tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6289130064893884452..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Dawkins ducks CraigVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89298012721615043602012-12-31T15:12:11.565-07:002012-12-31T15:12:11.565-07:00Don't knock Dawkins! We need people like him t...Don't knock Dawkins! We need people like him to question our beliefs!<br /><br />Cyrus created Talmudic Judaism by sending Ezra to rebuild the Temple & establish a Jewish form of Zoroastrianism!<br /><br />Constantine created Romanism by getting a few Judas Goat Christians to join Paganism & Christianity together.<br /><br />Muhammad created Mohammedanism by mixing Talmudic Judaism, Romanism & Paganism together.<br /><br />Mohammedanism is the Arabian form of Romanism.<br /><br />BUT, what I really want you to study is Matthew ch 19 & see what Jesus says to the Pharisees about Moses & Divorce!<br /><br />Thrown away your Jewish Bible!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9934267837145632692010-05-10T20:23:49.868-07:002010-05-10T20:23:49.868-07:00Dawkins has said before that he is not interested ...Dawkins has said before that he is not interested in the debate format, he is more interested in a discussion format. Considering the amount of discussions Dawkins has participated in compared to debates, I find this to be more likely his reason for not debating Craig.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74343306734933158392009-11-06T13:52:01.006-07:002009-11-06T13:52:01.006-07:00i don't see why dawkins would want to debate c...i don't see why dawkins would want to debate craigs. the statement about resumes is perfect.<br /><br />craig definitely would love to debate dawkins. haven't you watched debates? the religious side loves rambling on about who they have debated. they keep arguing nonsense and after 1 hour, they walk away with a default win.<br /><br />dawkins and craig are very different people. dawkins is a biologist and would be good if it were creationism vs evolution or just anything about science. craig is a theologian (aka rubbish sprouter) and philosopher. that means they talk about things for which they have no evidence and just go dabbling in hypotheticals and extrapolating through logic (or in theists' cases, logical fallacies).<br /><br />If dawkins and craig debate in a science and biology context, craig would be seen as unsubstantial in 5 minutes and the cops will close the debate for humanity's sake. But if it's a philosophical context (as it is likely to be since it's just unfair to ask stupid people to argue in a field they have no clue about), then whoever rambles longer without being called on his bluffs wins. I suspect dawkins isn't very good in that.<br /><br />I could debate craig.<br />would he wanna debate me?<br />it sure would look good on my resume, especially when I win with punitive ease.chasing the front crowdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05772209310050451794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8460332844854114832009-09-23T21:22:44.925-07:002009-09-23T21:22:44.925-07:00Craig is a theistic evolutionist. Much of his cos...Craig is a theistic evolutionist. Much of his cosmological argument depends on the big bang theory. And in his debate with Frank Zindler, he claimed that evolution could be considered "a beautiful example of God's design". So Dawkins has no "I don't debate creationists" excuse — still smarting at debating triple-doctorate Arthur Wilder-Smith at the Oxford Union in 1986.Ktisophiloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718156076583190052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49647517057530333252008-08-20T22:41:00.000-07:002008-08-20T22:41:00.000-07:00I'm not one to support the practice of debating; b...I'm not one to support the practice of debating; but I would like to see that debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41402972007125750632007-10-06T20:29:00.000-07:002007-10-06T20:29:00.000-07:00Can you find a source for these statements please?...Can you find a source for these statements please?Trenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11999281169766983908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55578549659271125932007-01-29T11:31:00.000-07:002007-01-29T11:31:00.000-07:00If a man who has dedicated his life to refuting th...<i>If a man who has dedicated his life to refuting theism refuses to defend his criticisms against theists, how strong can he think his arguments are?</i><br /><br />Refusing to participate in a circus (i.e., a public debate) is not the same as refusing to defend your views. This whole line of criticism of Dawkins is silly.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19419961680335954852007-01-28T17:43:00.000-07:002007-01-28T17:43:00.000-07:00Hi David,
Would you be willing to exposit and def...Hi David,<br /><br />Would you be willing to exposit and defend here the arguments you mention (for example the kalam argument)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7705619123101652072007-01-28T12:58:00.000-07:002007-01-28T12:58:00.000-07:00Anonomous said:
"...back to Logic 101."
