Soul Winner wrote: » Yes he does, please show me where you think the premises of any of Craig's arguments are flawed.
Of all the atheists that have debated him over the years not one of them is able to do it without sounding total ridiculous.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Any further info for this?
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.
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.
Soul Winner wrote: » Dennet says that the universe brought itself into being and that it is its own cause?
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.
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 ?
monosharp wrote: » No he does not.
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, 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.
Soul Winner wrote: » Yeah sure. Check it from 1:20 seconds on:
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
Wicknight wrote: » Craig made that claim, anyone have an actually quote from Dawkins?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » And would you say the same of those on the other side of the fence?
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.
Soul Winner wrote: » Dawkins also said that he would never debate anyone about religion with a lower rank than a Bishop.
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
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.
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 startAtheist - 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
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."
vodafoneproblem wrote: » Hmm, drkpower. You answered my post 7 minutes after I wrote it so forgive my scepticism of you reading most of his paper, or even any of it... Also, it's not a logical error. Rather, on this one issue, the issue of the improbabilty of God, it shows the monster to be in the same boat. So, really, you actually got Mr. Sharlow's point that Tricky Dicky is in error with his probabilty estimate! And IF you'd read his paper, you'd see that point 1. "The argument is inapplicable to philosophical conceptions of God that reduce most of God’s complexity to that of the physical universe. " is perfectly logical because Dicky Boy (cf Del Boy, who also claimed more about what he was peddling than was justified...) does not address all philosophical conceptions of God in his book! And therefore it's another way to show Dawkins hasn't won the argument! And also point 3. "The argument supposes that complexity arises from past physical causes; however, some forms of complexity known to mathematics and logic do not arise in this way" which he demonstrates nicely with fractals is also well founded and is another nail in Dawkin's c..offin! And of course you become an Atheist, whether by converting from another religion, or through whatever sort of upbringing you have. You can't say for sure what a baby believes when it's born.
Soul Winner wrote: » If the resurrection of Jesus happened the way it was reported then even if we lived back then with all the technology we have today we would still not be able to scientifically verify that it actually happened.
Soul Winner wrote: » Nowhere do they profess that the resurrection of Jesus was a natural occurrence, in every case that the resurrection is mentioned it specifically states that God raised Him up.
Soul Winner wrote: » And in order to scientifically verify it, you must first scientifically verify that God exists. But if this supernatural God does actually exist then how could we, using merely natural means, verify this? We can't. We must use other means in which to draw such conclusions logically.
Soul Winner wrote: » And just because we can't scientifically verify such things does not mean that we can use this failing on our part as an argument against the truthfulness of what it is we are trying to verify.
Soul Winner wrote: » All we can do is either believe the original reports or not believe them. When you find enough internal evidence in the records to convince you either way you then make the jump from that to the logical conclusion.
Soul Winner wrote: » They had to be either lying or telling the truth. All other options are closed. ... If they were lying then it should become very apparent in their accounts.
Soul Winner wrote: » So what we are left with is a story which is either true or not true. Most people who don't believe in it do so on the basis that such things can't happen, that they are physically impossible.
Soul Winner wrote: » It is not a blind faith position, it should be a well thought out and researched process in order to make a well informed decision based on the available evidence either way and once convinced of the truth of it all from this, you can then consciously choose whom to give your allegiance to in your life.
Soul Winner wrote: » If you wait around until science is able to verify it for you I think the universe will have run it's course and by then it will be too late. Science is a great thing and all but I wouldn't put all my faith in it as some are blindly prone to do.
Soul Winner wrote: » Anyway, getting back to Dawkins. Why won't he debate with William Lane Craig?
vodafoneproblem wrote: » It's by this this guy "If you want to become an atheist you'll have to find reasons better than the ones Dawkins gives." who as you can see has high level qualifications in science and philosophy. (Ph.D in chemistry, double major in physics and philosophy, and more)[/url]
