The above video is an excerpt of the debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and atheist/materialist Lewis Wolpert.
Readers of my blog know that I'm of the opinion that atheistic materialism and metaphysical naturalism, when consistently assummed and believed, destroy and impair the ability to rational and logical thinking. As consequence, believers in materialism and naturalism tend to be VERY irrational (this is well known for any person who has debated wtih these individuals).
However, some materialists, naturalists and pseudo-skeptics are smart, so their fallacies and irrationalities are not very obvious; you need to examine their whole philosophy, behaviour and arguments (in different contexts) to realize their inconsistencies. With training and practice, however, you can spot their irrationalities almost instantaneously.
But in the case of Lewis Wolpert, you don't need any training at all. His fallacious thinking is straighforward and obvious (as you can see in the above video, where the audience easily realized Wolpert's fallacies).
In the video, Craig is explaining that the first cause of the universe has the following properties:
-Timeless (because that cause created the universe and therefore the space-time itself)
-Spaceless (because space, which is part of the physical universe, was created too with the universe.)
-Immaterial (because the cause created the physical or material world itself. It's the origin of matter)
-Very powerful
-Personal.
Please, examine carefully the above properties mentioned by Craig. Read it again carefully.
You don't need to be a genius to see that such properties are like the properties or attributes that traditional monotheistic religions consider as typical and proper of God. But in any case, they're definitively NOT the properties of any finite material object like a horse or a TV or a T-shirt or a basketball ball.
Well, what's Wolpert's atheist reply to Craig's argument? That the first cause, with these properties, is actually a COMPUTER!
My God... I've read a lot of atheist, pseudo-skeptical and naturalist literature, and I'm used to their fallacies and irrational thinking, but I must confess that Wolpert's reply is a MASTERPIECE OF ATHEIST IRRATIONAL THINKING.
This is definitevely the worst reply for an argument that I've seen in my entire life, and this is a fine example of the destructive intellectual consequences of a consistently assumed naturalism and atheistic materialism. This is good evidence of the destructive potential of atheistic materialism and naturalism for the mind of its believers and followers.
Even the most stupid, retarded and inept person would understand that a computer CANNOT have the properties or attributes of the first cause of the universe by the following reasons:
1-Computers are material (and the first cause is immaterial)
2-Computers have a position on the space and time (and the first cause is the creator of the space and time)
3-Computers are artifacts and therefore are designed by an intelligence. Therefore, they're effects of intelligence, not the cause of it. And if they're effects of something else, then they're not a first cause at all.
Wolpert tries to force the ad hoc argument that the first cause is a computer, with atypical properties (self-designed, nonphysical, etc.). But note that if these atypical properties are accepted, then you're not talking of a computer anymore, because any object or entity is defined precisely by its essence and essential properties; and the essential properties of a computer don't include immateriality, timeless, etc.
Craig, realizing Wolpert's world-class atheist fallacy, exposes him with the obvious reply (in the second 54 of that video): Wolpert is calling "computer" what everybody understand as God (because the first cause has the properties of God, not of computers).
Wolpert didn't refute the argument about the properties of the first cause, he's only ARBITRARILY and in a AD HOC WAY, changed the name or label of the entity which has the properties that everybody agree are typical or proper of God.
Please, note Wolpert's face in minute 1:01 (when the audience applauded Craig for exposing Wolpert's ridiculous atheist fallacy)
Perhaps you're laughting a lot after watching the video (I concede it's very funny). But it has a sad side: If an academician like Wolpert, in a public debate, is able to reply with a world-class fallacy and irrationality like that, what do you expect of online amateurs materialistic atheist and pseudo-skeptics? Moreover, what could you infer about an scholar who argue like that?
More importantly, the destructive effects of materialistic atheism and naturalism on the human mind is actually what's in stake here. This is a serious motive for concern. The destructive psychological effects of atheistic materialism become obvious when the topic of discussion is God (because an essential part of the materialistic atheists' irrationality is their obvious and constant obsession with God and creationism. They have these topics constantly in their minds.) If in a debate, you press the point about God with an atheist, you'll see the atheist' full destructive potential for irrationality and delusion to become evident. You'll have a monster in front of you.
And in that point, any more argument with the atheist will be time bomb. You'll be confronted with his irrationality, delusions, resentment and therefore his intellectual (intentional) dishonesty.
If you'are smart, and know the psychology of pseudo-skeptics (grounded on emotional and spiritual factors), you should to anticipate all of this, and avoid that kind of intellectually sterile debate with hard-core atheists, materialists, naturalists, secular humanists, pseudo-skeptics and similar dogmatists. They're not rational, and debating with them tends to force you into irrationalism too.
You should to follow philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's very wise suggestion in his book The Art of Controversy:
"As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one's thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool - desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace" (emphasis in blue added)
Please, think about Schoperhauer's practical suggestion in the context of Wolpert's reply to Craig.
Links of interest:
-Lewis Wolpert debate with Rupert Sheldrake on telepathy.
Readers of my blog know that I'm of the opinion that atheistic materialism and metaphysical naturalism, when consistently assummed and believed, destroy and impair the ability to rational and logical thinking. As consequence, believers in materialism and naturalism tend to be VERY irrational (this is well known for any person who has debated wtih these individuals).
However, some materialists, naturalists and pseudo-skeptics are smart, so their fallacies and irrationalities are not very obvious; you need to examine their whole philosophy, behaviour and arguments (in different contexts) to realize their inconsistencies. With training and practice, however, you can spot their irrationalities almost instantaneously.
But in the case of Lewis Wolpert, you don't need any training at all. His fallacious thinking is straighforward and obvious (as you can see in the above video, where the audience easily realized Wolpert's fallacies).
In the video, Craig is explaining that the first cause of the universe has the following properties:
-Timeless (because that cause created the universe and therefore the space-time itself)
-Spaceless (because space, which is part of the physical universe, was created too with the universe.)
-Immaterial (because the cause created the physical or material world itself. It's the origin of matter)
-Very powerful
-Personal.
Please, examine carefully the above properties mentioned by Craig. Read it again carefully.
You don't need to be a genius to see that such properties are like the properties or attributes that traditional monotheistic religions consider as typical and proper of God. But in any case, they're definitively NOT the properties of any finite material object like a horse or a TV or a T-shirt or a basketball ball.
Well, what's Wolpert's atheist reply to Craig's argument? That the first cause, with these properties, is actually a COMPUTER!
My God... I've read a lot of atheist, pseudo-skeptical and naturalist literature, and I'm used to their fallacies and irrational thinking, but I must confess that Wolpert's reply is a MASTERPIECE OF ATHEIST IRRATIONAL THINKING.
This is definitevely the worst reply for an argument that I've seen in my entire life, and this is a fine example of the destructive intellectual consequences of a consistently assumed naturalism and atheistic materialism. This is good evidence of the destructive potential of atheistic materialism and naturalism for the mind of its believers and followers.
Even the most stupid, retarded and inept person would understand that a computer CANNOT have the properties or attributes of the first cause of the universe by the following reasons:
1-Computers are material (and the first cause is immaterial)
2-Computers have a position on the space and time (and the first cause is the creator of the space and time)
3-Computers are artifacts and therefore are designed by an intelligence. Therefore, they're effects of intelligence, not the cause of it. And if they're effects of something else, then they're not a first cause at all.
Wolpert tries to force the ad hoc argument that the first cause is a computer, with atypical properties (self-designed, nonphysical, etc.). But note that if these atypical properties are accepted, then you're not talking of a computer anymore, because any object or entity is defined precisely by its essence and essential properties; and the essential properties of a computer don't include immateriality, timeless, etc.
Craig, realizing Wolpert's world-class atheist fallacy, exposes him with the obvious reply (in the second 54 of that video): Wolpert is calling "computer" what everybody understand as God (because the first cause has the properties of God, not of computers).
Wolpert didn't refute the argument about the properties of the first cause, he's only ARBITRARILY and in a AD HOC WAY, changed the name or label of the entity which has the properties that everybody agree are typical or proper of God.
Please, note Wolpert's face in minute 1:01 (when the audience applauded Craig for exposing Wolpert's ridiculous atheist fallacy)
Perhaps you're laughting a lot after watching the video (I concede it's very funny). But it has a sad side: If an academician like Wolpert, in a public debate, is able to reply with a world-class fallacy and irrationality like that, what do you expect of online amateurs materialistic atheist and pseudo-skeptics? Moreover, what could you infer about an scholar who argue like that?
More importantly, the destructive effects of materialistic atheism and naturalism on the human mind is actually what's in stake here. This is a serious motive for concern. The destructive psychological effects of atheistic materialism become obvious when the topic of discussion is God (because an essential part of the materialistic atheists' irrationality is their obvious and constant obsession with God and creationism. They have these topics constantly in their minds.) If in a debate, you press the point about God with an atheist, you'll see the atheist' full destructive potential for irrationality and delusion to become evident. You'll have a monster in front of you.
And in that point, any more argument with the atheist will be time bomb. You'll be confronted with his irrationality, delusions, resentment and therefore his intellectual (intentional) dishonesty.
If you'are smart, and know the psychology of pseudo-skeptics (grounded on emotional and spiritual factors), you should to anticipate all of this, and avoid that kind of intellectually sterile debate with hard-core atheists, materialists, naturalists, secular humanists, pseudo-skeptics and similar dogmatists. They're not rational, and debating with them tends to force you into irrationalism too.
You should to follow philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's very wise suggestion in his book The Art of Controversy:
"As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one's thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool - desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace" (emphasis in blue added)
Please, think about Schoperhauer's practical suggestion in the context of Wolpert's reply to Craig.
Links of interest:
-Lewis Wolpert debate with Rupert Sheldrake on telepathy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment