Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate WLC

dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:14:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

We don't have to explain. The man speaks for himself:

http://www.theguardian.com...

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 4:41:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Presumably he has better things to do with his time.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 5:20:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Dawkins needs to stay out of debates on the existence of God. He's a biologist, not a philosopher.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 5:31:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Because he has his policy not to debate creationists since he believes it's a waste of time. William Lane Craig is a philosopher who says that abortion is bad, but says God's slaughter of the infants and young boys was a good thing.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 5:32:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 5:20:16 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Dawkins needs to stay out of debates on the existence of God. He's a biologist, not a philosopher.

Dawkins would like nothing better than to focus on biology. Unfortunately religionists and 'philosophers' can't seem to stop making false claims about his field of expertise. He has no choice but to refute them.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:09:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 4:14:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

We don't have to explain. The man speaks for himself:

http://www.theguardian.com...

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

So the reason Dawkins doesn't debate WLC is because WLC is not famous? Dawkins has debated a radio presenter, why not a presenter? Also why is Dawkins insulting WLC rather than disproving his arguments? It's very strange that such an atheist heavyweight doesn't even respond to such a defender of theism in an intelligent way, but rather at the level of a third-grader.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:18:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:09:05 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:14:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

We don't have to explain. The man speaks for himself:

http://www.theguardian.com...

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

So the reason Dawkins doesn't debate WLC is because WLC is not famous? Dawkins has debated a radio presenter, why not a presenter? Also why is Dawkins insulting WLC rather than disproving his arguments? It's very strange that such an atheist heavyweight doesn't even respond to such a defender of theism in an intelligent way, but rather at the level of a third-grader.

Why won't your god debate me about his atrocities?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:20:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
W.L. Craig has had a tendency in his debates to begin by stating that he's only arguing that God is possible, not that he exists. Then he dives into demonstrating that he holds little valid understanding of science concepts. It would appear he's none too confident in his ability to argue for an actual God. It's a pretty disingenuous stance for a Christian to take.

And Dawkins tends to show rather poorly in debates. I don't think it's where his abilities are best directed.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:22:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:18:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:09:05 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:14:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

We don't have to explain. The man speaks for himself:

http://www.theguardian.com...

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

So the reason Dawkins doesn't debate WLC is because WLC is not famous? Dawkins has debated a radio presenter, why not a presenter? Also why is Dawkins insulting WLC rather than disproving his arguments? It's very strange that such an atheist heavyweight doesn't even respond to such a defender of theism in an intelligent way, but rather at the level of a third-grader.

Why won't your god debate me about his atrocities?

Why do you hate a concept you don't believe in?

"AH UNICORNS, THEY MAKE ME SO ANGRY FOR NOT GIVING CANDY TO POOR KIDS, GRR!" --Bulproof
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:27:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:09:05 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:14:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

We don't have to explain. The man speaks for himself:

http://www.theguardian.com...

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

So the reason Dawkins doesn't debate WLC is because WLC is not famous? Dawkins has debated a radio presenter, why not a presenter? Also why is Dawkins insulting WLC rather than disproving his arguments? It's very strange that such an atheist heavyweight doesn't even respond to such a defender of theism in an intelligent way, but rather at the level of a third-grader.

He's entitled to debate who he wants. It's a free country. He chooses not to shake the hand or share a platform with a man who holds these views:

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). ["] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. ["] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

I don't blame him. Craig might pull a gun and shoot Dawkins. It's not a problem, he's just hastening his journey to "heaven's incomparable joy". What a d*ckhead.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:28:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
C'mon pommy answer for your god.
You think that atheists should answer for a biologist (WTF), so you answer for your god.
You espouse what you claim are your god's views, man up.

Ya see I've never read a R.Dawkins book, most of us have come to atheism from reading your book, you know the one "the bible". Unlike the brainwashed we make our own decisions and don't need or use anyone to lead us around by the nose.

