GY,

Dawkins and other physicists freely admit that there are areas where present theories break down. They, however, don't say that it is thus impossible and need to fill the gap with a supernatural being.

Much of what Craig postulates also conflicts with present theoretical physics, and instead of modifying his "proofs" he continues with his pseudo science simply because it appeals to those without science degrees.

As Craig has yet to put forward anything that has any scientific merit whatsoever, giving him a platform with Dawkins would not further scientific debate, only give him some scientific credibility, which presently he lacks, and allow him to muddy the separation between science and emotion.

Perhaps Dawkins explains it best:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220448

Arjay, but that is exactly the point. Christianity provides businessmen with a moral compass. Jesus threw money changers/international banksters out of the temple.

the bible contains many references to men working at their trade/business in an ethical manner & caring for any poor in the community from profits, paying reasonable wages to staff &/or not charging "usury" interest rates.

Professional Atheists are in fact usually communazi international socialists destroying religion, society & the family so that they can "walk through the destruction, creators" Marx.

You cannot train "revolutionaries" to robotically follow the plan if they have a christian conscience &/or moral code that forbids committing EVIL acts for the glorious revolution.

God is dead, all hale the "dear leader".

I suspect Dawkins is genuinely afraid to debate Craig and the creationism argument is merely a distractor. As we all know, Creationism
is only a belief of a sub group of fundamentalist Christians. Dawkins need not discuus the topic of creationism with Craig and still debate the existence of God.

Extraordinary the amount of attention given to propositions that are quite obviously beyond proof!

I like what Buckminster Fuller has to say: “I am o’erwhelmed by the only experientially discovered evidence of an a priori eternal, omnicomprehensive, infinitely and exquisitely concerned, intellectual integrity that we may call God, though knowing that in whatever way we humans refer to this integrity, it will always be an inadequate expression of its cosmic omniscience and omnipotence.”

This obviously implies that believing is seeing, among other things. It also expresses his conviction that there is an order to the universe, which can be discovered but never described or proven. Or disproven.

Formersnag you write

'Professional Atheists are in fact usually communazi international socialists destroying religion, society & the family so that they can "walk through the destruction, creators" Marx.'

Don't forget they have indeed set up their own faith system through pseudo science. They are just to dishonest to admit to it.

Atman,

None of what Craig espouses has a foundation in science, and Craig himself has no grasp of the issues.

The existence of God is a matter of belief for which no one has yet found one iota of proof. Debate in this context with someone who has no belief is at best futile.