Martin Ibn Warriq,

Okay, so what were the highlights for you in the discussion? How do you think Craig demonstrated the moral superiority of theology?

As for Kagan, was it a “lack of fluency in theology” on his behalf, or did he simply realise that those philosophical debates are irrelevant? Because whether or not “divorce from God” leads to irrelevancy is very much the argument Craig failed to support in the video and I can’t think of what you could possibly mean by godlessness leading to incoherence.

Unless, by “incoherence”, you’re referring to the fact that secular morality actually requires one to think, whereas religious morality is for the lazy and thoughtless who need to be told what to do. Although I could see how secular morality would look like “incoherence” to those who would be fooled into thinking that something is right or wrong simply because of an edict attributed to another being.

But while those of us, who would prefer to think, are trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together, we don't need theists spilling their coffee all over the table as they try to force pieces together.

Especially since they seem to have brought pieces from some other puzzle.

Graham,

You’re dodging and weaving all over the place here. You tried to accuse an astronomer of having a weak grasp of physics and now that that’s fallen through, you pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about and suggest that I don’t either.

Nice try, but you know perfectly well what we’re on about here.

So again:

-In what way do you think the author of the video’s grasp of physics is tenuous?
-In what way were they “running the deception”?
-And if you don’t think Craig was being dishonest, then how do you explain the fact that a PhD in philosophy conveniently confuses the concept of “I” when it suits him?

<<…why don't you take up the arguments that are in them and tell us what Craig says, and why he is wrong…>>

You mean, like I’ve done many times before on OLO?

Continued…

…Continued

Why? The video already demonstrated why Craig was wrong with the fallacy of equivocation. Is it because it’s harder to do within the word limits, thus making it easier for those who disagree with me to draw this out and obfuscate?

Well okay, sure, one more time won’t hurt. Let’s deal with his favourite, shall we? The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Firstly, the premise was shown to be flawed in the video that allegedly neither of us understand. But aside from the point made there, the premise of the argument assumes that reality can be divided into two sets: things that begin to exist and things that don’t. As if this wasn’t bad enough, it also gives the argument circularity since the things that don’t begin to exist must be pluralised, otherwise this thing that doesn’t begin to exist is just another term for “God” and then we’re just “Begging the Question”.

Speaking of pluralising, the argument never addresses why there is only one cause.

The argument is riddled with other fallacies too such as special pleading, the fallacy of composition and even a false dichotomy thrown in for good measure.

Would you like me to continue or expand on anything? I could if you’d like. Or perhaps we could cover the Ontological Argument? The Transcendental argument maybe..?

<<…if Dawkins wants to take on Christianity, as he says he does, then he should take them on, rather than concentrating on theological arguments that he invents.>>

Why would Dawkins need to - or even bother to - take them on when they’ve already been discredited many times over? You’re speaking as though Craig’s arguments are yet to be refuted.

Besides which, Dawkins does not attack strawmen or invent theological arguments, as theists like to pretend. He is talking about every version of god - from the unknowable transcendental god who is indistinguishable from nothing, to the bearded old man in the sky that creationists worship. Most of his arguments are broad enough to include them all - even the non-God of those Christians who don’t believe in one at all.

Problem is, Trav...

>>...he doesn't give the best evidence and arguments for God a fair shake in his book.<<

...there are many, many arguments "for God". They are "legion", to use the cliché.

But there is no actual evidence.

Surely, if there were any "best evidence", it would first be accepted, and welcomed, by theists.

But as we all know, these arguments are fiercest - not between the religious and the atheist - but between different categories of theist, each of which imagines their own God to be different from, and by definition superior to, other Gods.

If there were any evidence, it would be a simple matter to test it, in normal, well-understood conditions. It doesn't happen, because the entire structure of religion rests on the concept of "belief".

With belief, everything makes perfect sense. God made the world, somewhere between 14 billion years ago and Sunday, October 23, 4004BC. He either made all the animals at the same time, or they evolved - with his help - from the primaeval swamps. Jesus will either return (sometime soon?) in a flash of lightning, or he already arrived back in 1914, and will be with us until Armageddon, or - take your pick of any number of scenarios.

Don't get me wrong. I am very happy to accept that some people need to be religious. But to me, all those competing theories of "how God?", "when God?", and "where God?" - let alone "why God?" - militate against the possibility that any single one of them holds the answer. Given they are all promoting the same fundamental product, this would indicate - to me, at any rate - that there is in fact no product to sell.

Graham,

Since, as I was typing up my last response, you so vindictively insinuated that I employed the Gish Gallop tactic - when the video I linked to only contained several points and one main point (with the other links only being “out of interest” postings) - with the unfounded assertion that I wasn’t able to summarise the such a basic presentation, I’ll explain the video for you:

The KCA begins by invoking the fallacy of equivocation with the premise, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Presumably, this means everything we see around us, but while we know that most things (such as that which we craft, celestial bodies, ect.) have a cause, the argument is more directed at creation ex nihilo - the creation of the “materials” or “star stuff” as Sagan would say.

Thus the YouTuber I linked to challenged the proponents of the KCA to point out something that has been shown to be anything other than a re-arrangement of pre-existing parts. Craig misrepresents the challenge by claiming that they had said that “nothing begins to exist”.

He then confuses creation ex nihilo and the concept of a conscious individual coming into existence by responding to the challenge with, “Did I always exist?” - a mistake so basic that the probability of a PhD in philosophy making it would be low enough to render it a blatant attempt to deceive.

So there you have it. Are you gracious enough to take any of your accusations back?

Honestly though Graham, I realise the more sophisticated theists can become nasty when presented with opposing arguments they find confronting and are unable argue against, but as the founder and moderator of OLO I would have expected more. Usually I enjoy my clashes on OLO but this has just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Formersnag
":CULT #4, ANTIcommunazi, international ANTIsocialism, materialism, nietzsche, dialectical materialism, atheism (NO morals to get in the way of the glorious revolution), & hey presto the usual suspects are joint members of all the other CULTS, EG trotsky was a zionist friend of the rothschild/6redsigns family who got the early USSR into crippling debt for the sheeple/slaves to pay off, that is the REAL reason why stalin PURGED him."

Is there an argument in there somewhere? Because I can't actually see one.
You need to make your points clearer.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220603

Aristocrat, to be honest with you i could have worded the last bit better but was running into the 350 words limit & time for an appointment.

However you could also try viewing it in context with the rest & also earlier comments. i will try repeating myself again.

A REAL atheist would not waste their time like Dawkins or yourself arguing the case against god, or proseletising atheism as a new religion, but would simply ignore christianity for example & be lawn mowing or shopping on sunday morning when christians are in church because christianity is not hurting anybody.

Almost ALL professional atheists are in fact promoting atheism/left wing politics as a new religion, "god is dead, all hail the dear leader, communazi international socialist party, revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc".

Everything they say is deliberate premeditated lies from the beginning. Communism=ANTIcommunity, socialism=ANTIsocial, Nazism=left wing politics NOT right wing politics, atheism = nature = environmentalism = loony left = gaia = new religion which is devoid of moral principles so that DE humanised robot revolutionaries can rape, kill people, kill industries, kill jobs, create poverty, manufacture mental illness, torture children for the revolution without a conscience.