Frightening ain't it?
ROFL.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:33:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:22:58 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:18:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:09:05 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/15/2014 4:14:12 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

We don't have to explain. The man speaks for himself:

http://www.theguardian.com...

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

So the reason Dawkins doesn't debate WLC is because WLC is not famous? Dawkins has debated a radio presenter, why not a presenter? Also why is Dawkins insulting WLC rather than disproving his arguments? It's very strange that such an atheist heavyweight doesn't even respond to such a defender of theism in an intelligent way, but rather at the level of a third-grader.

Why won't your god debate me about his atrocities?

Why do you hate a concept you don't believe in?

"AH UNICORNS, THEY MAKE ME SO ANGRY FOR NOT GIVING CANDY TO POOR KIDS, GRR!" --Bulproof

WLC debates and argues the same thing every time he debates. Most of his arguments have been picked apart by harris, kagan, and many other people. Dawkins doing a debate for him is literally just publicity for craig

(a) Dawkins is a biologist not a philosopher so it would be a waste of time in itself

The debate would be the same typical arguments you here every time WLC debates. Morality is objective(false_, fine tuning (false), God of the gaps, etc and so forth

IT literally would just b ea repeat of the rest of his debates he does. Why would Dawkins debate him.
InnovativeEphemera
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:49:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

He has.

https://www.youtube.com...

It seems to me that Craig lays into Dawkins every opportunity he gets because he knows he can get away with it. From memory Dawkins actually agreed to a debate (albeit a Radio debate) with Craig but Craig wasn't expecting him to accept and cancelled almost immediately. It was only supposed to last 10 minutes. I'm going through YouTube trying to find the link for you now.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 9:48:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Dawkins receives a continuous stream of invites for seminars, lectures, debates, etc., and he is forced to decline many of them simply because he can't address them all.

Craig is well know idiot. He actually defends the genocides committed by the Abrahamic god in the OT. Many Christians keep a wide berth from Craig because of that.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 5:15:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Put simply Dawkins would lose. WLC will stick with philosophical arguments completely unfamiliar to Dawkins and Dawkins wouldn't have a response to them. WLC is a very experienced debator and actually quite good at it.

Dawkins makes excuse because he would be embarrassed by WLC.

WLC is a big enough name to debate the existence of God with. No excuses are really good to duck it. I think Dawkins is very intelligent and his focus outside of science is just on common sense stuff so a philosophical debate is not something he is well suited for.

If you read any of Dawkin's books you won't really see him address the philosophical side of the coin and when he does it isn't particularly deep or great.

He'd probably do incredibly well against a creationist in a debate over evolution but one philosophically based like WLC would present, would make him look stupid.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 6:51:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 5:15:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Put simply Dawkins would lose. WLC will stick with philosophical arguments completely unfamiliar to Dawkins and Dawkins wouldn't have a response to them. WLC is a very experienced debator and actually quite good at it.

Dawkins makes excuse because he would be embarrassed by WLC.

WLC is a big enough name to debate the existence of God with. No excuses are really good to duck it. I think Dawkins is very intelligent and his focus outside of science is just on common sense stuff so a philosophical debate is not something he is well suited for.

If you read any of Dawkin's books you won't really see him address the philosophical side of the coin and when he does it isn't particularly deep or great.

He'd probably do incredibly well against a creationist in a debate over evolution but one philosophically based like WLC would present, would make him look stupid.

Im sorry, but I don't think you have watched craig debate, he brings the same tired arguments over and over again. If dawkins were to debate him it would take a mere 5 hours of research to know what 5 arguments craig may bring and a get a rebuttal to them. Craigs routine is tired and he brings nothing to the table of substance, what is he going to do bring KCA, a laughing stock even in the philosophical community or the argument from the empty tomb? Wait no he'll bring the laughable moral argument? Wait whats that he's going to bring fine tuning, oh no, no atheist has ever heard that nonsense before.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 7:03:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 6:51:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 5:15:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Put simply Dawkins would lose. WLC will stick with philosophical arguments completely unfamiliar to Dawkins and Dawkins wouldn't have a response to them. WLC is a very experienced debator and actually quite good at it.

