Boris "ad hominem attack on WLC,"TU-95 "I see your ad hominem and raise you one (coward) and push all in with a sweeping generalization about Internet atheists having the property of being hillbillies and bozos.
Atheist 0, theists 0, culture (that prizes rhetoric over rationality) 1
"His argument is circular whether it's gospel truth or not."Hume's argument against miracles is a probabilistic inference. No probabilistic inference can be circular, sorry if you can't get that.
"It's an idiotic argument and it's deserves to be abandoned on the trash heap of historical rubbish ideas."You dismiss all other miraculous claims from other religions using Hume's reasoning. Of course the reasoning is only idiotic when you see that it will end invalidating the claims of your own religion.
"He dogmatically claims to know the entire experience of human history which would require a miracle."Hume never claimed to know the entire experience of human experience. No such thing is needed for his reasoning to work.
"Hume in his criticism of Paley confused the efficient cause, which is the laborers which actually build the watch with the Formal Cause; the person who designed the watch."You truly need a brain check. Not only you don't understand Hume's case against miracles, but you are actually thinking that Hume's case against Paley's Watchmaker argument has anything to do with it.
See, actually I'm back because I can't let your nonsense statements go. You basically repeat Hume's nonsense and then call it a response. If I say "All swans are white" then each instance of a white swan counts as confirmation of my inference. If I do this 1 million times, according to your theory it's a near certain fact that there are only white swans isn't it? But we know as a matter of fact that there are black swans which we eventually discover. Your rule of statistical probability handcuffs scientific inquiry. The more our nonsense idea is confirmed the more dogmatically we say it's true and insult other's for disagreeing with us. By saying they need to grow a brain for instance. But the cold hard fact is that there are black swans. His argument is circular whether it's gospel truth or not. He says basically "No one ever experiences miracles; therefore no one has ever experienced a miracle." It's an idiotic argument and it's deserves to be abandoned on the trash heap of historical rubbish ideas. Furthermore numerous people have said they have experienced the miraculous so Hume is wrong anyway. Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant. He dogmatically claims to know the entire experience of human history which would require a miracle. Yet another disproof of Hume's nonsense. Let's discuss causes shall we? One: The material cause; this is what something is made of or it's means. Two: The formal cause; This is a things design Three: The efficient cause; this is what brings a thing into existence Four: The final cause; which is a things purpose. Hume in his criticism of Paley confused the efficient cause, which is the laborers which actually build the watch with the Formal Cause; the person who designed the watch. His argument doesn't work anyway even if we let him get away with this unbelievable blunder. To the best of my knowledge Paley's argument is not to establish the precise nature of the designer (That is whether there is one or twenty) but rather that there is active intelligence involved. So put another way Paley is arguing, "You see that house there, that house had an architect." Hume answers foolishly by replying "No no no no, the house is caused by those men in dungarees using the hammers and nails!" You called me brainless and superstitious. I won't be that insulting. I'll just call you blind.
I agree. It's a waste of time to think that you will grow a brain and realize that you do apply Hume's reasoning everywhere to dismiss all sorts of bullshit out there, but when you realize that the application of his reasoning will pose a problem for the acceptance of your pet superstitious beliefs, then suddenly Hume's is patently circular and it is not valid to apply it to your superstition. Sure.
this is a waste of time.
"Hume's argument against the miraculous is patently circular."
Hume's argument against miracles is a correct statistical inference about how the world works.
"Anyone trained in logic at all knows this."
Let me correct this for you: anyone that don't know what Logic is and with problems to understand basic probability inference thinks Hume's argument is circular. That's precisely your case.
"He confuses the engineer of a thing with the manufacturer of a thing basically."
You can't say, looking to a designed object, that the manufacturer is not the same as the engineer, ergo, Hume can't possibly be confusing the two. Hume is dealing with design inference, not "manufacturer" inference.
"Hume is hardly at the top of the thinkers food chain."
Says the guy who obviously don't have a clue about what Hume is talking about.
Hume's argument against the miraculous is patently circular. Anyone trained in logic at all knows this. Not only this but he violates his own best discovery against induction with this argument. His argument against Paley was equally sloppy. He confuses the kind of causation in this argument. He confuses the engineer of a thing with the manufacturer of a thing basically. Hume is hardly at the top of the thinkers food chain.
