Nice primer. Though it could've been expanded slightly by giving examples of Christian Apologetic arguments that are inductive and deductive. The Kalam Cosmological argument is deductive, as an example.
@@osks You didn't present any argument. You just told us you don't understand what inductive and deductive actually mean. So yeah, my response is accurate. In fact, you've proven me right by adding yet another term you have absolutely no idea what it means: _Ad Hominem_
AFAIK, a deductive argument moves from the general to the specific, and if the premises are both true and valid, the conclusion follows logically and _inevitably._ Whereas an inductive argument moves from the specific to the general, and if _it_ is valid the conclusion is only probabilistic, not logically inevitable.
If Dr. Craig writes a new edition of his book On Guard, I hope he will include new chapters on logic and religious epistemology. Having a basic understanding of these two subjects helps a lot to better understand the arguments he defends. I know there are several books on these subjects, but Dr. Craig has the ability to explain it very simply. Not every philosopher can explain it in a way that even laypeople understand.
@@leonardu6094 Consider a person who wants to learn the arguments that Dr. Craig defends. The person knows nothing about the subject and starts reading the book On Guard. In my experience, lay people find the book difficult to understand. But if you explain at least a little about logic and epistemology, they can understand the arguments better. But where can they learn the basics about these subjects? It is difficult to recommend an entire book on epistemology, because they only need a few fundamental concepts. Philosophical Foundation For a Christian Worldview is an exceptional book, but it is not accessible to the kind of people I have in mind. The chapter on logic does not have enough examples. And the chapters on epistemology sometimes uses some concepts without explaining them or providing illustrations. So I think it would be perfect if Dr. Craig added beginner-friendly chapters on logic and epistemology to a new edition of On Guard.
Logic 101 stuff nicely explained… However, the premise, “All men are mortal” does NOT qualify as a true premise as you suggest… Are you able to propose a premise (ANY premise) that is ACTUALLY TRUE? I suspect not, because your apologetic rests entirely upon inductive reasoning (which is why you insist that God and His revelation is only ‘probably true’ - a ‘reasonable faith’)…
Make a conscious decision to stop. Throw all of your cigs (or whatever you have) away. Have a couple people to encourage you and to keep you accountable. Enjoy life and God ✝️❤️
Come clean about your addiction to a group of people you love and trust, and invite them into your journey of rehabilitation. They will be good for accountability, encouraging you and holding your feet to the fire (in a loving way)
1. The genuine God is the Son of God's God. 2. The Son of God's God is not the Triune God (since the Triune God consists of the Son) 3. Therefore, the Triune God is not the genuine God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not accepted by all Christians. As a matter of fact the word "Trinity" does not even appear in either the Old or New Testaments.
@@elgatofelix8917 But WLC does. The point of my deductive argument is to show that the conclusion logically follows, hence, the Trinity is not the only true God.
@@coreyevans9543It seems you do also. Your concluding statement "the Trinity is not the only true God" suggests not only that (A) the Trinity is a true God but also (B) there are other true gods besides the Trinity. Also, it's not clear from your premises how you arrived at that conclusion, but it is clear that your conclusion contradicts your first premise.
Low bar bill pretending he cares about philosophy. Spoiler alert: he doesn't. He really, really, really wants Christianity to be true, and lowers the bar accordingly.
You can create arguments without being slanderous. William Lane Craig has not only written long form documentation about his positions using many different forms of reasoning, he has also done in person, moderated debates, with well-known atheists about a litany of subject matter. You can say a lot of things about him, but not about the depth of his position(s). Certainly even if you still want to hold this position about him (unfairly mind you), there are many an atheist with many a bad faith position. Most of the arguments that I'm referring to are completely speculative. Such as the B-theory argument of time and literally every eternal universe argument (isn't the testing of science supposed to be the scientific method? There is no testing one can do nor any observation that can be made to verify such positions). The worst argument being: trying to argue that "relativistic-quantum-fields" could've potentially created the universe. And that is a deliberate abuse of science as anyone who has sense would not dare to attempt to call that truly "ex nihilo". And while I don't subscribe to "what-about-ism", to reiterate: there aren't similar stances that you can say of Dr Craig as again, his positions are not surface level. They are well documented at length and have been dissected ad nauseum by both Christian and atheist communities. I await your books and your debates about the topics William Lane Craig covers in person.