Dawkins makes excuse because he would be embarrassed by WLC.

WLC is a big enough name to debate the existence of God with. No excuses are really good to duck it. I think Dawkins is very intelligent and his focus outside of science is just on common sense stuff so a philosophical debate is not something he is well suited for.

If you read any of Dawkin's books you won't really see him address the philosophical side of the coin and when he does it isn't particularly deep or great.

He'd probably do incredibly well against a creationist in a debate over evolution but one philosophically based like WLC would present, would make him look stupid.

Im sorry, but I don't think you have watched craig debate, he brings the same tired arguments over and over again. If dawkins were to debate him it would take a mere 5 hours of research to know what 5 arguments craig may bring and a get a rebuttal to them. Craigs routine is tired and he brings nothing to the table of substance, what is he going to do bring KCA, a laughing stock even in the philosophical community or the argument from the empty tomb? Wait no he'll bring the laughable moral argument? Wait whats that he's going to bring fine tuning, oh no, no atheist has ever heard that nonsense before.

I actually partly agree with Wylted. WLC's arguments may be rubbish but he delivers them in a polished manner as a professional speaker. He never gets flustered and he always sticks to the script. It's style over substance. He also forces you to rebut every point of his lengthy arguments leaving you almost no time for your own point-scoring. If you talk past him, as I've seen Hitchens do, he gloats over the fact that you can't refute his positions. He also makes copious notes as he goes so that he can reel off all the things you haven't addressed, thereby conceding them. This is how he wins debates. He's very good at it.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 7:52:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 6:51:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 5:15:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Put simply Dawkins would lose. WLC will stick with philosophical arguments completely unfamiliar to Dawkins and Dawkins wouldn't have a response to them. WLC is a very experienced debator and actually quite good at it.

Dawkins makes excuse because he would be embarrassed by WLC.

WLC is a big enough name to debate the existence of God with. No excuses are really good to duck it. I think Dawkins is very intelligent and his focus outside of science is just on common sense stuff so a philosophical debate is not something he is well suited for.

If you read any of Dawkin's books you won't really see him address the philosophical side of the coin and when he does it isn't particularly deep or great.

He'd probably do incredibly well against a creationist in a debate over evolution but one philosophically based like WLC would present, would make him look stupid.

Im sorry, but I don't think you have watched craig debate, he brings the same tired arguments over and over again. If dawkins were to debate him it would take a mere 5 hours of research to know what 5 arguments craig may bring and a get a rebuttal to them. Craigs routine is tired and he brings nothing to the table of substance, what is he going to do bring KCA, a laughing stock even in the philosophical community or the argument from the empty tomb? Wait no he'll bring the laughable moral argument? Wait whats that he's going to bring fine tuning, oh no, no atheist has ever heard that nonsense before.

I've watched quite a few. He does an incredible job of presenting the KCA.

Dawkins rebutting the KCA in a debate would likely end up almost as bad as you arguing against the KCA, if I presented it, and that's keeping in mind that WLC knows the argument better than me and actually believes it.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 8:22:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 7:52:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/19/2014 6:51:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 5:15:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Put simply Dawkins would lose. WLC will stick with philosophical arguments completely unfamiliar to Dawkins and Dawkins wouldn't have a response to them. WLC is a very experienced debator and actually quite good at it.

Dawkins makes excuse because he would be embarrassed by WLC.

WLC is a big enough name to debate the existence of God with. No excuses are really good to duck it. I think Dawkins is very intelligent and his focus outside of science is just on common sense stuff so a philosophical debate is not something he is well suited for.

