Richard Dawkins

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

The paper assumes Dawkins's argument is "God would be complex, therefore God is improbable." Dawkins is actually saying "Attributing complexity to God does not explain the complexity."

I don't know why people keep making this mistake

For example, how many times has this happened to one of us.

Theist - Everything has a start, the universe must have had a start, God is a reasonable explanation for that start
Atheist - But then surely God must have had a start, and thus what started God?
Theists - Typical atheists arrogance and misunderstanding. Theists define God as not having a start, how can you say that God must have had a start when you couldn't possibly know?
Atheist - I didn't! You did!
Theists - Tut tut. Just another example of how atheists pretend to be all logical but are not adverse to coming up with unsupported asserts about the universe just like the theists they complain about.
Atheist - Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...

:P

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know why people keep making this mistake

For example, how many times has this happened to one of us.

Theist - Everything has a start, the universe must have had a start, God is a reasonable explanation for that start
Atheist - But then surely God must have had a start, and thus what started God?
Theists - Typical atheists arrogance and misunderstanding. Theists define God as not having a start, how can you say that God must have had a start when you couldn't possibly know?
Atheist - I didn't! You did!
Theists - Tut tut. Just another example of how atheists pretend to be all logical but are not adverse to coming up with unsupported asserts about the universe just like the theists they complain about.
Atheist - Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...

:P

This is a much better debate if you can keep up with them that is. Listen to all of it and it reveals that the thesit and atheist/agnostic cannot really communicate because their starting premises are poles apart. That's what I got out of it anyway.

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell - Part 1


Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell - Part 2

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Because he's a creationist/intelligent designist and has got no arguments. Dawkins refuses to debate creationists/intelligent designists for the same reasons many historians refuse to debate holocaust deniers.

Dawkins also said that he would never debate anyone about religion with a lower rank than a Bishop. See below for a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox a professor of mathematics. Lennox is no Bishop and neither is Alistair McGrath and yet Dawkins is quite happy to debate both on the subject of religion. So he's either lying or is simply afraid of Craig. Must be the latter.

Dawkins v Lennox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyzNcJ-CttM

Dawkins v McGrath

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18

As for arguments, if Craig hasn't got any then what's the problem? Should be easy enough to defeat him in an open debate.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

This is a much better debate if you can keep up with them that is. Listen to all of it and it reveals that the thesit and atheist/agnostic cannot really communicate because their starting premises are poles apart. That's what I got out of it anyway.

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell - Part 1


Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell - Part 2

Interesting discussion.

Copleston was doing well until 7:44 in Part 2

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for arguments, if Craig hasn't got any then what's the problem? Should be easy enough to defeat him in an open debate.

Craig uses fallacious arguments from pseudo biology and pseudo physics. He's been asked several time to make correction to these arguments because it's bad science, instead he persists in spreading misinformation about science. How can you argue with someone about God if they insist on using dishonest argument in the first place to argue for existence?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dawkins also said that he would never debate anyone about religion with a lower rank than a Bishop.

Craig made that claim, anyone have an actually quote from Dawkins?

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for arguments, if Craig hasn't got any then what's the problem? Should be easy enough to defeat him in an open debate.

Defeat him to who's standard?

Debating him legitimizes his nonsense, and considering how many of you guys continue to reference him the fact that his arguments are nonsense doesn't seem to have much effect on you.

So what would be the point. Dawkins "defeats" Craig (as plenty of other people have before) and what? everyone stops listening to Craig?

Didn't happen before, find it some what unlikely that would happen now.

Dawkins learnt a long time ago that there is no point debating people like Craig because the people who listen to people like Craig are not interested in an actual debate. It is why he doesn't debate creationists for example.

If defeating him has no effect what is the point?

Fanny Cradock

While I'm surprised that Dawkins debated Lennox - he holds some opinions on design that I think are close to ID (they are a little more nuanced than that, I believe) - he is under no obligation to debate Craig or anybody else. I don't happen to be a big fan of Craig, and I've also largely given up on these type of debates because I'm not sure they really achieve much.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins learnt a long time ago that there is no point debating people like Craig because the people who listen to people like Craig are not interested in an actual debate. It is why he doesn't debate creationists for example.

And would you say the same of those on the other side of the fence?