Instead, Dawkins takes on really important figures like uneducated unknowns who defend a 6000 year old Earth. But Craig, with his two PhDs, scholarly papers, and significant air time doesn't qualify. Riiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhtttttttt!
There's nothing overrated about Hume, Kant or Russell. Hume specifically is the source of all current abstract ammunition used by skeptics. All arguments against miracles or any other bullshit out there, like the paranormal, are nothing more than variations on top of what the guy already said centuries ago and will remain to be so. You can't get any higher on the thinkers food chain, sorry.
Thank you for demonstrating that Hume, Kant, and Russel are to some degree overrated.
You know it's funny you say that. The late Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris as well as Peter Atkins all debated WLC. He has had the spot light for quite some time now. So that reason is pretty much shot through.
No, because Astrology is not a real study. Biblical studies and philosophy are
Having a PHD in theology and the historical jesus is like having a PHD In Astrology......
When god created the Canaanites did IT know they were gonna sin?
I'm not a science denier, for I believe that evolution is true. I think your creating a false dichotomy by having me choose A Evolution or B God. That's exactly what young-earther's do.
I don't see how evolution disproves the existence of God. All evolution is, is change over time through species via natural selection.
We have the evidence for God through Christ and his death and resurrection, which is supported by extremely strong historical data. The empty tomb, the apperances of Jesus after his death, and the origin of belief in disciples are mainstream views held by scholars of the New Testament, liberal or conservative, secular and non-secular.
"Are you saying that Scientists believe that Evolution can happen without God?"
No. The claim that Science makes is much stronger. God can't possibly be involved in Evolution. If it is, Evolution by Natural Selection is a false theory, and we would have to endorse a new theory, something like Evolution by Divine Selection.
Since Evolution by Natural Selection rests unfalsified and MASSIVELY corroborated by the evidence, and there's not a shred of evidence for Evolution by Divine Selection or any other alternative theory that can explain the diversity of life, your belief that God is necessarily involved with Evolution goes against mainstream scientific knowledge and you are also a science denier.
Of course you can still believe that God is involved if you wish. You can also believe in UFO's, leprechauns, the Bigfoot, anything you want. Nobody is monitoring your brain, at least not for now. But please, don't claim your beliefs are rationally supported, much less scientifically supported, ok?
"Such position is against current and largely accepted scientific knowledge. It's the equivalent of denying the Big Bang or General Relativity."
Are you saying that Scientists believe that Evolution can happen without God?
"Dawkins never said Craig is not qualified. Lack of qualification is not among the reasons he gives for not debating Craig."
Well, Dawkins did say in this video(Link down below) "That I don't take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They've got to have something more than that, I'm busy."
It sounds like he's implying that Craig doesn't have the credentials as a philosopher/theologian.
"However, evolution without God is impossible is the position I think that he is affirming."Such position is against current and largely accepted scientific knowledge. It's the equivalent of denying the Big Bang or General Relativity.
"I don't think it's fair for Dawkins to say that Craig is not qualified"Dawkins never said Craig is not qualified. Lack of qualification is not among the reasons he gives for not debating Craig.
Craig isn't necessarily against evolution. He's simply agnostic about it. He affirms OEC. However, evolution without God is impossible is the position I think that he is affirming.
Although I agree that maybe Craig shouldn't bolster Dawkins about not debating him. I don't think it's fair for Dawkins to say that Craig is not qualified. He once said this in a Q&A. I mean Craig has over a 100 peer reviewed articles, and two Phd's in philosophy, Theology, and the Historical Jesus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I have heard Dawkins does not debate Evolution deniers. Given that Craig denies that we can be result of purely natural and unguided processes, contradicting legitimate and mainstream scientific knowledge, Craig does not met the requirements to debate with Dawkins, not to mention other pretty valid reasons that Dawkins possesses to not debate Craig.
Why Craig can have a list of people that he will not debate and Dawkins can't is something Craig's flock have to answer before accusing Dawkins of cowardice. If Dawkins is a coward for being selective with his opponents, so does Craig.
WLC is not a trickster or a wordsmith. Where did you get an idea like that? WLC is very honest in his debates.
I am not sure. I have heard that WLC only debates people who have a Ph.D. In fact the whole reason why Loftus became an atheist is because of his sin. WLC said Loftus got heavily involved in Pornography. Maybe it would be awkward to debate Loftus since he was a student.
If WLC can destroy Loftus' arguments, there's no reason to avoid debate him. Loftus should be the one running away from Craig. Why precisely the opposite is true?