If you read any of Dawkin's books you won't really see him address the philosophical side of the coin and when he does it isn't particularly deep or great.

He'd probably do incredibly well against a creationist in a debate over evolution but one philosophically based like WLC would present, would make him look stupid.

Im sorry, but I don't think you have watched craig debate, he brings the same tired arguments over and over again. If dawkins were to debate him it would take a mere 5 hours of research to know what 5 arguments craig may bring and a get a rebuttal to them. Craigs routine is tired and he brings nothing to the table of substance, what is he going to do bring KCA, a laughing stock even in the philosophical community or the argument from the empty tomb? Wait no he'll bring the laughable moral argument? Wait whats that he's going to bring fine tuning, oh no, no atheist has ever heard that nonsense before.

I've watched quite a few. He does an incredible job of presenting the KCA.

Dawkins rebutting the KCA in a debate would likely end up almost as bad as you arguing against the KCA, if I presented it, and that's keeping in mind that WLC knows the argument better than me and actually believes it.

He does the same things over and over again and they have all been refuted thoroughly. KCA is a logical fallacy and hence fails whether you think he presents it well or not.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 8:34:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 7:52:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/19/2014 6:51:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 5:15:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Put simply Dawkins would lose. WLC will stick with philosophical arguments completely unfamiliar to Dawkins and Dawkins wouldn't have a response to them. WLC is a very experienced debator and actually quite good at it.

Dawkins makes excuse because he would be embarrassed by WLC.

WLC is a big enough name to debate the existence of God with. No excuses are really good to duck it. I think Dawkins is very intelligent and his focus outside of science is just on common sense stuff so a philosophical debate is not something he is well suited for.

If you read any of Dawkin's books you won't really see him address the philosophical side of the coin and when he does it isn't particularly deep or great.

He'd probably do incredibly well against a creationist in a debate over evolution but one philosophically based like WLC would present, would make him look stupid.

Im sorry, but I don't think you have watched craig debate, he brings the same tired arguments over and over again. If dawkins were to debate him it would take a mere 5 hours of research to know what 5 arguments craig may bring and a get a rebuttal to them. Craigs routine is tired and he brings nothing to the table of substance, what is he going to do bring KCA, a laughing stock even in the philosophical community or the argument from the empty tomb? Wait no he'll bring the laughable moral argument? Wait whats that he's going to bring fine tuning, oh no, no atheist has ever heard that nonsense before.

I've watched quite a few. He does an incredible job of presenting the KCA.

Dawkins rebutting the KCA in a debate would likely end up almost as bad as you arguing against the KCA, if I presented it, and that's keeping in mind that WLC knows the argument better than me and actually believes it.

Oh really because here is me destroying his version of KCA

After watching yet another debate where William Lane Craig uses this argument, I figured I would take a stab at it. We are going to focus on the beginning of the argument before getting into the part about the cause needing to be both personal and timeless. So, here is the basic syllogism we are going to start with(as presented by Craig):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

In my attempt to refute this argument it is important to understand these fallacies:

The fallacy of equivocation- Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic word. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The fallacy of Composition-The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The fallacy of division-A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Now that we have clearly defined some fallacies we can begin our rebuttal of the KCA. The first thing we can point out is that, the argument may well be equivocating the universe as just another thing. A point was made by famous Christian philosopher,Alvin Plantinga, that the universe is just another thing. The universe is actually the set of all things. So, we can look at the universe this way. This rebuttal to me does not seem enough so we shall go a step further. Since now the universe is the set of all things, or all things are parts of the universe, we look at how the argument works. Premise 1, is obtained by using inductive reasoning to see that everything we observe that begins to exist has a cause. The problem here is that everything that we observe to begin to exist is a part of the universe. To then try and say that this means the universe must have a cause, is to attribute this characteristic of the parts of the universe to the parts. This by definition as we have seen is the fallacy of composition.