@@JeremiahBostwick Far from being slander, Low Bar Bill doesn't care about philosophy and he admits it in this very video. I quote: "in doing Christian apologetics we can construct both deductive arguments for Christian truth claims, as well as inductive arguments for Christian truth claims." So the conclusion comes first (lowering the bar, mind you), second, we use philosophy as a tool to construct arguments. What a great thinker!
Internet atheists: theists lower the bar by only pretending care about philosophy when in reality they don't care. Also internet atheists: philosophical arguments are not evidence - philosophy is worthless, only evidence counts.
@@cosme_fulanito695 What you're saying doesn't even make sense. In order for your position to be proven true you would have to demonstrate why: -Inductive reasoning is poor. -Deductive reasoning is poor. and -Philosophical reasoning is poor. On this last point you speak out of both sides of your mouth. First stating that Dr Craig is a poor philosopher, implying that Philosophy is a subject worth protecting, and then in the second half of your statement say that all philosophical argumentation is poor. I find that your "facts" are not in evidence, and is again slander as well as bad faith arguments.
@@elgatofelix8917 What mud have I flung? I have said zero about your character or anyone else's. I only have done what anyone does in a debate, which is to attack the position. But you are accusing me of this, so feel free to try and expand your baseless claim.
Excellent video Dr. Craig! videos like this clearly demonstrate that nobody can legitimately claim that Dr. Craig does not understand logic.
Nice primer. Though it could've been expanded slightly by giving examples of Christian Apologetic arguments that are inductive and deductive.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is deductive, as an example.
The fine tuning argument is usually formulated in an inductive manner.
Absolutely not! The so-called ‘Kalam Cosmological argument’ is most definitely NOT an example of a deductive argument! Inductive in every sense!
@@osks You could've just told us you have absolutely no clue what _inductive_ and _deductive_ mean.
@@leonardu6094 Ah! The ad hominem - an intellectually impoverished response to an argument…
@@osks You didn't present any argument. You just told us you don't understand what inductive and deductive actually mean. So yeah, my response is accurate. In fact, you've proven me right by adding yet another term you have absolutely no idea what it means: _Ad Hominem_
AFAIK, a deductive argument moves from the general to the specific, and if the premises are both true and valid, the conclusion follows logically and _inevitably._
Whereas an inductive argument moves from the specific to the general, and if _it_ is valid the conclusion is only probabilistic, not logically inevitable.
If Dr. Craig writes a new edition of his book On Guard, I hope he will include new chapters on logic and religious epistemology. Having a basic understanding of these two subjects helps a lot to better understand the arguments he defends. I know there are several books on these subjects, but Dr. Craig has the ability to explain it very simply. Not every philosopher can explain it in a way that even laypeople understand.
He's done that already in his book 'Philosophical foundations for a Christina worldview". You should check it out.
@@leonardu6094 Consider a person who wants to learn the arguments that Dr. Craig defends. The person knows nothing about the subject and starts reading the book On Guard. In my experience, lay people find the book difficult to understand. But if you explain at least a little about logic and epistemology, they can understand the arguments better. But where can they learn the basics about these subjects? It is difficult to recommend an entire book on epistemology, because they only need a few fundamental concepts. Philosophical Foundation For a Christian Worldview is an exceptional book, but it is not accessible to the kind of people I have in mind. The chapter on logic does not have enough examples. And the chapters on epistemology sometimes uses some concepts without explaining them or providing illustrations. So I think it would be perfect if Dr. Craig added beginner-friendly chapters on logic and epistemology to a new edition of On Guard.
@@izaiasdiniz3102 how much does he sell the book for and where can one buy it?
@@leonardu6094 price?
Logic 101 stuff nicely explained…
However, the premise, “All men are mortal” does NOT qualify as a true premise as you suggest…
Are you able to propose a premise (ANY premise) that is ACTUALLY TRUE? I suspect not, because your apologetic rests entirely upon inductive reasoning (which is why you insist that God and His revelation is only ‘probably true’ - a ‘reasonable faith’)…
How do i stop smoking?
Make a conscious decision to stop. Throw all of your cigs (or whatever you have) away. Have a couple people to encourage you and to keep you accountable. Enjoy life and God ✝️❤️
Come clean about your addiction to a group of people you love and trust, and invite them into your journey of rehabilitation. They will be good for accountability, encouraging you and holding your feet to the fire (in a loving way)
I quit smoking 10 years ago I used nicotine patches.
