existence than -- the proof.

-Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.15723613]

>>15723566
I just read autism

[Anonymous No.15723643]

>>15723566
Don't just quote random shit at me. What is your point? Do you think praying to God is proof enough that God is real? I could pray to a unicorn but that doesn't mean shit.

[Anonymous No.15723940]

>>15722454
Excellent exposition, anon. very good.

[Anonymous No.15724103]

Daily reminder that Eternalism, which has been widely adopted by philosophers and physicists, makes the Kalam argument completely worthless

[Anonymous No.15724153]

>>15721588
>>muh sean carrrrooll
>< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gye1XE0kVJY [Open]
If you cannot win an oral debate within the allotted time, you lost the debate fair and square, period. You cannot have a couple of queers spend 2 and a half hours trying to retroactively make you win by trying to rebut your opponent's arguments later on.
There's a reason oral debates are timed, if this sort of "tactic" was valid debates would drag on forever, as Sean Carroll could make his own response to these fags.

[Anonymous No.15724211]

>>15721588
I've watched 30 minutes of that debate review and they took about 20 minutes to even get to the debate itself. These types of videos have this self-indulgent structure that spends most of the time introducing everyone and everything involved. Even when the two physicists get to the interesting stuff the host and pastor Jimbob come in to give their uninformed takes as well.

[Anonymous No.15724490]

>>15721588
He bases his faith on so-called proof and evidence, he cheats himself out of any real faith. He tries to present Christianity as anything other than 'folly' (Paul's words, not mine). He would do well to understand how the Biblical saints defended their faith and gave an account rather than trying to pander to modern academics and gain some sort of respectability for himself as being "rational" or whatnot.

[Anonymous No.15724528]

>>15721864
This. Plantinga is better than Craig.
>>15722343
God was trying to tell us something...

[Anonymous No.15724601]

>>15724490
Except early Christians defending their faith with academic defences, such as Theophilus of Antioch who worked out an extensive chronology to supposedly prove the reliability of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.15724639]

Just watched this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o
Can't believe I used to take Hitchens seriously. He's an absolute brainlet lmao.

[Anonymous No.15724652]

>>15724639
I always thought Hitchens was poor, he has nothing behind his rhetoric.

>Er, er, brother and sisters, er, if God's real why is the universe big? er...

[Anonymous No.15724865]

>>15723099
non sequitur

[Anonymous No.15724928]

>>15724639
I remember watching this, it being my first introduction to Christopher Hitchens and I pondered how people in the comment section disregarded WLC's argument and to outright say that he was stupid and Hitchens was the superior debater.

I then realized months later that people in the comment section did not know what they were talking abut.

[Anonymous No.15725026]

>>15721588
didnt know this cosmic dude. was watching his video "disgusting things from theology" in which he shows his complete dumbness.

[Anonymous No.15725180]

I feel like many skeptics have this same feeling that Dawkin's The God Delusion once described, but instead for people raised in religion. They didn't know that they could leave their religion. Now many Athiests have completely removed the possibility that God does exist. Although this isn't too terribly related to what you said.

For me, Cosmic Skeptic, among many others, is just one of many skeptics who choose to view what God does or has done as evil, they don't look into what people who don't think that have to say about this apparent "evil." They choose ignorance. Why? I don't know. It's almost as if they want to continue being blind to the truth, perhaps for moral reasons, or perhaps because it fits their world view.
If they would take what they're talking about seriously, they would realize that they constantly contradict themselves, unable to have objective morality, yet also unable to escape the box of solipsism they've locked themselves inside of.

Of course, there are plenty of moral Athiests who do more good than harm, but still, I simply can't accept the fact that morality is subjective.
It's not a matter of feelings. It's more pragmatic than that.

i'm just rambling at this point lol

[Anonymous No.15725331]

>>15725180
>Of course, there are plenty of moral Athiests who do more good than harm, but still,
I see this said a lot and I don't buy it. Every single atheist that I've crossed has some sort of moral hangup, and it's usually sexual in nature. They're either shoving bananas up their ass while pouring hot oil on themselves, lusting after dogs, or maybe it's something as simple as a little date rape. There is always something that they would have to stop doing if they genuinely started believing that Christianity was true and this prevents them from every giving the religion a fair hearing. They're not good people.

[Anonymous No.15725652]

>>15725331
You sound like a sheltered retard that hasn’t interacted with many people.

[Anonymous No.15725778]

>>15725652
I worked in a homeless shelter for almost 2 years and met a ton of different people. I never saw an atheist volunteer there. You can disagree with me but that doesn't make me a loser, that's just an immature way of dismissing somebody when you don't like what they say.

[Anonymous No.15726017]

>>15725778
You won’t find many accomplished people at a homeless shelter. Try being a relevant person that can get into educated social circles.

[Anonymous No.15726895]

>>15721588
Too lazy to watch that 3 hour long video but it seemed to mean Sean Carroll btfoed the fuck out of him. Why am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.15727271]

>>15725331
guy you replied to here.
Shietttt, you right.

[Anonymous No.15728731]

>>15721588
His book are pretty good, don't really care about his debates.

[Anonymous No.15728777]

>>15721864
Retarded argument

[Anonymous No.15728802]

>>15721588
Is the CS video worth watching? If it's just craig trouncing a theology undergrad for am hour I dont want to watch it

[Anonymous No.15728811]

>>15721588
Imagine devoting your life to simping for Ialdabaoth.

[Anonymous No.15728820]

>>15721864
Plantinga is at least a legit philosopher, who knows what a rational argument looks like.

[Anonymous No.15728829]

>>15722302
What a load of bullshit. The guy is a nonentity in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15728856]

>>15723566
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. It is possible to pray to a nonexistent god. Even Christians will have to admit that most prayers throughout history have been addressed to nonexistent entities.

[Anonymous No.15728879]

>>15725778
You volunteered at a homeless shelter, therefore all atheists are perverts?

[Anonymous No.15728908]

>>15724490
Actual WLC has said several times that his faith stems from his personal experience with God and not from arguement. He tries to offer rational approaches for the justification of God's existence so that the lay person doesn't feel like his or her faith is irrational.

[Anonymous No.15729081]

>>15722168
>>15722329
>>15722141

I'm just glad to be alive and watch these giants of rhetoric clash against each other.

[Anonymous No.15729109]

>>15728908
That's the thing, though. If you ground your faith in personal experience, then use that in defending it. He is misleading people into thinking religious sentiment can be grounded in reason alone. All the arguments he provides are obviously fallacious.

[Anonymous No.15729115]

>>15721588
>Admired by high IQ atheists
Care to give an example?

[Anonymous No.15729122]

>>15729109
>All the arguments he provides are obviously fallacious.
Proof?
Not the guy who you relied to btw

[Anonymous No.15730020]

>>15728879
Sure, that's the argument being made.

[Anonymous No.15730063]

>>15729115
Graham Oppy
Quentin Smith

[Anonymous No.15730091]

>>15726895
Two physicists explain in the video why WLC was right.

[Anonymous No.15730165]

>>15721588
He's a master of the gish gallop, I give you that. In a debate which isn't timed he would lose because his arguments are full of fallacies, just like any religious apologist

[Anonymous No.15730177]

>>15730165
He's had these kinds of debates before and he knows how to argue his case.