I have also heard other philosophers go the other direction. The universe is the matter and the energy that everything is made of, in other words the universe is just the parts that everything is made of. You then try to make argument work by making the attributes of the whole( the things made from matter and energy) to the matter and energy itself. If you look at the universe this way, by definition the argument has now committed the fallacy of division. Thinking about the argument this way can bring us to another problem.

That problem is this, everything that we have known to exist was caused by the rearranging of matter and energy. Which is a different kind of causation then to cause from ex nihilo, or from nothing. The argument equivocates the idea that causation follows the same rules for things that come from matter and energy and things that do not. These are too different categories of beginning to exist and you cannot draw conclusions about going from nothing to something, based on going from something to something different. This is fallacious thinking.

You may still be saying at this point, well something can't come from nothing, right? Well how do you know? What nothing have you ever seen? We have not ever observed nothing in the philosophical sense(not the physics sense) to draw any conclusions about what will or won't happen with nothing. That claim is not very justified. (this section I credit to an episode of the atheist experience from Tracy Harris).

So, now we have seen that the argument can't make it through the first part without being fallacious, but lets say for the sake of it that you still think that the universe has a cause. If we are drawing that conclusion from our experiences, in spite of that being fallacious, then you should come to the conclusion that the cause is non personal. Why inductive reasoning shows that the set of complex things caused by non personal causes, far outweighs the set of complex things created by personal causes. Here it is:

Set of things with no evidence of a personal cause(solar systems, planets,start, galaxies, comets, forests, plants, animals.....) > complex things made by design(man made things)

So, in conclusion we are forced to say that Kalams Cosmological argument fails to prove god on a number of different levels. The syllogism is fallacious in many ways, and even if the syllogism were sound the same type of inductive reasoning used to get us to the cause, can be used against it to say that the personal cause is unlikely.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 9:16:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 8:34:32 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 7:52:58 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/19/2014 6:51:15 AM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 5:15:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Put simply Dawkins would lose. WLC will stick with philosophical arguments completely unfamiliar to Dawkins and Dawkins wouldn't have a response to them. WLC is a very experienced debator and actually quite good at it.

Dawkins makes excuse because he would be embarrassed by WLC.

WLC is a big enough name to debate the existence of God with. No excuses are really good to duck it. I think Dawkins is very intelligent and his focus outside of science is just on common sense stuff so a philosophical debate is not something he is well suited for.

If you read any of Dawkin's books you won't really see him address the philosophical side of the coin and when he does it isn't particularly deep or great.

He'd probably do incredibly well against a creationist in a debate over evolution but one philosophically based like WLC would present, would make him look stupid.

Im sorry, but I don't think you have watched craig debate, he brings the same tired arguments over and over again. If dawkins were to debate him it would take a mere 5 hours of research to know what 5 arguments craig may bring and a get a rebuttal to them. Craigs routine is tired and he brings nothing to the table of substance, what is he going to do bring KCA, a laughing stock even in the philosophical community or the argument from the empty tomb? Wait no he'll bring the laughable moral argument? Wait whats that he's going to bring fine tuning, oh no, no atheist has ever heard that nonsense before.

I've watched quite a few. He does an incredible job of presenting the KCA.

Dawkins rebutting the KCA in a debate would likely end up almost as bad as you arguing against the KCA, if I presented it, and that's keeping in mind that WLC knows the argument better than me and actually believes it.


