Episode 21, Scott Clifton and Wes Morriston on the Clifton-Craig debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- In this episode, Alex talks with Scott Clifton and Wes Morriston about Scott's recent debate with Craig on the Kalam argument.
Original debate: • William Lane Craig & S...
Follow if you like:
/ thoughtologytube
/ thoughtology
I love how every time Morriston video freezes he's in a cool pose. Guy's photogenic man
Yes.
Oh hell yea more Malpass content. Keep it coming man!!!
yessssssssssssssssssssssssss!
+
Saving to listen while I mow the lawn.
Another debate (LONG debate +Q&A ) between WLC and Alex malpass would be interesting
Also a debate between Dr wes Morriston and WLC in your channel will be great
Cam, really hoping someone on the theist side will follow up with Scott like you mentioned in your pinned post on the original video. Taking a look through the comments on the Reasonable Faith channel mirror, most individuals there did not grasp Scott's objections, and I would love to see the objections strawmanned and challenged if possible in greater detail! Cheers-
stop taking them serious!!!!! don't give them a platform!!!!!!! its just cognitive dissonance!! if you guys keep giving them a platform they're gonna be like a hydra!!!
@@aaronfernandez4162 You sound very open minded :)
Scott getting starstruck at the end was pretty heckin adorable. I've heard stories about Hollywood actors that get like that around peers, but I wouldn't have thought a soap actor to get giddy around philosophy buffs
[29:02] *_"I'm baffled. I mean, I spent four years of my Ph.D doing tensed logic and metaphysics of time... Craig's written two books about it so I guess he wins."_*
Were the Drs. Malpass and Craig to share a *'Humble-bragging Award'* , all the humility would go to Alex, all the bragging to Bill.
I suspect there was at least a bit of sarcasm there ;)
How on earth is that humble? The implied message of this is that we should believe Malpass because he has done more work in philosophy of time - that's the exact opposite of being humble, but in fact very bad form. If he tried to pull this move in any top academic journal he would be laughed at.
Craig actually demonstrated that Malpass doesn't understand tensed logic and humiliated him. Malpass is a total dumbass.
So why does not exactly those things in the actual universe that now prevents tigers from popping into existence simultaneously pop out of existence so that the tigers can pop into existence?
This is perfection. Thank you all.
Loved the discussion!
These debate analyses are a great idea and I hope to see more of them in the future!
Such a great discussion. Are you taking recommendations for any new guests?
Recommend them
What Clifton did here is one of the worst things you can possibly do as a debater: When he was 1 on 1 with Craig he sucked up to him, because he recognised that he would get annihilated otherwise. And then when Craig is not there to address his points he comes up with all those apparent objections to what Craig said during the debate... that's the exact opposite of how philosophy should be done.
His shitty objections are just a proxy for feeling better in an echo chamber.
Philosophy would have gotten nowhere if people did what you suggest. Craig uses a lot of complicated language and employs a lot of insanely abstract concepts that I don’t think even most of his fans have wrapped their heads around. Sometimes talking to people who agree with you can help illuminate your points and your opponent’s points. Hell, this video did that for me with Craig.
Also, I thought Scott did really well in the debate. He did bring up a lot of these points in the debate, but Craig sometimes just didn’t seem to get what Scott was saying, or he did have a solid response to what Scott said. But Scott “sucked up” to Craig because he’s an actor, and Craig’s a famous philosopher. Scott’s speaking on Craig’s field of expertise, so he wanted to convey gratitude to Craig for doing the debate with him. I’d do the same in his position
That's laughable when we're talking about Craig who clearly uses rhetorical tricks and slimy debate tactics every chance he gets. Is he going on 100 times now dodging the "how many praises will be sung?" question by answering a different question?
It’s hard to overstate how incredibly presumptuous your comment is. It’s easy to think of alternative explanations for why Scott was so amicable to Craig, or why he’s raising objections in this video that he didn’t raise in the debate. The fact that you opt for the least charitable assumptions about Scott’s motives and then treat those assumptions as fact, suggests that maybe you’re letting your biases get the better of you.
Is the notion of ‘time’ in general relativity equivalent to ‘real’ metaphysical time? It seems that Craig must answer ‘no’ to this question if he is to maintain his presentist philosophy of time, and yet such an answer means that he cannot appeal to scientific results (which depend on general relativity) to establish the beginning of the universe.
Further, on 'out of nothing, nothing comes', I'm reminded of Wittgenstein. In his Tractatus phase, Ludwig Wittgenstein takes a world to be a totality of facts. "A fact consists of one or more objects related to each other in a certain way. By an act of selective attention, we concentrate on just the objects or just the relations. But objects and relations are always inextricably bound up with each other. Since every fact requires at least one object, a world without objects would be a world without facts. But a factless world is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, the empty world is impossible."
To say "you can't get being from non-being" is to ascribe a property to non-being (baseless & seemingly contradictory), and to assume something about the fundamental nature of being (begging the question)
Clifton's right when he says he over-corrected with the amicability. If you watch the original video with Craig, he's laying it on very thick at the beginning. It actually makes him seem quite insincere (when compared with his engagement with Craig's material in previous videos). Better to minimize that in future.
