WOTM: Extraordinary Claims, Part I
It's rare that I do a four-part series. But April is the month of fools. And there is no bigger fool in the apologetics community that our buddy, Low Bar Bill — William Lane Craig. He was kind enough to honor us all with a ridiculous interview on the Cosmic Skeptic channel with Alex O'Connor, on YouTube.
I promise not to do this, but there is enough material in just this one interview to keep me making videos for the rest of the year. I'll spread those out as much as I can. But the four videos in this series address one simple claim which Bill has made on numerous occasions... That you don't need extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim. Although he's dishonest enough to tweak that with a word change. See if you can spot it. I don't point it out until part four.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for all your support! Enjoy! B
Comments (12)
I will repeat some of this in my speech in Calgary this weekend.
According to Low Bar Bill, the entire equation (when considering a claim) can be boiled down to "take it on faith." If he was trying to be more clever than that, he failed.
We should in fact go looking for the true reason of Bill's weird announcements. Most obvious to me would be to "follow the money". He is just selling his pseudo-wisdom to stupid people for some clicks.
https://youtu.be/k-xxjNqriUs
"Miraculous events happened, and I don't need to have evidence! Because, um, well, if there's evidence to the contrary, then I'll be really uncomfortable, and hiding in these bushes over here won't work."
As for Dave's sexiness? Not my type, but a pretty cool guy I guess. lol 😉
Events instead of claims. I wonder if his followers ever question anything that moron says….
I think you can stop wondering.
In the first place, WLC can’t even say it right. He began, “This common-sensical slogan that extraordinary events require extraordinary events….” Wasn’t there a thing in the Salem witch trails where witches were said to not be able to read the Bible? Maybe WLC is having a bit of that. And then he says this, “Events which are extraordinary and therefore highly improbable relative to the background evidence can nevertheless turn out to be highly probable if the evidence on the hypothesis is much more probable than the evidence would be if the hypothesis were false.” Huh? Isn’t that just a long-winded version of Sagan’s Standard?! WLC is admonishing us to follow the evidence. Wow—who knew he was so sensible?
The problem is, he has no evidence!!!
Billy missed his calling in life. He should have been a pretzel maker.
Or a gymnast!