Oh really because here is me destroying his version of KCA


After watching yet another debate where William Lane Craig uses this argument, I figured I would take a stab at it. We are going to focus on the beginning of the argument before getting into the part about the cause needing to be both personal and timeless. So, here is the basic syllogism we are going to start with(as presented by Craig):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

In my attempt to refute this argument it is important to understand these fallacies:

The fallacy of equivocation- Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic word. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The fallacy of Composition-The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The fallacy of division-A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Now that we have clearly defined some fallacies we can begin our rebuttal of the KCA. The first thing we can point out is that, the argument may well be equivocating the universe as just another thing. A point was made by famous Christian philosopher,Alvin Plantinga, that the universe is just another thing. The universe is actually the set of all things. So, we can look at the universe this way. This rebuttal to me does not seem enough so we shall go a step further. Since now the universe is the set of all things, or all things are parts of the universe, we look at how the argument works. Premise 1, is obtained by using inductive reasoning to see that everything we observe that begins to exist has a cause. The problem here is that everything that we observe to begin to exist is a part of the universe. To then try and say that this means the universe must have a cause, is to attribute this characteristic of the parts of the universe to the parts. This by definition as we have seen is the fallacy of composition.

I have also heard other philosophers go the other direction. The universe is the matter and the energy that everything is made of, in other words the universe is just the parts that everything is made of. You then try to make argument work by making the attributes of the whole( the things made from matter and energy) to the matter and energy itself. If you look at the universe this way, by definition the argument has now committed the fallacy of division. Thinking about the argument this way can bring us to another problem.

That problem is this, everything that we have known to exist was caused by the rearranging of matter and energy. Which is a different kind of causation then to cause from ex nihilo, or from nothing. The argument equivocates the idea that causation follows the same rules for things that come from matter and energy and things that do not. These are too different categories of beginning to exist and you cannot draw conclusions about going from nothing to something, based on going from something to something different. This is fallacious thinking.

You may still be saying at this point, well something can't come from nothing, right? Well how do you know? What nothing have you ever seen? We have not ever observed nothing in the philosophical sense(not the physics sense) to draw any conclusions about what will or won't happen with nothing. That claim is not very justified. (this section I credit to an episode of the atheist experience from Tracy Harris).


So, now we have seen that the argument can't make it through the first part without being fallacious, but lets say for the sake of it that you still think that the universe has a cause. If we are drawing that conclusion from our experiences, in spite of that being fallacious, then you should come to the conclusion that the cause is non personal. Why inductive reasoning shows that the set of complex things caused by non personal causes, far outweighs the set of complex things created by personal causes. Here it is:

Set of things with no evidence of a personal cause(solar systems, planets,start, galaxies, comets, forests, plants, animals.....) > complex things made by design(man made things)


So, in conclusion we are forced to say that Kalams Cosmological argument fails to prove god on a number of different levels. The syllogism is fallacious in many ways, and even if the syllogism were sound the same type of inductive reasoning used to get us to the cause, can be used against it to say that the personal cause is unlikely.

Not bad but Dawkins as smart as he is knows nothing of philosophy and wouldn't have a rebuttal that comes close to that. I'll look at this more later When I get off work
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 9:27:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now that we have clearly defined some fallacies we can begin our rebuttal of the KCA. The first thing we can point out is that, the argument may well be equivocating the universe as just another thing. A point was made by famous Christian philosopher,Alvin Plantinga, that the universe is just another thing. The universe is actually the set of all things. So, we can look at the universe this way. This rebuttal to me does not seem enough so we shall go a step further. Since now the universe is the set of all things, or all things are parts of the universe, we look at how the argument works. Premise 1, is obtained by using inductive reasoning to see that everything we observe that begins to exist has a cause. The problem here is that everything that we observe to begin to exist is a part of the universe. To then try and say that this means the universe must have a cause, is to attribute this characteristic of the parts of the universe to the (correction: universe as a whole). This by definition as we have seen is the fallacy of composition.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:27:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:49:15 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

He has.

https://www.youtube.com...