At about 24:15, Clifton talks about the possibility that Craig could have "gaslit" him on theories of time. This is what I'm talking about: overly obsequious when speaking with Craig, while attributing to him bad motives/actions behind his back (so to speak). It's pretty Janus-faced.
22:00 Great suggestion from Wes, everytime I hear Craig talk about it he does it in that weird way...
That nothingness does not "constrain" the possibility of a universe coming to be assumes that things don't need a positive cause for coming to be, but rather that whatever can come to be as long as nothing prevents it. What reason do we have to accept such a (counter-intutive) principle?
This was a great convo. Thanks.
29:00 Malpass coping because he was schooled by Craig both in tense logic and philosophy of time, and in set theory as well. Malpass, there's a video on youtube that proves how impotent you were in your debate with Craig. Scott did lot better, and in my opinion, crashed Craig.
25:18 Dirty mind Alex! I saw that expression... 😂🤣
I think WLC has that events do not necessarily requiring causes, because if all events (including choices) have a cause, they are determined, and as such libertarian free will is lost.
No they are determined but not by another event, but by the substance itself (the agent).
42:20, because of kalam cosmological argument. Oh that was gold 🤣
Enjoyable and fruitful discussion. Thanks.
Thanks for this.
He came off very pretentious when he spoke with Craig. I knew he seemed insincere. He said it wasn't a debate, and here he is saying he debated.
Craig is an intellectually dishonest charlatan and bad actor and it comes through in all his debates
I thought it was hilarious seeing a soap actor raking a pRoFfEsIoNaL pHiLoSoPhEr over the coals. Just goes to show what a soft subject philosophy is.
@@YingGuoRen You just shared a philosophical statement. 🤣🤣🤣 Mindless idiots.
Craig likes Prior ...because he's interested in what was prior to the universe? (I can't actually remember if he agrees with Plato, that time began along with the universe.)
this was awesome!
WLC is a master chef in making word salad.
Always interesting.
Let's say a tiger suddenly just exists.
Person A says, there is no cause, it is just there
Person B says, it is caused by a tiger-starts-existing event that itself does not have a cause.
I think both seem equally strange to me but Craig seems fine with person B.
This leaves out Person C who says “I don’t know what the cause is”
@@Spinozasghost And also person D who is eating a pizza.
No that it's not what Craig are saying. He would say that there need to be a cause for the tigers coming into being. Whether that cause in turn has a cause is another question. But since (if his argument on the finitue of causal chaines are correct) there must be a first cause, this cause cannot have a cause but must exist by its own intrinsic power.
@@andrejuthe what in what I said disagrees with that? Craig is fine with events not having causes but not fine with things beginning to exist without a cause?
Well when you add what I said, then B does not appear equally implausible as A (as least not to me). Our intutions is partly determined by how we frame the description. Looking at your description A and B seems almost equally implausible, but with the additional information B seems much more plausible.
Hi Alex WLC response to skydrivephil's kalam film both in 4 parts podcast videos and Written response in his website
Will you kindly reply him back by videos and writings
What are you talking about Alex, Scott claims were the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing.
Time stamp please
@@Hello-vz1md He granted the universe began to exist, but it didnt come from anything. Did you watch the discussion. Somehow I dont think youre a theist
@@ceceroxy2227 I didn't watched it yet
Pointing out stupidity of members of same group (our past comments conversation) doesn't necessarily make one against the group
And I personal find holes in some theistic arguments for example I don't like the Ontological argument at ALL it is pure nonsense to me
My favourite arguments are Fine tuning and Necessary being
@@ceceroxy2227
saying "Something didn't come from anything" is not the same as "something came from nothing by nothing" .
Nothing isn't something and doesn't have the properties of producing something. Nothing is the lack of any properties.
So for example saying " you ate nothing " means that you didn't eat anything. It doesn't mean that "nothing" is edible and you ate it.
"Came from nothing by nothing" paints a diffrent and misleading picture from "didn't come from anything".
@@abs4008 No, to say it came from nothing is exactly the same as saying it didnt came from anything, literally the exact same meaning. Either it came from something or not something which means nothing. Nothing means not anything, literally no things, and not anything, also means no things, they means the exact same thing.
❤️
Mãe sabe tramaí e você só se da mal você sempre e por mais que eu esteja errado você E ela sempre usa step vender e você não pode ficar com ninguém e ela
Boa noite leão tudo bem eu sou parabéns decolar de novela mais siri produtores diretório móvel não gosto de você não computação ** um ** eu levar uma amostra da pouca roupa pra 6 na novela parabens pra ela é muito bonita mais ele é bem safadinho nelson angelo e como tu aceito teu irmão na novela e translator 4º mundo de casa aí vocês
O produtor é um de operação novela aí eu gosto de tu número ou tô brincando é o que elas tomar mais grávida do bico de você porque se tu for o novela tudo vendeu porque estava tão legal você depois que você se pega no colo sem justo e hotel é um ** thomas matriz foi tem um bom trampo cálculo de casa em por água ou telefilme serra disse com massificação coisa feia no