ColmDawson

If Dawkins were to debate a creationist, it'd be something for the creationist to brag about even if he/she were soundly beaten.

I did biology for the Leaving Cert, but that doesn't entitle me to expect Dawkins to agree to a televised debate with me on the topic of evolutionary biology.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And would you say the same of those on the other side of the fence?

Certainly, I wouldn't expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to spend all his time debating crazy people like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. He would probably feel he has better things to be doing.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Craig made that claim, anyone have an actually quote from Dawkins?

Yeah sure. Check it from 1:20 seconds on:

When the opposite side resort to lying about the opponents it is a clear sign of fear of the others arguments even if you're convinced that those arguments are flawed. The whole point about debate is to show everyone that you oppnonents arguments are flawed by using your own arguments. Look, I don't agree with absolutely everything that Craig says but at least he makes his case very clearly and is very very open to correction, in fact he literally begs his opponents to pull down his arguments in all his debates and when they fail to do so he gives the most common response to them that are out there and tears them apart instead.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Craig uses fallacious arguments from pseudo biology and pseudo physics. He's been asked several time to make correction to these arguments because it's bad science, instead he persists in spreading misinformation about science. How can you argue with someone about God if they insist on using dishonest argument in the first place to argue for existence?

Any further info for this?

ColmDawson wrote: »

I did biology for the Leaving Cert, but that doesn't entitle me to expect Dawkins to agree to a televised debate with me on the topic of evolutionary biology.

Unless I've missed something and you're actually a self-styled apologist who able to draw a large crowd, then I don't think it's really the same, is it? While I think that Dawkins is inconsistent in that he agreed to debate Lennox twice, I see no reason why he should have to debate anyone. Most of us can agree about that without the need to draw silly parallels with ourselves.

Soul Winner

ColmDawson wrote: »

If Dawkins were to debate a creationist, it'd be something for the creationist to brag about even if he/she were soundly beaten.

I did biology for the Leaving Cert, but that doesn't entitle me to expect Dawkins to agree to a televised debate with me on the topic of evolutionary biology.

I agree but Craig's hardly a pimple faced teenager (not that you are) with an axe to grind is he? He's probbably the best known Christiain appologist doing the rounds today. Look at his credentials, he'd be a fine scalp for Dawkins surely.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly, I wouldn't expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to spend all his time debating crazy people like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. He would probably feel he has better things to be doing.

You misunderstood my question. I was referring not to the debater, but your comment "the people who listen to people like Craig are not interested in an actual debate".

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You misunderstood my question. I was referring not to the debater, but your comment "the people who listen to people like Craig are not interested in an actual debate".

Oh, my mistake. The principle holds, I'm sure the A.B.C has better thing to be doing that trying to convince the die hard followers of Madalyn Murray O'Hair that he beat her in an argument.

I'm just plucking these examples out of the air, I know O'Hair is dead, and I don't know if she has followers or not.

The point is that a debate with someone is pointless if people simply ignore what you are saying, as those who wheel Craig out as the poster boy of Christian apologetics seem to do.

ColmDawson

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree but Craig's hardly a pimple faced teenager (not that you are) with an axe to grind is he? He's probbably the best known Christiain appologist doing the rounds today. Look at his credentials, he'd be a fine scalp for Dawkins surely.

The problem is that it could be seen to imply that creationism is a plausible scientific argument, worthy of scientific debate.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for arguments, if Craig hasn't got any then what's the problem? Should be easy enough to defeat him in an open debate.

The same reason a certain someone has kept the creationist thread here going for 5+ years. Facts and the truth mean nothing to these people.

Because this is what happens.

Creationist: There are no intermediate fossils.
Scientist: No your wrong there, you see there are intermediate fossils, they're in these places called museums.
Creationist: There are no intermediate fossils.
Scientist: Ergh ...yes there are. I just told you that. Theres literally mountains of books and peer reviewed scientific journals written about them.
Creationist: There are no intermediate fossils.
Scientist: .....

Fanny Cradock

Let's not turn this into another creationism thread.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah sure. Check it from 1:20 seconds on:

Yeah, some what unsurprisingly what Dawkins said was nothing like what Craig is claiming he said.

He didn't say that he would not debate someone less than a Bishop.