It seems to me that Craig lays into Dawkins every opportunity he gets because he knows he can get away with it. From memory Dawkins actually agreed to a debate (albeit a Radio debate) with Craig but Craig wasn't expecting him to accept and cancelled almost immediately. It was only supposed to last 10 minutes. I'm going through YouTube trying to find the link for you now.
Unfortunately this wasn't much of a debate as it was a spectacle. The tag-team boxing ring thing I don't think allowed much for a true debate. Just a simple table with 2 chairs, 2 microphones, a couple of cameras, and 2 debaters is all that's needed.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 11:39:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 5:31:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Because he has his policy not to debate creationists since he believes it's a waste of time. William Lane Craig is a philosopher who says that abortion is bad, but says God's slaughter of the infants and young boys was a good thing.
That's not exactly true (about his policy to not debate creationists). Or, it might depend on what type of creationists.

Who Dawkins does prefer to debate are people of the cloth. He prefers to focus on religion itself, and WLC is a departure from his focus which is organized religion.
InnovativeEphemera
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 3:32:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 11:27:50 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:49:15 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

He has.

https://www.youtube.com...

It seems to me that Craig lays into Dawkins every opportunity he gets because he knows he can get away with it. From memory Dawkins actually agreed to a debate (albeit a Radio debate) with Craig but Craig wasn't expecting him to accept and cancelled almost immediately. It was only supposed to last 10 minutes. I'm going through YouTube trying to find the link for you now.
Unfortunately this wasn't much of a debate as it was a spectacle. The tag-team boxing ring thing I don't think allowed much for a true debate. Just a simple table with 2 chairs, 2 microphones, a couple of cameras, and 2 debaters is all that's needed.

Well, if that's what suits you.

Sounds like you're shifting the goalposts.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 6:42:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 5:31:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Because he has his policy not to debate creationists since he believes it's a waste of time. William Lane Craig is a philosopher who says that abortion is bad, but says God's slaughter of the infants and young boys was a good thing.

Untrue. WLC said it was not an immoral thing. He did not say it was a good thing. You have to add spin because you are aware that your argument is dodgy.

Was the slaughter of civilians (including infants and young boys (sic)) in Dresden during WWII immoral? What do you think?
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 6:49:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One of my favorite classic craig refutations of his own arguments is when he does the moral argument and then is presented with the problem of evil, where he will say "God has a morally sufficient reason to allow x,y,and z" You know all in all conceding premise 1 of his moral argument by giving God and external moral reason to appeal to. Its absolutely hysterical when you catch this happen.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 10:41:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 3:32:27 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
At 12/19/2014 11:27:50 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:49:15 AM, InnovativeEphemera wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

He has.

https://www.youtube.com...

It seems to me that Craig lays into Dawkins every opportunity he gets because he knows he can get away with it. From memory Dawkins actually agreed to a debate (albeit a Radio debate) with Craig but Craig wasn't expecting him to accept and cancelled almost immediately. It was only supposed to last 10 minutes. I'm going through YouTube trying to find the link for you now.
Unfortunately this wasn't much of a debate as it was a spectacle. The tag-team boxing ring thing I don't think allowed much for a true debate. Just a simple table with 2 chairs, 2 microphones, a couple of cameras, and 2 debaters is all that's needed.

Well, if that's what suits you.

Sounds like you're shifting the goalposts.
Although I agree with WLC over RD, the only real point I'm making is that that particular debate was not a very good format regardless of who I agree with, who is a better debater, or who is right.

I think you would have to admit, judging from most debates, that was a fairly odd format.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 11:23:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 6:42:45 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/15/2014 5:31:50 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/15/2014 2:57:57 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Atheists: please explain.

Because he has his policy not to debate creationists since he believes it's a waste of time. William Lane Craig is a philosopher who says that abortion is bad, but says God's slaughter of the infants and young boys was a good thing.

Untrue. WLC said it was not an immoral thing. He did not say it was a good thing. You have to add spin because you are aware that your argument is dodgy.

Was the slaughter of civilians (including infants and young boys (sic)) in Dresden during WWII immoral? What do you think?

HAHA
Slaughtering innocents isn't immoral it's just not a good thing.
WTF?
You people justify infanticide in order that you support your morality.
Infanticide is IMMORAL.
Do you fukin; get it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin