rationalstabs
Another golden nugget from Dan Dennett worth replicating…
Source
Daniel Dennett speaks about William Lane Craig
Similar Posts
JJRC/C R2 CADY WINI Intelligent Robot
Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Consciousness
Law without Law – From Observer States to Physics via Algorithmic Information Theory
13 thoughts on “Daniel Dennett speaks about William Lane Craig”
Comments are closed.
Sounds like a defeated fellow.
If you mean in comparison to WLC's delivery style, it's because Dennett is thinking about what he is saying. Craig just sounds like a politician (or snake-oil salesman if you prefer).
Craig is the man.
loool this guy is hilarious, not in a flattering way.
No. I was referring to the content of his response.
Okay, I'm listening. Explain.
Yeah… or just watch the video….
Have done, 3 times now. Doesn't sound like a "defeated fellow" at all. He succinctly explains why some of the assertions in Craig's cosmological argument are fallacious.
Why do YOU think he sounds like a defeated fellow?
Craig doesn't have to take as much time because he actually prepares.
Craig prepared once. He's been making exactly the same presentation since about 1985.
This recording of Dennett isn't from a presentation but points he made from the audience of someone else's talk.
He actually prepares according to each person he comes across, reading their work and constructing his arguments around theirs. Many others don't even prepare against him or have to be coached. He uses some of the same arguments a lot because they are good, which is proven by the fact that he can still use them because no can refute him or offer any sort of evidence for their own side.
They get refuted, he just keeps using them anyway. This is taken to the extreme when Craig decides to use a different concept of time to the one given by the Physics community in general with little to no evidence in favour of it and a completely unnecessary add on just to defend an argument.
Only youtube layman think they have refuted him with pretty poor arguments. There is a reason none of the people he debates use those arguments, because they are so obviously mistaken. After his debates, both sides in the audience usually agree he won so I doubt very much any of the random people on the internet with much less knowledge in these fields have better arguments then the people he debates, let alone coherent ones.