He said he has debated theists and is happy to do (give a list of devoutly religious people including bishops, who he would be happy to debate and has debated), but that he is not going to debate anyone who's only claim to fame is simply that they go around debating people, because he is too busy. Which is fair enough.

And while Craig may have an some what inflated idea of how important he is, the rest of us don't see him as any significant force in the debate between atheism and theism, nor as someone who debates properly or who understands the stuff he debates about (his grasp of the science he uses in support of his arguments is shocking).

Soul Winner wrote: »

When the opposite side resort to lying about the opponents it is a clear sign of fear of the others arguments even if you're convinced that those arguments are flawed.

Could not put it better than myself.

I would imagine Craig's worst fear is that people like Dawkins simply ignore him. Which is why he lies about why he won't debate him.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The whole point about debate is to show everyone that you oppnonents arguments are flawed by using your own arguments. Look, I don't agree with absolutely everything that Craig says but at least he makes his case very clearly and is very very open to correction

He is not open to correction at all, and that is the problem. He uses the same arguments over and over despite his misunderstanding being pointed out to him.

For example he, like so many, confuses the "observer" in quantum physics with a conscious person (how we use the term in every day life). He has repeated that God solves the "problem" of quantum uncertainty without understanding that there is not problem at all. I've seen this pointed out to him in debates and then I see him use the same argument again and again

And obviously people lap it up because I've seen that argument repeated here again and again.

So again what is the point in Dawkins debating him?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

The whole point about debate is to show everyone that you oppnonents arguments are flawed by using your own arguments.

And this is what gives us a lot of daytime tv.

Would you say that it would be reasonable for the worlds foremost expert on virology to debate a homeopathy practitioner on the causes of the swine flu ? or on anything medically related ?

Would you say that it would be reasonable for the worlds foremost expert on astronomy to debate an astrologist about the orbit of the planets ?

This is the kind of nonsense that goes on on Opera Winfrey.

Look, I don't agree with absolutely everything that Craig says but at least he makes his case very clearly and is very very open to correction, in fact he literally begs his opponents to pull down his arguments in all his debates and when they fail to do so he gives the most common response to them that are out there and tears them apart instead.

No he does not.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

And this is what gives us a lot of daytime tv.

Would you say that it would be reasonable for the worlds foremost expert on virology to debate a homeopathy practitioner on the causes of the swine flu ? or on anything medically related ?

Would you say that it would be reasonable for the worlds foremost expert on astronomy to debate an astrologist about the orbit of the planets ?

No, but I do expect someone who tells us that God is a Delusion and the only purpose we have in life when all is said and done is to perpetuate our DNA, to at least give somebody like Craig, who contrary to Dawkins' narrow view of him is much more than a professional debater or a creationist, some time to debate his views. Craig holds a PhD in Philosophy and Theology. If a theist shrugged off credentials like that from a leading scientist who had similar credentials in a scientific field he would be scoffed at.

monosharp wrote: »

No he does not.

Yes he does, please show me where you think the premises of any of Craig's arguments are flawed. Only then can the logical deduction he makes be debunked. Of all the atheists that have debated him over the years not one of them is able to do it without sounding total ridiculous. Take Daniel Dennet's' counter argument to Kalam Cosmological Argument for instance. Dennet says that the universe brought itself into being and that it is its own cause? Is there someone here who is willing to defend this? In order for the universe to bring itself into existence there must have been a universe, but how can there be a universe when there was no universe???? Please. come on, Craig is probably wrong on this point but that kind of argumentation against it is not what's going to convince any logical thinking person be they theist or atheist.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, but I do expect someone who tells us that God is a Delusion and the only purpose we have in life when all is said and done is to perpetuate our DNA, to at least give somebody like Craig, who contrary to Dawkins' narrow view of him is much more than a professional debater or a creationist, some time to debate his views. Craig holds a PhD in Philosophy and Theology. If a theist shrugged off credentials like that from a leading scientist who had similar credentials in a scientific field he would be scoffed at.


Yes he does, please show me where you think the premises of any of Craig's arguments are flawed. Only then can the logical deduction he makes be debunked. Of all the atheists that have debated him over the years not one of them is able to do it without sounding total ridiculous.

This thread might interest you: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055769218

Yes I'm sure the guy has some very impressive letters after his name but an argument from authority does not a worthwhile debater make

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dennet says that the universe brought itself into being and that it is its own cause?

