The Great Debate: Hitchens v Craig on Theology

[Revolution starts with U]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/[YOUTUBE]watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8&feature=related)

=4KBx4vvlbZ8&feature=

A very interesting debate between Chris Hitchens and Dr Craig. I think it was handled very well, and both sides held their own.

I find Dr Craig to probably be the greatest champion theological philosophy has ever known, and I really enjoyed his performance. I wish Mr Hitchens would have taken his cosmological arguments head-on. But that can hardly be expected from a non-physicist.

What I did enjoy was Mr Hitchens responses on the moral issues, and how G-D is irrelevant to their fulfillment. I would have preferred him to state it in certain terms such as "because I cannot know if scripture is true, or if it is whether all of it is, or just parts... than Scriptural/Theological morality is no more objective than atheistic/non-scriptural. Nevertheless, that is the point I think he was trying to get across, and did rather well (especially considering the home field disadvantage.)

I commend Dr Craig for not getting into the argument on whether atheism or theism has been more destructive, as these are dealing with vastly different time periods and population ratios. There is evidence for both sides, and I believe the matter remains unresolved. What I did like was his consistency in saying that whether these problems happened on the practices of religious or non-religous people, they are and always have been human problems. I also liked his pointing out of specific scriptural commandments for evil, rather than just evil undertaken in the name of religion. Dr Craig, to his credit, was willing to concede that perhaps those people were misinterpreting the will of G-D, or misusing G-Ds name for their own ends.

Overall, a wonderful debate. I don't think either side came out the winner, tho I am inclined by my worldview to continue agreeing with Mr Hitchens (on the theological issue). :thumbup1:

Much Love. As withn, so without :wub:

[Revolution starts with U]

Bump. Debate too long, or just got lost in the site being down for days? :lol:

[ComradeMan]

Bump. Debate too long, or just got lost in the site being down for days? :lol:

You didn't post the link right...

4KBx4vvlbZ8

[B5C]

BTW, I asked William Craig for a game a poker. He declined my invitation, so I left a empty seat just for him.

Adding the video on my watch later list. Thanks Rev.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If this debate is the one I think it is, then the Cosmological Argument is gob-smacking. Really? Only two possibilities, the universe creating itself or being created by a personal being? Talk about a major failure of the imagination.

Firstly, the Big Bang represents a barrier of empirical knowledge as delineated by early 21st century science - what we know right now is almost certainly not the entire picture. It's a classic "God of the Gaps" argument, filling in our ignorance with a typically anthropocentric hypothesis (because as usual there's no evidence to go with this Cosmological "Argument"). The Big Bang is the ultimate Gap, and theists like WLC gleefully stuff their god into it.

Also, the idea that abstract things have no concrete element is ludicrous. Abstracts are thing that exist in human minds, but the human mind is something that came after the Big Bang. Minds need human brains, in fact the only way we can know if a human has a mind is if they have a functioning brain.

WLC also seems to think that abstract objects have an independant existence. I see the dead hand of Plato weighs him down.

[ComradeMan]

If this debate is the one I think it is, then the Cosmological Argument is gob-smacking. Really? Only two possibilities, the universe creating itself or being created by a personal being? Talk about a major failure of the imagination.

As I understand it, elsewhere, WLC is quite honest and does not say he can prove G-d's existence. He defends a Judaeo-Christian assertion which is the one that is under "attack". I am sure if he were a Hindu he would defend a Hindu point of view and so on. Basically, all major religions bar Jainism and forms of Buddhism (perhaps) have an "ultimate" cause or "great spirit" and that's what defines them- the rest is built upon that. You can't blame WLC for defending/arguing his point of view or "assertion" anymore than I blame someone like Dawkins for arguing his materialist and atheist position from that point of view. The fact you disagree with a person doesn't mean they are wrong for arguing that point of view per se.


Firstly, the Big Bang represents a barrier of empirical knowledge as delineated by early 21st century science - what we know right now is almost certainly not the entire picture. It's a classic "God of the Gaps" argument, filling in our ignorance with a typically anthropocentric hypothesis (because as usual there's no evidence to go with this Cosmological "Argument"). The Big Bang is the ultimate Gap, and theists like WLC gleefully stuff their god into it.

