Graham Y,

http://www.youtube.com/profile?src_vid=o9DLcTfYBcQ&feature=iv&user=Th1sWasATriumph&annotation_id=annotation_268360#p/c/0/veB1uUOv6Vg

Craig is a snake oil salesman. His "proofs" of god's existence are based selectively excised quotes from various physicists and pseudo science packaged for the layman that on the face of it sounds plausible to the 90% of the population without a mathematics or science background who can tell that what he says is pure bullsh1t.

Just one example is his notion that before the big bang, there was nothing, and something cannot come from nothing, thus there is a super being, is flawed in so many ways:
1- General relativity shows that time is not a constant, space and time are linked, and that approaching singularities that it time is so distorted that entirely possible for eternity to be experienced in an instant.
2- Using GR as above, there is no time without space, and that there is not necessarily any before. A concept that most struggle with.
3- Quantum mechanics indicates that it is entirely possible for matter / energy to spring from nothing, with a balance of negative energy particles.
3- Hawkins postulated in "a brief history of time" that given the huge potential energy deficit of the proximity of matter in the universe, that the sum of all the mass/energy of the universe could well be zero. Thus nothing springs from nothing.

Craig is probably well aware of this, but gets more mileage and "donations" by saying what people want to hear. Giving him a platform with Dawkins would be giving him the recognition that he does not deserve.

I could go on but there is a word limit.

With all due respect SM, that is not "snake oil" but one of the fundamental mysteries of life.

I don't accept your analysis of relativity theory. A singularity bounds our understanding of reality because the equations break down at that spot. To say that because at the moment of a singularity time would seem eternal is not the same thing as saying that a singularity can just pop out of nothing.

I think you are using the word "nothing" in a different way to what Craig would be because in your definition fundamental laws of physics appear to be "nothing", and I think Craig would call them "something". Because it is fundamental laws of physics that allow matter and energy to appear where none previously existed.

His proof of a first cause is something that I think Thomas Aquinas thought of first. I don't find it particularly convincing, but I don't have an explanation for how the universe came into being either. It seems equally implausible that things have always been without beginning as to say there must have been a beginning.

Dawkins deals with the prime cause argument in his book, so surely he can deal with it in a debate. I think his argument is it is "turtles all the way down" to borrow a probably apocryphal phrase from someone else, but Craig and Aquinas argue that the turtles must be standing on something.

The god fanatical monotheists believe in is the same god the atheists don't believe in. Flip sides of the same coin. No engagement with intelligent debate on either side. The atheists conference will be an exercise in shooting fish in a barrel. Will they have a mosh pit?
Another thought: It seems to me that the fundamentalists are really afraid that the god they worship isn't real, while the atheists are afraid that he is.

Shadow Minister and GrahamY,

Finally a debate worth having. Hawkins postulates a theory that is the best description that fits our observations. As we discover more and more about the universe it appears that assumptions regarding our day to day earthly observations do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. This is why theories such as Hawkins' are hard to understand. Try and describe the quantum world in macro terms to someone with no physics knowledge.

In contrast, theists describe theories that explain both day to day observations as well as theories such as the beginning of the universe in terms that make sense on the simple macro level. i.e. if there is a god, then the explanation for everything is very simple - god did it.

So who would win the debate about the beginning of the universe, in front of a general audience- Hawkins or a theist? I believe the theist would as Hawkins argument doesn't make sense to many except those trained in physics. While Hawkins theory may change over time to fit mathematical and physical measurements of the universe, the theists' theory makes sense to more people as his arguments have been adapted over time to ensure that people believe it. If they do not, then it can change until it makes sense to the believers. This is why while scientists may be wrong, theists are not even wrong. For these reasons Dawkins does not have to debate any theists.

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Isaac Asimov

Squeers
"In other words, how or why is it that we should put our faith in the evidence of our crude and compromised physical senses, which is vetted by the same "mind" that also conceives "independently" of sensual input, and yet dismiss that mind's intangible convictions out of hand as delusion?
There used to be a bias in favour of supernaturalism, and now there's a bias in favour of naturalism. Empiricism is absolutely dependent on the body/mind split. Modern science is Cartesian!"

Nietzsche is not Cartesian. While you are right that modern science reverts back to a form of Platonism by placing down maxims as if they existed independently of the mind, Nietzsche's position is that the mind is not at all separate from the body and therefore all "maxims" are complete human creations. Hence, 'truths' can better be described as something closer to "art" than science. Any "maxim" laid down will be a manifestation of the prejudices, psychological, physiological, biological, and cultural character of its creator.

However, science uses cause and effect relations to understand how a 'thing' works. Christianity will just say 'god' makes it work (although Christians believe in free will so that brings in a highly contradictory argument for their cause). Cause and effect relations can give us a better understanding of phenomena than a vague metaphysics can. For example, Christians will say the sting of conscience occurs because they have transgressed god's law, a scientific approach will look closer at how that idea of feeling guilty was put their in the first place. A (social) scientist will say guilt was introjected by parents, or societal mores, or teachers, or politicians, and not by god. We are not born with guilt, we are taught guilt. This is why guilt and shame changes across time and cultures, because it is subject to the whims of the Zeitgeist and not the supposed existence of a metaphysical entity.