The short answer : Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

The long Answer : http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

Who knows, Dennett might be wrong but the point is that universe doesn't need a supernatural God to get going. Nothing can rule out the fact that He may have intended to create such a universe of course.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dennet says that the universe brought itself into being and that it is its own cause? Is there someone here who is willing to defend this? In order for the universe to bring itself into existence there must have been a universe, but how can there be a universe when there was no universe???? Please.

How many times have we discussed this Soul Winner?

This is why Dawkins debating Craig is some what pointless. You don't listen to the responses to things like this. Craig doesn't listen either. The call for a debate is smoke and mirrors, Craig just wants the air of publicity. So what is the point?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes he does, please show me where you think the premises of any of Craig's arguments are flawed. Only then can the logical deduction he makes be debunked. Of all the atheists that have debated him over the years not one of them is able to do it without sounding total ridiculous. Take Daniel Dennet's' counter argument to Kalam Cosmological Argument for instance. Dennet says that the universe brought itself into being and that it is its own cause? Is there someone here who is willing to defend this? In order for the universe to bring itself into existence there must have been a universe, but how can there be a universe when there was no universe???? Please. come on, Craig is probably wrong on this point but that kind of argumentation against it is not what's going to convince any logical thinking person be they theist or atheist.

Craig's premises are arbitrary. There is no reason the structure of the universe, even with a finite time direction, must have had a cause. Craig is conflating the universe with events within the universe.

[edit]-And I have to agree with wicknight. The cosmological argument has been addressed by myself and others countless times, yet each time we are ignored with an enthusiasm worthy of J C.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Any further info for this?

Arghhh Fanny..had you asked me this a couple of months back I'd have a wicknight sized post for you.I haven't seen any of his debates in ages, so I can only remember a few. (Garbage doesn't stay with me long)

Craig's typical arguments from biology include quotations from creationist's pseudo science literature. For instance one favourite quote that I've seen him use in debates is Michael Behe's argument on the improbability on the formation of proteins. I dealt with it this post in some post somewhere. Other "classics" include the universe needing a cause. Craig writes book on relativity and cosmology I think these are actually black listed by physicists.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes he does, please show me where you think the premises of any of Craig's arguments are flawed.

Knock yourself out. Most of these are used by Craig - Some aren't, see I'm in such a generous mood today that I included other common ones for you to feast eyes your eyes on.

Of all the atheists that have debated him over the years not one of them is able to do it without sounding total ridiculous.

Sometimes to explain the ridiculous you have to have use ridiculous explanations. Nature is far from intuitive. Most of the stuff I have learned is, well, ridiculous.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Arghhh Fanny..had you asked me this a couple of months back I'd have a wicknight sized post for you.

That sounds horrible. Forget I asked :eek:

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That sounds horrible. Forget I asked :eek:

You are all just jealous of the girth of my posts ... oh behave :eek:

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Craig's premises are arbitrary. There is no reason the structure of the universe, even with a finite time direction, must have had a cause. Craig is conflating the universe with events within the universe.

[edit]-And I have to agree with wicknight. The cosmological argument has been addressed by myself and others countless times, yet each time we are ignored with an enthusiasm worthy of J C.

Your rebuttals are simply not strong enough to hold any water, that is why they are ignored. Craig's cosmological argument is based current accepted scientific theory. The Standard Model. Which states that all matter, energy space and time had their beginning at a finite time in the past called the Big Bang. So based on that current accepted scientific theory he proceeds.



Premise 1

• Everyhting that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2

• The universe began to exist.

Premise 3

• Therefore the universe has a cause.

Does anyone reject premise 1? If so please give us your basis for rejecting it in terms that we can understand. Does anyone reject premise number 2? If so you are in the minority on this point.

Now if all matter space, energy and time came into existence at this time then the cause must timeless, space-less and immaterial. There are two types of things that fall into this category. Abstract numbers and Minds. Abstract numbers do not cause anything. They're just abstract numbers. Minds do cause things. My mind is causing me to write this post for example. Now what Craig argues is that either nothing caused the universe or a force which transcends space and time is caused it. Which of the two is more likely candidate? Nothing? Or what Max Planck said below in my sig, the founder of quantum theory himself.

Anyway getting back to Dawkins...