How so? You're just projecting your "idea" of what WLC may perceive G-d as into the argument to build up a strawman. From what I have seen of WLC's debates he does not accept the god of the gaps argument and seems to indicate that it's a pretty redundant argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU8TlQ-4DY


Also, the idea that abstract things have no concrete element is ludicrous. Abstracts are thing that exist in human minds, but the human mind is something that came after the Big Bang. Minds need human brains, in fact the only way we can know if a human has a mind is if they have a functioning brain.

So then Descartes was right by your standard. If we can think of G-d, then G-d must exist. :unsure:

What is the mind? Does the mind exist? If you prove your assertion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As I understand it, elsewhere, WLC is quite honest and does not say he can prove G-d's existence. He defends a Judaeo-Christian assertion which is the one that is under "attack". I am sure if he were a Hindu he would defend a Hindu point of view and so on. Basically, all major religions bar Jainism and forms of Buddhism (perhaps) have an "ultimate" cause or "great spirit" and that's what defines them- the rest is built upon that. You can't blame WLC for defending/arguing his point of view or "assertion" anymore than I blame someone like Dawkins for arguing his materialist and atheist position from that point of view. The fact you disagree with a person doesn't mean they are wrong for arguing that point of view per se.

I'm not blaming him for making the argument (as a theist it's not like he has much choice), I'm saying the argument is crap and displays a lack of imagination.


How so? You're just projecting your "idea" of what WLC may perceive G-d as into the argument to build up a strawman. From what I have seen of WLC's debates he does not accept the god of the gaps argument and seems to indicate that it's a pretty redundant argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU8TlQ-4DY

He's saying the universe must have a cause, and that cause must be a personal god. Simply restating the argument in different words doesn't make it any less of an argument from ignorance.


So then Descartes was right by your standard. If we can think of G-d, then G-d must exist. :unsure:

In this case, god exists as an abstraction created by human minds. Which is about as far his existence goes.


What is the mind? Does the mind exist? If you prove your assertion.

What?

[ComradeMan]

I'm not blaming him for making the argument (as a theist it's not like he has much choice), I'm saying the argument is crap and displays a lack of imagination.

Why? Your automatically presuming the assertion has no validity and seeing as that that cannot be demonstrated logically then it has no place in an argument that bases itself on logical demonstration.


IHe's saying the universe must have a cause, and that cause must be a personal god. Simply restating the argument in different words doesn't make it any less of an argument from ignorance.

His arguments are fairly sound logically speaking. Religious people are challenged to defend their assertions and he does that quite well- I can't see what the problem is. Now we are supposed to accept abiogenesis as a scientific theory despite very little to no evidence to back it up. Science also fills the "gaps" with hypotheses and theories too.


In this case, god exists as an abstraction created by human minds. Which is about as far his existence goes.

What do you define as existence? Can the human "mind" actually create something?


What?

Prove the "mind" exists empirically.

[Revolution starts with U]

His arguments are fairly sound logically speaking. Religious people are challenged to defend their assertions and he does that quite well- I can't see what the problem is. Now we are supposed to accept abiogenesis as a scientific theory despite very little to no evidence to back it up. Science also fills the "gaps" with hypotheses and theories too.

1) Praxeology is logically valid too. But, luckily, most of us have moved into a new age where we view logic as meaningless without any evidence.
2) This is the disconnect between the so-called "scientific" and "religious" minds. The scientific mind accepts nothing that has no evidence, and leaves the question open to be answered (How did life start? We don't know, maybe like this...). The religious mind searches for concrete answers to everything, even placing them where there is no evidence (How did life start: God did it).

I really would like to see people say "I don't know" more often. It's possibly the most honest answer anyone can give to any question any time.




What do you define as existence? Can the human "mind" actually create something?

There is a litle evidence that your intentions can alter random number generators in your favor.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why? Your automatically presuming the assertion has no validity and seeing as that that cannot be demonstrated logically then it has no place in an argument that bases itself on logical demonstration.

His argument is based on pure logic with absolutely no evidence for this timeless, spaceless, causeless and personal entity. Why the fuck should I take it seriously?

I find it highly suspicious for one that WLC is using the ultimately provisional findings of modern science - that the universe is finite in a pastward direction. Logic depends on it's premises, and I seriously wonder how WLC would change his tune were it to be discovered that the Big Bang, however important it was in forming the universe as it is now, was not the beginnning of the totality of existence.


His arguments are fairly sound logically speaking. Religious people are challenged to defend their assertions and he does that quite well- I can't see what the problem is.

The problem is that he is wedging his personal deity somewhere for no good reason. If there must be something causeless, why not the universe? God is completely extraneous to the equation.


Now we are supposed to accept abiogenesis as a scientific theory despite very little to no evidence to back it up. Science also fills the "gaps" with hypotheses and theories too.

It's still a damn sight more plausible than life or the universe being poofed into existence by an invisible magic man. We may think that it takes a bigger more complicated thing to make a simpler thing, but in actual fact simple things lead to complicated things all the time in nature - we observe "spears" making "spearmakers", the complete opposite to what our gut tells us about how the universe works.

As for abiogenesis in particular, organic molecules have been found in space, which already makes it vastly more likely as an explanation than "goddidit".


What do you define as existence? Can the human "mind" actually create something?

Where are you going with this? Get to the fucking point, troll.


Prove the "mind" exists empirically.

Why? But since you ask, crack open the nearest human skull, preferably your own. You see that wrinkly object nestled inside? There's your mind. Of course some (you?) will insist that's not the mind but the brain, but to all indications mind and brain are linguistic rather than material distinctions.

[ComradeMan]

1) I really would like to see people say "I don't know" more often. It's possibly the most honest answer anyone can give to any question any time..

Rig Veda10.129.7

yám vísṛṣṭiḥ yátaḥ ābabhûva
yádi vā dadhé yádi vā ná
yáḥ asya ádhyakṣaḥ paramé vyóman
sáḥ aṅgá veda yádi vā ná véda

He, the first origin of this creation,
whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven,
he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
(Griffith's translation)

Romans 11: 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?""

I Corinthians 2: 11 "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

[ComradeMan]

His argument is based on pure logic with absolutely no evidence for this timeless, spaceless, causeless and personal entity. Why the fuck should I take it seriously?
Seeing as G-d can neither be proven or disproven the arguments require logical reasoning.

I find it highly suspicious for one that WLC is using the ultimately provisional findings of modern science - that the universe is finite in a pastward direction.
But Dawkins et al also base their views on the ultimately provisional findings of science in order to rule out the existence of anything like G-d and...

Logic depends on it's premises, and I seriously wonder how WLC would change his tune were it to be discovered that the Big Bang, however important it was in forming the universe as it is now, was not the beginnning of the totality of existence.
There's no point arguing to a hypothesis of the future...

The problem is that he is wedging his personal deity somewhere for no good reason. If there must be something causeless, why not the universe? God is completely extraneous to the equation.
There is no problem- he is defending his position without using faith arguments or such like. If you believe that the universe itself is the causeless cause then that's fine- defend your assertion.

It's still a damn sight more plausible than life or the universe being poofed into existence by an invisible magic man.
Except that's not really the concept of G-d, is it? Nice strawman. Now, from a scientific point of view, why is abiogenesis plausible? There is no evidence for it, it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory nor can it be observed.... ooops---- it seems like people are filling the gaps here.... ;)

We may think that it takes a bigger more complicated thing to make a simpler thing, but in actual fact simple things lead to complicated things all the time in nature - we observe "spears" making "spearmakers", the complete opposite to what our gut tells us about how the universe works.
The apple genome contains more genes than the human genome- about 30,000. I don't buy the simple to complicated argument anyway. I think the most "complex" or "longest" genome is actually that of a bacteria, a so-called simple life form.

As for abiogenesis in particular, organic molecules have been found in space, which already makes it vastly more likely as an explanation than "goddidit".
Organic molecules =/= life. A "vastly more likely explanation"- is not scientific proof, again, sounds like science is filling the gaps here. ;)

Where are you going with this? Get to the fucking point, troll.
Define the terms you are using, or continue to act like an anti-intellectual ignorant and condescending shitass.

Why? But since you ask, crack open the nearest human skull, preferably your own. You see that wrinkly object nestled inside? There's your mind.
:laugh: That's your brain. You may as well say that you have discovered "love" because you can "see" a human heart.

Of course some (you?) will insist that's not the mind but the brain, but to all indications mind and brain are linguistic rather than material distinctions.
What indications? Is that scientific? Is it concrete proof?

So basically you can't give empirical proof or a definition to the effect of what the mind is- despite the fact that you, like most others of us, use the term.;)

[Revolution starts with U]

Seeing as G-d can neither be proven or disproven the arguments require logical reasoning.

If G-D cannot be empirically proven/disproven, logical validity will do nothing to fix the issue.



But Dawkins et al also base their views on the ultimately provisional findings of science in order to rule out the existence of anything like G-d and...

There's no point arguing to a hypothesis of the future...

There is no problem- he is defending his position without using faith arguments or such like. If you believe that the universe itself is the causeless cause then that's fine- defend your assertion.

Except that's not really the concept of G-d, is it? Nice strawman. Now, from a scientific point of view, why is abiogenesis plausible? There is no evidence for it, it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory nor can it be observed.... ooops---- it seems like people are filling the gaps here.... ;)

The apple genome contains more genes than the human genome- about 30,000. I don't buy the simple to complicated argument anyway. I think the most "complex" or "longest" genome is actually that of a bacteria, a so-called simple life form.

Organic molecules =/= life. A "vastly more likely explanation"- is not scientific proof, again, sounds like science is filling the gaps here. ;)


This is where the disconnect happens. Scientists, for the most part, are not positing abiogenesis as the cause of life on Earth. They are saying "we don't know how life started, but a likely candidate is abiogenesis."

[ComradeMan]

If G-D cannot be empirically proven/disproven, logical validity will do nothing to fix the issue.

Language acquisition devices cannot be proven in concrete terms, but through logic and deduction we arrive at the theory so to speak.


This is where the disconnect happens. Scientists, for the most part, are not positing abiogenesis as the cause of life on Earth. They are saying "we don't know how life started, but a likely candidate is abiogenesis."

But abiogenesis is in much of a sense "invented" and used to fill a gap so to speak.

Remember WLC is not a creationist either, he accepts science, evolution and so on.

But this in the end takes us back to the argument of evidence versus non-evidence. Now, I'd like to ask the materialists who, justifiably from a materialist point of view, demand evidence for G-d and state, like I believe Dawkins does, that there is no evidence and hence their disbelief/non-belief. This implies that if there were evidence for G-d then they would not be atheistic.

Okay, if I want evidence of dinosaurs, I find fossil bones. If I want evidence of an ancient civilisation I look for artifacts and human-made structures etc.... So, what would the materialists require for evidence of G-d?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seeing as G-d can neither be proven or disproven the arguments require logical reasoning.

With regards to the origin of the universe, logic isn't good enough by itself. Evidence is necessary.


But Dawkins et al also base their views on the ultimately provisional findings of science in order to rule out the existence of anything like G-d and...

Dawkins doesn't "rule out" god any more than scientists studying Mars rule out a giant spider living in the centre of the planet. Based on what we can empirically establish about spiders and the geology and conditions of Mars, the Martian Spider Hypothesis is not one that can be seriously considered without some extraordinary evidence in it's favour. Similarly, the hypthesis that the universe was created by a personal god should be put aside, as a practical matter if nothing else - a personal creator that doesn't intervene after the Big Bang might as well not exist.


There is no problem- he is defending his position without using faith arguments or such like. If you believe that the universe itself is the causeless cause then that's fine- defend your assertion.

The universe came before mind.


Except that's not really the concept of G-d, is it? Nice strawman. Now, from a scientific point of view, why is abiogenesis plausible? There is no evidence for it, it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory nor can it be observed.... ooops---- it seems like people are filling the gaps here.... ;)

Abiogenesis is a plausible hypothesis because the building blocks for life are everywhere in the universe, and a successful chemical replicator (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/chemical_replicators.php) (an essential precursor to life as we know it) only had to arise once in a universe that is, at the very least, billions of years old and billions of light-years in extent. Rolling a thousand dice and having them all turn up sixes is amazing luck if you do it once, but less impressive if you were to roll those dice for billions of years.


The apple genome contains more genes than the human genome- about 30,000. I don't buy the simple to complicated argument anyway. I think the most "complex" or "longest" genome is actually that of a bacteria, a so-called simple life form.

Apples, humans and living bacteria are modern organisms, and are the product of millions of years of natural selection, which is not the same thing as abiogenesis.


Organic molecules =/= life. A "vastly more likely explanation"- is not scientific proof, again, sounds like science is filling the gaps here. ;)

It's a reasonable hypothesis considering what we currently know. Of course, it could turn out to be wrong, but there is no reason in that case the answer will be "goddidit".


Define the terms you are using, or continue to act like an anti-intellectual ignorant and condescending shitass.

Here's an idea for you, shitsmear - assume I'm using the common definitions for words unless I indicate otherwise. Drop the fucking asinine word-games already.


:laugh: That's your brain. You may as well say that you have discovered "love" because you can "see" a human heart.

Love is an emotional thing, and emotions are driven largely by the brain, not the heart. People with pacemakers are perfectly capable of love. People without brains aren't. In fact, people without brains are not usually considered people at all, because everything that makes them a person resides in the brain.


What indications? Is that scientific? Is it concrete proof?

Physical manipulation of the brain, for example through drugs or surgery, has an observable effect on mental states. This is repeatable and consistent with the idea of the brain as the seat of consciousness. Where else could it be?

[ComradeMan]

With regards to the origin of the universe, logic isn't good enough by itself. Evidence is necessary.

Logic derives from our experience of the physical universe and the mathematical laws that function within it.


Dawkins doesn't "rule out" god any more than scientists studying Mars rule out a giant spider living in the centre of the planet. Based on what we can empirically establish about spiders and the geology and conditions of Mars, the Martian Spider Hypothesis is not one that can be seriously considered without some extraordinary evidence in it's favour. Similarly, the hypthesis that the universe was created by a personal god should be put aside, as a practical matter if nothing else - a personal creator that doesn't intervene after the Big Bang might as well not exist.

Completely irrelevant arguments, ignoring the fact that Dawkins' being an atheist pretty much de facto defines his position on G-d. The second part of your ridiculous analogy is that there is nothing in the laws of physics that can definitely rule out a conception of G-d unlike your silly Martian spiders.


The universe came before mind.

Does that prove that the universe is the causeless cause? :laugh:


Abiogenesis is a plausible hypothesis because the building blocks for life are everywhere in the universe, and a successful chemical replicator (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/chemical_replicators.php) (an essential precursor to life as we know it) only had to arise once in a universe that is, at the very least, billions of years old and billions of light-years in extent. Rolling a thousand dice and having them all turn up sixes is amazing luck if you do it once, but less impressive if you were to roll those dice for billions of years.

A plausible hypothesis is means it is not scientific fact.


Apples, humans and living bacteria are modern organisms, and are the product of millions of years of natural selection, which is not the same thing as abiogenesis.

I didn't say they were. I am talking about your argument for simplicity and complexity which you repeatedly fail to define. An apple is technically more complex than you are.


It's a reasonable hypothesis considering what we currently know. Of course, it could turn out to be wrong, but there is no reason in that case the answer will be "goddidit".

And a religious person could equally, and validly, argue that a divine force was also just as reasonable hypothesis until such times as we have other evidence.


Here's an idea for you, shitsmear - assume I'm using the common definitions for words unless I indicate otherwise. Drop the fucking asinine word-games already.

Oh, poor little diddums, feeling butthurt because he can't actually hold a debate and just reverts to throwing insults around.


Love is an emotional thing, and emotions are driven largely by the brain, not the heart. People with pacemakers are perfectly capable of love. People without brains aren't. In fact, people without brains are not usually considered people at all, because everything that makes them a person resides in the brain.

What is love?


Physical manipulation of the brain, for example through drugs or surgery, has an observable effect on mental states. This is repeatable and consistent with the idea of the brain as the seat of consciousness. Where else could it be?

Is consciousness the same as the mind? A TV doesn't work properly without an aerial but the programmes we see aren't in the aerial. ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Logic derives from our experience of the physical universe and the mathematical laws that function within it.

The reason we're aware of the Big Bang at all is thanks to empirical investigation. Clearly, elucidating the mysteries of the universe requires more than logic.


Completely irrelevant arguments, ignoring the fact that Dawkins' being an atheist pretty much de facto defines his position on G-d.

The atheism of Dawkins and myself is based on a lack of evidence for deities.


The second part of your ridiculous analogy is that there is nothing in the laws of physics that can definitely rule out a conception of G-d unlike your silly Martian spiders.

That's because god is supposed to be omnipotent and thus free to break the laws of physics as he wills, in spite of there not being evidence for any violation of say, conservation of energy.


Does that prove that the universe is the causeless cause? :laugh:

It's a strong indicator that whatever created the universe, if it was indeed created, had to be something mindless.


A plausible hypothesis is means it is not scientific fact.

True, but there are degrees of plausibility, and the abiogenesis hypothesis makes frequent reference to phenomena for which we do have significant evidence.