Because WLC would destroy Matt Dillahunty's arguments. John Loftus would lose to WLC to I bet. Matt Dillahunty tends to borrow from Sam Harris. Sam Harris lost it big time against WLC. Matt Dillahunty is smart, but he is not very good in debates, especially when it comes to morality.
another hillbilly atheist...no one scares a liar like Dawkins than Craig. Dawkins had refused to debate Craig. Dawkins was attacked by his fellow atheists for being a coward. But ofcourse for internet bozos like you Dawkins is your god.
Except for Plantinga's argument against the conjunction Evolution & Naturalism, every single work in this field until today is a variation of what Hume and Aquinas already said. All relevant skeptical arguments in effect now can be traced back to Hume. Theist's case are merely an attempt to bring back to life in new clothes, without success, Aquinas cold, putrefied corpse. This battle is over in academia, and we already know the result.
Dawkins' argument does not rely on the truth of materialism, since we know that complexity is also a property of immaterial things. Claiming that God is "immaterial" to avoid the objection is a cheap and desperate appeal to magic. You are miles away from the demonstration that minds can survive outside brains, time and space, much less show that minds could be simple while capable of producing complex effects, fact that is wildly against anything we see in reality.
The charge that Dawkins is asking for the explanation of the explanation is also absurd. Dawkins is asking for the explanation, not the explanation of the explanation. God can't be the explanation for the massive improbability we see in reality because he is himself massively improbable, therefore he is the very thing that begs for explanation.
Craig is a heavy weight of theism. Since he fails to address a simple objection of a humble biologist with no degree in philosophy, the fact is evidence enough that theism is dead.
Dawkins never said that morality is justified because it is rooted in Evolution, but merely that evolution explains why we have a moral behavior. Once a natural explanation for morality is in place, your claim that our moral behavior can't possibly have a natural explanation is void, and the Moral Argument is nullified. You are the one claiming that moral truths are void if their source is Evolution and not your holy authority, therefore you, and not atheists, are guilty of the genetic fallacy: the attempt to undermine a truth by questioning the way we came to know it. Knowledge of mathematics is also result of evolutionary pressures plus cultural modulation. I don't think you are prepared to say (unless you are too dumb) that 2+2 could be 5 if God does not exist. In the same fashion, if moral truths are contingent to the existence of your imaginary friend, such truths are subjective and not objective, therefore your worldview fail to account for our moral reality, so forget about asking atheists the solution for a philosophical problem you yourself can't provide with your disposable supernatural "explanations".
EDIT: Then he also wants to show that belief in morality is justified as it is rooted in evolution, yet belief in God is falsified also being rooted in evolution and so blatantly contradicting himself.
If only he used their arguments. The God Delusion is the worst defence for atheism I have ever read. Even if he used Hume, Kant and Russell's arguments, these wouls still have been outdated anyway. The fact is, Dawkins chose to use Aquinas' five ways to attack which is medieval! As if no further work in philosophy of religion has since been done. Then he also completely misses the point of Aquinas' arguments anyway. Then his central argument makes the major blunder that it entirely depends on God being material, which no Christian or theist believes in. Then he also wants to show that belief in morality is justified as it is rooted in evolution, yet belief is falsified also being rooted in evolution and so blatantly contradicting himself. Not only that but both of these commit the genetic fallacy, being doubly fallacious. This is appalling philosophy. I have much more respect for Hume, Kant and Russell.
No one scares a liar like Craig more than Richard Dawkins.
And why Craig does not simply debate John Loftus, his ex-student? The list of people Craig will not debate no matter what is pretty reasonable. Why Craig can avoid any debate he wants and Dawkins can't do the same? Dr. Craig will never debate with me. Should I suppose he is afraid of me?
Then why doesn't he simply debate him? If the man never makes an argument to attack, then all that's left is his character for not making an argument.
Dr. Craig will never accept to debate John Loftus, Matt Dillahunty and many others. Should we presume he is a coward who lost long time ago for not accepting to debate every single guy out there who wishes to debate him?
It is impossible to deal with a christian who knows the evidence that support their faith because there's no such thing as evidence that supports the christian faith.
It is laughable to see theists accusing atheists of ad hominem attacks, when the most effective thing they can do against Dawkins is to say he is not sophisticated enough, or he is too coward to face Craig in a debate. Typical ad hominem attack. Even if the both contentions are true, and they are not, it does not follow from these facts that Dawkins is wrong and Craig is right.