Love breathing
The gospel of our lord Jesus Christ can save you from any addiction, it is the power of God unto salvation for anyone who believes
استنباط vs استقراء
1. The genuine God is the Son of God's God.
2. The Son of God's God is not the Triune God (since the Triune God consists of the Son)
3. Therefore, the Triune God is not the genuine God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not accepted by all Christians.
As a matter of fact the word "Trinity" does not even appear in either the Old or New Testaments.
@@elgatofelix8917
But WLC does.
The point of my deductive argument is to show that the conclusion logically follows, hence, the Trinity is not the only true God.
@@coreyevans9543It seems you do also. Your concluding statement "the Trinity is not the only true God" suggests not only that (A) the Trinity is a true God but also (B) there are other true gods besides the Trinity. Also, it's not clear from your premises how you arrived at that conclusion, but it is clear that your conclusion contradicts your first premise.
@@elgatofelix8917
I have updated it. Does that make sense now?
@@coreyevans9543 No
I've stepped in sh*t more meaningful then this guy.
Wow what a “clever” contribution to the video topic.
Way to show how “intellectually superior” you are. SMH yawn 🥱
More meaningful *than*.😉
Me thinks you’re still standing in it.💩😂
Mindless atheist trollbot detected
Wishful thinking and delusion everywhere. We exist in a natural universe, not a magical one.
Evolutionists need but one miracle and that is life comes from nothing or a very large explosion. Yeah I've see that happen!
Low bar bill pretending he cares about philosophy. Spoiler alert: he doesn't. He really, really, really wants Christianity to be true, and lowers the bar accordingly.
Like you
You can create arguments without being slanderous. William Lane Craig has not only written long form documentation about his positions using many different forms of reasoning, he has also done in person, moderated debates, with well-known atheists about a litany of subject matter. You can say a lot of things about him, but not about the depth of his position(s).
Certainly even if you still want to hold this position about him (unfairly mind you), there are many an atheist with many a bad faith position. Most of the arguments that I'm referring to are completely speculative. Such as the B-theory argument of time and literally every eternal universe argument (isn't the testing of science supposed to be the scientific method? There is no testing one can do nor any observation that can be made to verify such positions). The worst argument being: trying to argue that "relativistic-quantum-fields" could've potentially created the universe. And that is a deliberate abuse of science as anyone who has sense would not dare to attempt to call that truly "ex nihilo". And while I don't subscribe to "what-about-ism", to reiterate: there aren't similar stances that you can say of Dr Craig as again, his positions are not surface level. They are well documented at length and have been dissected ad nauseum by both Christian and atheist communities.
I await your books and your debates about the topics William Lane Craig covers in person.
@@JeremiahBostwick Far from being slander, Low Bar Bill doesn't care about philosophy and he admits it in this very video. I quote: "in doing Christian apologetics we can construct both deductive arguments for Christian truth claims, as well as inductive arguments for Christian truth claims." So the conclusion comes first (lowering the bar, mind you), second, we use philosophy as a tool to construct arguments. What a great thinker!
Internet atheists: theists lower the bar by only pretending care about philosophy when in reality they don't care.
Also internet atheists: philosophical arguments are not evidence - philosophy is worthless, only evidence counts.
@@cosme_fulanito695 What you're saying doesn't even make sense.
In order for your position to be proven true you would have to demonstrate why:
-Inductive reasoning is poor.
-Deductive reasoning is poor.
and
-Philosophical reasoning is poor.
On this last point you speak out of both sides of your mouth. First stating that Dr Craig is a poor philosopher, implying that Philosophy is a subject worth protecting, and then in the second half of your statement say that all philosophical argumentation is poor.
I find that your "facts" are not in evidence, and is again slander as well as bad faith arguments.
Or Craig's favorite, the fallacious argument
Ironically, this statement is fallacious
When someone comes in and only can fling mud and insults and brings nothing into the conversation, it’s very apparent what they are about.
@@JeremiahBostwick it's just a secularist troll bot. It's programmed to post inflammatory comments on every video posted on this channel.
@@JeremiahBostwick You're right about the OP but take a look at yourself. I suggest you follow your own advice as your behavior isn't much better.
@@elgatofelix8917 What mud have I flung? I have said zero about your character or anyone else's. I only have done what anyone does in a debate, which is to attack the position.
But you are accusing me of this, so feel free to try and expand your baseless claim.