I didn't say they were. I am talking about your argument for simplicity and complexity which you repeatedly fail to define. An apple is technically more complex than you are.

Only genetically. For a start, there is a far greater range of tissues and cell types present in the human body compared to an apple. For another, there is a greater amount and range of biochemical process ongoing within a human being.


And a religious person could equally, and validly, argue that a divine force was also just as reasonable hypothesis until such times as we have other evidence.

Except for the whole lack of evidence for the divine thing, yeah. :rolleyes:


Oh, poor little diddums, feeling butthurt because he can't actually hold a debate and just reverts to throwing insults around.

Poor little troll, still thinking that asking asinine questions is a valid debating tactic.


What is love?

You're on the internet, for fuck's sake, you don't need to ask me that question except to make some cheap rhetorical stunt.


Is consciousness the same as the mind? A TV doesn't work properly without an aerial but the programmes we see aren't in the aerial. ;)

So where's the transmitter? What's the mechanism for this transmission?

[Revolution starts with U]

Language acquisition devices cannot be proven in concrete terms, but through logic and deduction we arrive at the theory so to speak.

So G-D is like Geometry, only meaningful within its own parameters, having no objective basis in the real world? Ya, that's what we've been saying this whole time :rolleyes:




But abiogenesis is in much of a sense "invented" and used to fill a gap so to speak.

1) Abiogenesis is not posited as "the only solution." G-D is.
2) Abiogenesis is based off known physical processes. G-D isn't.


Remember WLC is not a creationist either, he accepts science, evolution and so on.

He accepts them for the sake of argument, and admits as much in the debate.


But this in the end takes us back to the argument of evidence versus non-evidence. Now, I'd like to ask the materialists who, justifiably from a materialist point of view, demand evidence for G-d and state, like I believe Dawkins does, that there is no evidence and hence their disbelief/non-belief. This implies that if there were evidence for G-d then they would not be atheistic.

Probably. If there were evidence of G-D, I would become a theist/deist, because I follow where the evidence leads. If there were evidence that G-D were the G-D of the old testament, I would become either a gnostic or a Luciferian.


Okay, if I want evidence of dinosaurs, I find fossil bones. If I want evidence of an ancient civilisation I look for artifacts and human-made structures etc.... So, what would the materialists require for evidence of G-d?
It's a good question. What is G-d that would BE evidence for it? Even miracles would not, by themselves, proof of G-D. And what G-D are we talking about? Krishna, YHWH, Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Someone needs to define G-D first, before we can find evidence of it. That is, seemingly, impossible to do; hence why I am a theological non-cognitivist :thumbup1:

[Revolution starts with U]

Completely irrelevant arguments, ignoring the fact that Dawkins' being an atheist pretty much de facto defines his position on G-d. The second part of your ridiculous analogy is that there is nothing in the laws of physics that can definitely rule out a conception of G-d unlike your silly Martian spiders.


Hence why the term is silly, meaningless, and unnecessary.



And a religious person could equally, and validly, argue that a divine force was also just as reasonable hypothesis until such times as we have other evidence.

What is a "divine force" physically? You might as well have said "a raggle person could equally and validly argue that a fishlapanka force was also just as reasonable."



What is love?

Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. No more :wub:



Is consciousness the same as the mind? A TV doesn't work properly without an aerial but the programmes we see aren't in the aerial. ;)
So first mind was different from brain... and now consciousness is seperate from mind? Talk about moving the goal posts. You're making it really hard to kick field goals this way :lol:

[ComradeMan]

...

Look, I am not arguing WLC's case... I just think it's unfair to criticise him for arguing from his position....

My position is existential in that it's down to faith at the end of the day and that's not empirical argument as such...


.
Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. No more :wub:
Who-oh-who-oh-who-oh-ooh-aaah-oh! You're so 90s!!! :thumbup1: As soon as I wrote that the song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_U6mWu1XQA)came to mind...:lol:
---
However I do think it's a valid question to ask: if evidence is demanded for G-d, then what evidence is deemed permissable?

[Revolution starts with U]

Like I said, someone has to define G-D first, before we can talk about what evidence would be evidence for G-D's existence.

... and dude... The 90s were All That :lol:

[ComradeMan]

... and dude... The 90s were All That :lol:

I agree. ;)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qriH-8yeqcE)

[ComradeMan]

Like I said, someone has to define G-D first, before we can talk about what evidence would be evidence for G-D's existence.

And seeing as no one can do that as no one can agree on G-d and even religions say that no one can know the mind of G-d.... well, then G-d has the last laugh and we're all schmucks. :crying:

..or it comes down to a faith argument.

[Revolution starts with U]

And seeing as no one can do that as no one can agree on G-d and even religions say that no one can know the mind of G-d.... well, then G-d has the last laugh and we're all schmucks. :crying:

..or it comes down to a faith argument.

Or that G-D IS the last laugh of a troll with no arguments ;) (Im jk, I don't really think all religious people are trolls :lol:)

Or it comes down to faith. And if G-D requires faith, rather than good works, for salvation, he's a douchebag narcicist and can bugger off for all I care :thumbup:

[ComradeMan]

Or that G-D IS the last laugh of a troll with no arguments ;) (Im jk, I don't really think all religious people are trolls :lol:)

Or it comes down to faith. And if G-D requires faith, rather than good works, for salvation, he's a douchebag narcicist and can bugger off for all I care :thumbup:

I don't think you follow what I mean by faith... I'm not talking about the Christian faith through salvation, but more the existential argument of religion's being a matter of faith and that trying to prove/disprove G-d is a waste of time, more or less like Kierkegaard puts it.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think you follow what I mean by faith... I'm not talking about the Christian faith through salvation, but more the existential argument of religion's being a matter of faith and that trying to prove/disprove G-d is a waste of time, more or less like Kierkegaard puts it.

I thought I had made it clear in all my time here that I find faith meaningless and irrelevant. I was just further ellucidating the prevailing christian doctrine of salvation through faith.

[ComradeMan]

I thought I had made it clear in all my time here that I find faith meaningless and irrelevant. I was just further ellucidating the prevailing christian doctrine of salvation through faith.

Existentially speaking that's up to you, however your existential reality is only yours... not that of others.

[Judicator]

Best quote from the debate @ 1:26 "That would be sorcery, though, would'nt it?"

General Points:
Debate style - WLC really has narrowed this down to more of a sales pitch. If you look at a few of his other debates he makes almost exactly the same points. CH seems to more speak ex-temp, although it can appear somewhat disorganized at times...he kind of meanders from point to point. At times I think this makes CH look rhetorically weak.

WLC doesn't believe in evolution. This is intellectual dishonesty #1 IMO. If you can't accept a major component of modern science in on field (biology) without *estraordinary evidence*, I don't see why you have any right to marshall evidence for any of your claims from other fields in science (physics).

On WLC's specific arguments:
Cosmology: The universe (apparently) could have appear to have a beginning, but not really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_initial_state

Also, I think Dennett makes a really good point here: we know NOTHING about supernatural causality, so the extension of our knowledge of natural causality to other realms is a bad analogy at best and more likely a nonsequitur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4&feature=related

Teleology: This claim seems to suffer from MASSIVE selection bias. Namely, in observing universes, we observe only those that are habitable to us, so of course the probability of us observing a finely tuned one is 100%....it's not probable that we would observe anything else, because we can't! Also, I'd go back to point #1 about supernatural causality. We know jack shit about supernatural causality, so how can we use it as a premise in an argument?

Morality: Lots and lots of other options here! No need for theism. Plus, if morality comes from the Bible, the interpretation of the Bible is subjective!

Jesus' resurrection: Lol WTF? No modern miracle has withstood scientific scrutiny, so why would we believe it did in the past? Also, he doesn't specify any basic reasons why the scholars think Jesus was resurrected, he confuses written records of what someone saw with what was actually seen. And finally, as CH explains, willingness to die for something (i.e. strong belief) is not in any way evidence for its veracity. Apparently the oldest manuscripts of Mark make no mention of any resurrection at all!

"Properly basic belief in God"
- this assumes some sort of epistemic foundationalism. I'm don't think that this is the majority position in the epistemology literature, so unless WLC is ready to prove foundationalism, this argument is dubious.
- "properly basic" beliefs usually don't encounter this much skepticism. Even skeptics towards the external world recognize the immediate plausibility of a real external world. This is not the case for atheists and God.

CH's response: I appreciate his frustration with the "God works in mysterious ways" response to his accusations that God is capricious and wasteful in his creation of the universe. If you can say "god works in mysterious ways" in response to absolutely any challenge, the claim ceases to explain anything (it's unfalsifiable).