Dawkins is a famously intelligent biologist and academic of science, and not a philosopher. Contrary to what you may want to believe, non-theists thinking that Dawkins' philosophical points are naive are rare. In fact, most of Dawkins "philosophical points" against classical theological arguments in his book are taken from Hume, Kant, Russel and other well known atheist philosophers. Summarizing, by claiming that Dawkins' philosophic position is naive, you will have to claim that Hume, Kant and others are philosophically naive. Indeed a very naive thing to do, something we should expect from people who know that their only real resource is to appeal to authority. I have an Phd in philosophy, therefore God is not imaginary. Of course!
Dawkins is a famously intelligent biologist and a notoriously terrible philosopher by accounts of informed theists and non-theists alike. Given how much money is made in sparking controversy and feeding people half-cooked ideas, it's no surprise that Dawkins is more recognised than WLC. The average American will tell you that the Wright Brothers were first to fly an aeroplane. The experts will tell you otherwise.
I don't remember WLC being ranked top thinker of the year anywhere. Twice, once time this year. Sounds nothing like a a person who is losing something to me. We are talking here about a guy that shook the world's foundations two times: first with the Selfish Gene, and after that, with The God Delusion, unleashing a cultural revolution of planetary proportions that is alive and well at this very day, a fact WLC should recognize as beneficial for his "atheist hunter " career.
WLC is by no means a moron. He is a very clever person with excellent credentials and absolutely impressive debate skills. But eventually theists will have to stop whining and realize that Dawkins is at least 2 leagues above Craig in terms of importance as intellectual, and his work had an impact greater than anything Craig ever did.
I too lament that a Craig x Dawkins debate is not possible. If there's someone to be blamed here, is Craig. Dawkins is merely adopting the "don't feed the trolls" tactic. Craig gave him more than enough reasons to act in this way. In fact, WAY more than enough reasons.
I agree with Craig. The belligerent atheist will still receive air time. Dawkins is still a big draw in America and I don't see that changing.
It looks like Dawkins is back to claiming teaching your own children whatever religion you believe in is child abuse.
Didn't he say that years ago and back away from his claim when someone pointed out if teaching children about your religion is child abuse, he must believe that the children should be taken away from their parents?
He also added in this gem of intellectual brilliance:
‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’
It's really a pity that people do not understand logic and argumentation. It's a sad commentary on our education system. Dawkin's "logic" is pathetic. Dawkins is a coward.
Try a different browser. I tried at first w/ Chrome and it wouldn't work. I tried with Firefox and am listening to it right now. Worst case scenario you can always download and listen (vs streaming).
Jesus loves me.
Direct link to the video file, if this can't be clicked on just copy and paste to your address bar. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
If Christians are so dumb and their arguments are as bad as Richard Dawkins portrays them, why wouldn't he debate Dr. Craig?
He would make WLC look like a fool and win people over to an atheistic perspective, which is what he wants to do.
Instead, he coincidentally he only debates weak opponents.He refused to have a live debate on a radio show with Dinesh D'souza. He didn't do very well against David Quinn on a radio debate. The reason he will not debate Dr Craig is because he hasn't done so well debating people in the past.
I have a feeling if Dr. Craig refused to debate Dawkins because he only debates fellow philosophers and RD was calling him out, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.
If theism and theists are even half as dumb as atheists pretend then *surely* the quintessential rationalists--atheists--should be able to make quick work of a trickster and wordsmith.
Presumably, Dr. Craig, since Prof R. Dawkins would not debate with you, he won long ago.
1- if there is a trickser is Dawkins... think about the Courtier's Reply which is meant to shock opponent and audience but it's a sum of two fallacies (a priori fallacy and circular reasoning).
2- If he's so confident he's so smart and superior to 'deluded theists' he should debate Craig...
3- the fact he dodges decent debaters but goes only for those less prepared or he thinks he can beat easily makes him a loser in more meanings than one.
Shaun, a typical hillbilly atheist rant, like Dawkins, you fail to understand the argument. You guys cry about God not getting rid of evil in the world and here is a perfect example of God wiping out evil. I cant for life of me understand how a bunch of atheists can get so upset over something they dont even believe in. Stop sobbing , man up and get a life
Shaun, you are making judgements on what basis? Dawkins and Atheism has no basis for objective moral values, yet he and others cite examples in the bible to draw on universal objective morality, with which to judge God and believers.
If you consider him wrong (God or WLC) then you can't rely on what you don't believe exists, or you have no basis for. It is hypocritical for Dawkins and Harris, to advocate subjective morality because they have no grounds for any other, and then rely on objective values and duties to attack another!
If morality evolves, then how can you judge the behaviour of others 4000 years ago? Unless you agree objective values exist, but then you need a basis for them.
Please elaborate........What "tricks"?
Being an intelligent defender of the Christian faith = "trickster." Good to know. I understand why atheists prefer to deal with those non-tricky Christians that don't know the evidence that supports their faith. Much easier to deal with. In those cases you don't have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks you can just roll over them.
IE8 loaded the video when Chrome wouldn't for those of you having trouble like I did.
Because a man chooses not to debate with a trickster or wordsmith does not a loser make him...
The video is working for me.
The funny thing is, in this quote, that Dawkins speaks out of both sides of his mouth likely without even realizing he is doing it. Justice?!?If his worldview is true how did we ever come about discerning what this even is and why does it even matter? No Mr Dawkins .. without realizing it you have admitted that it isn't a world of blind physical forces and mere mechanized replication... even the DNA you refer to is filled with information/communication which we know from observance of the world around us only comes from intelligence.
Shaun, you seem to be not keeping up. Since Dawkins himself does not believe in absolute right and wrong then why in the world does Dawkins care what Dr Craig thinks about the Canaanites?
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist) - River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
And Dawkins does deserve the spotlight? This is a cowardly excuse and nothing more on Dawkins part as he has debated lesser known religious people. He is like a boxer whos coaches only offer him the easy fights to bolster his career and ego.I've read Craig's commentary on the Canaanites and it consists of much more than what you have offered here and I happen to agree with his and others assessment of these events. They had 400+ years to repent of their atrocities ..and were warned long in advance to leave the region because of their vile behaviors (which included burning their children alive).To refer to WLC or anyone else for that matter as a moronic psychopath for offering a cogent assessment of these events only demonstrates your inability to properly respond to a good argument. This entire post of yours is basically an argument from emotional outrage with no foundation for such due to your worldview not being able to define this as an evil series of events from any sort of real standard from which to make such moral distinctions.
With due respect sir, am amazed at ur ignorant. I would ve love to lay down my argument, but it would be a waste of time for someone that is narrowly minded
I couldn't access the audio either ... can you please fix thanks
Dawkins will not debate craig for the fact that Craig doesnt deserve the spotlight. Dawkins has made this clear.If you watch Craigs ridiculous attempt on justifying the millions of children dying with statements like this:"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.""Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
Brutalising effect on the Israeli soldiers?? WTF
This guy is a moronic psychopath, he has no intention on spreading any good word but only justification for the greed, lies and lust. He is more interested in making up bullshit stories to justify the worlds evil instead of actually doing anything about it.
Video is not working properly.
Loading very slowly. I'm guessing video server overload? ...or the video quality is super HD. Guess lots of interest is good - if it is the server(s) that can't cope.
Ya, I'm having the same problem as well. Hopefully, RF gets it cleared up, since I'm really anxious to hear the rest of Dr. Craig's thoughts!
Is something wrong with this video and the other one posted today? Doesn't seem to load.
That was a really interesting article Dr. Craig, thanks so much for these current events video blogs. I was sad to see that you were not posting them for a while, and I'm glad they're back.
Presumably Dr. Craig, since Prof R. Dawkins would not debate with you, he lost long ago.
You might find this upcoming film to be of interest (starring Dawkins and Krauss) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Receive our free Newsletter
Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events.
Scholarly ArticlesArticles published in peer-reviewed journals
Popular ArticlesIntended for a general audience
DebatesSelect transcriptions of Dr. Craig's debates
Q & AWeekly question and answer
Video / AudioDebates, Talks, and Interviews
Reasonable Faith PodcastConversations with William Lane Craig
Defenders PodcastClass on Christian doctrine and apologetics
Defenders LiveLivestream of Defenders Class
DrCraigVideos ChannelShort Video Clips of Dr Craig
ReasonableFaithOrg ChannelFull Length Video Clips of Dr Craig
DrCraigInternational ChannelTranslated Video Clips of Dr Craig
Copyright Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide. Reasonable Faith is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.