The logi...Anonomous said:<br /><br />"...back to Logic 101."<br /><br />The logic of the argument you laid out is completely valid. It's straightforward modus ponens. Moreover, both premises are true, so the argument is sound. The conclusion, therefore, follows.<br /><br />And you don't even know what an "argument from ignorance" is. Speaking of Logic 101 . . .<br /><br />(Also, I'd have to question your "I don't like your argument, so I'll pray for you, Brother" attitude. It's quite insulting to use prayer in this way, especially when you obviously don't even understand the arguments you're criticizing.)David Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55323376031576579842007-01-28T11:49:00.000-07:002007-01-28T11:49:00.000-07:00My point is that there is no evidence for any of t...My point is that there is no evidence for any of those theories. Neither is their any evidence in support of theism. And certainly zero in support of the Christian theology.<br /><br />Wishful thinking aside.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84124214737895468102007-01-28T10:51:00.000-07:002007-01-28T10:51:00.000-07:00McGrath's only argument is that Dawkins cannot pro...<i>McGrath's only argument is that Dawkins cannot prove there is no God - a point Dawkins concedes in 'The God Delusion'<br /><br />What then is the point of the debate, when Dawkins has already conceded that McGrath is right?</i><br /><br />Not true. McGrath also contends that being a scientist who is a Christian implies no contradiction, that the history of institutional atheism is just as blood-spattered as that of Christianity, and that "memetics" is intellectually vacuous pseudo-science - all of which would provide ample material for debate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84929096678019050902007-01-27T23:50:00.000-07:002007-01-27T23:50:00.000-07:00I have a question:
Felipe is quite right that the...I have a question:<br /><br />Felipe is quite right that the motives behind formulating a hypothesis are not indicative of its chances of being true.<br /><br />What I want to know, however, is just how is the the proposal of an infinite array of universes displaying every imaginable variation of physical contants (the "multiverse") any more of a scientific hypothesis -- in the sense of something capable of emperical verification or refutation -- than that of "an immaterial ex nihilating trinity."<br /><br />David CalvaniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48450092865631897402007-01-27T12:05:00.000-07:002007-01-27T12:05:00.000-07:00David Wood,
Your logic amounts to a fallacy calle...David Wood,<br /><br />Your logic amounts to a fallacy called "argument to ignorance."<br /><br />(1) If Dawkins does not know about X apologist, he has not studied Y. <br />(2) Dawkins does not know about apologist X. <br />(C) Dawkins has not studied Y. <br /><br />...back to Logic 101. <br /><br />Bill Craig's arguments make good, well-intentioned Christians like us look like sophists and rhetoricians. I am embarassed for my fellow Christians when they champion him, his cohorts, and their "arguments" as knock-down weapons to atheism.<br /><br />I'll pray for you and them. <br /><br />In His name, <br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30069354431630244052007-01-27T04:18:00.000-07:002007-01-27T04:18:00.000-07:00Will Craig be debating Jeffery Jay Lowder or Doug ...Will Craig be debating Jeffery Jay Lowder or Doug Kreuger any time soon?<br /><br />McGrath's only argument is that Dawkins cannot prove there is no God - a point Dawkins concedes in 'The God Delusion'<br /><br />What then is the point of the debate, when Dawkins has already conceded that McGrath is right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75084726475867096872007-01-27T03:40:00.000-07:002007-01-27T03:40:00.000-07:00Anyway, did I hear that Alister McGrath will be de...<i>Anyway, did I hear that Alister McGrath will be debating Richard Dawkins?</i><br /><br />Really? To my knowledge, he has so far refused to do so, despite repeated invitations and the fact that he <i>must</i> know who McGrath is, seeing as he's given a dismissive four-line review of one of his books, and that they're Oxford University colleagues and all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54548101259933287032007-01-27T02:30:00.000-07:002007-01-27T02:30:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26663731608334546242007-01-26T18:55:00.000-07:002007-01-26T18:55:00.000-07:00Anonymous,
We don't debate flat-earthers because ...Anonymous,<br /><br />We don't debate flat-earthers because this isn't a live option. If flat-earth theory were a live option, people were debating it left and right. Now, last time I checked, theism is still the dominant position in America, and creation is a prominent theory, even among scientists. <br /><br />But I'm sure Dawkins would agree with your answer. It amounts to: "Whatever theory I disagree with, I'm going to treat it with such contempt that I will refuse to even acknowledge it as a position. That way, I won't have to debate all the people who would obviously crush me in a debate."<br /><br />BTW, I think this is Dawkins's best possible move, though his reasons are obvious. If a man who has dedicated his life to refuting theism refuses to defend his criticisms against theists, how strong can he think his arguments are?David Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14134688966510602642007-01-26T18:49:00.000-07:002007-01-26T18:49:00.000-07:00Felipe,
No, we wouldn't expect fine-tuning on mul...Felipe,<br /><br />No, we wouldn't expect fine-tuning on multiverse theory. If you know of a particular theory that would lead us to expect a fine-tuned universe, please share it with the group.<br /><br />And no, the absurdities associated with an infinite series of past events never vanish.David Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66456146465365174202007-01-26T18:00:00.000-07:002007-01-26T18:00:00.000-07:00Dawkins is on record as not accepting invitations ...Dawkins is on record as not accepting invitations to debate creationists. He probably doesn't debate people who think the earth is flat or that it's turtles all the way down or who think melting Elvigar created the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla who in turn begat the gods.<br /><br />Oh that is silly, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13307962244215480522007-01-26T17:47:00.000-07:002007-01-26T17:47:00.000-07:00David,
Yes, there is supposed to be some absurdit...David,<br /><br />Yes, there is supposed to be some absurdity with traversing actual infinites, and Craig (and Moreland) attempt to surface the absurdity in various ways, depending on the argument advanced. Unfortunately, when you probe at these a bit, the apparent absurdities seem to vanish.<br /><br />Regarding multiverses: We're still talking about the need for a first cause, and not a designer, right? The point there was that if the universe had prior physical antecedents, then the origin of our universe doesn't entail an absolute beginning of the physical realm. In any case, regarding the use of multiverses to explain the apparent fine-tuning of our universe: from a logical point of view, I'm not sure what relevance motives have when it comes to theory choice ("that damned unregenerate! He's runnin' from Jesus with his multiverses!" or "That unscrupulous Christian refuses to consider multiverses because he wants Jesus to be the Big Banger of our universe!"). Isn't he only relevant issue that of what best explains the data? If so, then we have to treat the hypothesis of a multiverse as seriously as the hypothesis of an immaterial ex nihilating trinity. On both hypotheses, we would expect the data of fine-tuning.exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6036523879793889522007-01-26T13:31:00.000-07:002007-01-26T13:31:00.000-07:00Hi Exapologist,
As opposed to positing one unseen ...Hi Exapologist,<br />As opposed to positing one unseen entity responsible for the conditions of the universe (conditions that allow for biological life) you are positing an infinite array of unseen entities (an infinite amount of universes where any possible scenario can play out). And it's being utilitized to explain away that what appears to be the case.... that foresight went into the creation of the universe.<br />Compounded with the fact that this 'natural process that gives rise to universes' lacks any mechanism whatsoever. And Dennett blasted theists for using 'skyhooks'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77548040831166051982007-01-26T13:14:00.000-07:002007-01-26T13:14:00.000-07:00or at least less plausible than that in immaterial...<i>or at least less plausible than that in immaterial spirit created our universe out of no pre-existing materials)?</i><br /><br /><b>Whatever</b> was responsible for the Big Bang did not occupy space, if by 'space' we mean some part of our universe. And if by 'material' we mean 'occupying-space-in-our-universe', then whatever was responsible for the Big Bang was immaterial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32224714627935344742007-01-26T12:58:00.000-07:002007-01-26T12:58:00.000-07:00I'm sure you already know the argument, exapologis...I'm sure you already know the argument, exapologist. If you say that the past is infinite, then you're committed to saying that we've already passed an infinite number of moments. But there's something extraordinarily odd about saying that we've successfully traversed an actual infinite. You can say that you don't see a problem, but many others would consider this absurd.<br /><br />Besides, the conclusion of the argument is that the universe had a beginning. This conclusion was proven correct by modern cosmology. You can retreat to some version of the multiverse, but this only multiplies your problems.<br /><br />And let's face the facts. People didn't come to multiverse theory because the evidence points to it. Instead, people realized that it's absurd to think (1) that everything originated at the Big Bang, without a cause, an (2) that everything just happened to turn out just right for life.<br /><br />Theists recognized that the evidence fits quite comfortably with what we've always been saying. Atheists, as always, look for an escape hatch.David Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-501461637058528812007-01-26T12:41:00.000-07:002007-01-26T12:41:00.000-07:00You think it's a "stretch" to say that Craig would...<i>You think it's a "stretch" to say that Craig would crush Dawkins? Have you ever seen Craig debate? Have you ever heard Dawkins debate? Have you seen how bad some of Dawkins's arguments are? </i><br /><br />I was referring to your analysis of Dawkins' fears and other motivations. <br /><br />Craig must be quite charismatic.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71840158827641765512007-01-26T12:33:00.000-07:002007-01-26T12:33:00.000-07:00Gatsby,
By 'explaining away', do you mean 'offer...Gatsby,<br /><br />By 'explaining away', do you mean 'offering an implausible (or in any case, *less* plausible) explanation for the data'? If some the date is the origin of our universe, and the explanation is that some theory of multiple universes according to which there is a continual natural process that gives rise to universes, than in what way is this an implausible (or less plausible) explanation of the origin of our universe (or at least less plausible than that in immaterial spirit created our universe out of no pre-existing materials)? Do you honestly thing that it's *clearly* a worse explanation than the parenthetical one just mentioned?exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.com