You can't present an argument that something "doesn't exist", when in fact it's never been proven to exist.
...
Again, you can't disprove something that is a negative to begin with. It's like trying to disprove that a virus killed someone, when there's no evidence of a virus, no body to examine, just a claim by someone. It's not the burden of the skeptic going "So where's the body for me to examine?" to disprove that the claim is untrue, it's on the claimant to provide the evidence. Otherwise, the claim will likely be dismissed.
Your claim is false. Craig has erected a positive case for belief in theism which means that Hitchens bears the burden of having to refute Craig's arguments if he wants to claim Craig's conclusion isn't true.
In the absence of Hitchens doing that, or erecting his own case for materialism that would be superior, we are forced to conclude that theism is a better and more likely explanation for reality than atheism.
lieve God exists.
As far as Craig's "arguments", it was the Cosmological argument,
Your claim is false.
Craig had three arguments for general Abrahamic theism and two arguments for Christianity specifically.
1. The cosmological argument.
2. The teleological.argument.
3. The moral argument.
4. Evidence for the historical reliability of the New Testament.
5. Personal experience - proper basic belief.
which is basically "The universe had a beginning, it's complex, it can't have been natural, therefore god".
You show that you either don't understand the cosmological argument at all or you are committing a gross strawman fallacy.
The fact that you throw in the phrase "it's complex" also suggests you are confusing the cosmological and teleological argument as the same.
The cosmological argument is based on proving the following premises and conclusions:
1. That the universe had a beginning.
2. That the universe needs a cause.
3. That the cause can only be uncaused and timeless if we are to avoid an impossible infinite regress.
4. That past eternal universes are logically impossible.
5. That it is logically impossible for materialism to provide an uncaused and timeless cause for the universe.
What you also probably don't understand is that the cosmological argument is not meant by itself to prove God exists.
The cosmological argument is only meant to establish that there was a cause to the universe that had to be both uncaused and timeless and why materialism cannot possibly provide an answer for such a thing.
It is the teleological and moral arguments which establish for us that this uncaused and timeless cause must be a personal being with a mind.
It's not actually a logical argument at all, it's the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Your claim is false.
Craig's argument is a form called "Inference to the best explanation".
It is a method of scientific explanation that is used in any field of science that cannot directly observe things so we must make an inference to the best explanation of what could have caused what we are seeing by appealing to how we currently know things work.
Craig gives positive reasons to shows how a personal being with a mind is a better way of explaining what we see in reality and gives specific reasons why materialism cannot explain what we see.
His conclusion is therefore proven correct that basically says "theism is a better way to explain reality than atheism, based on what we currently know about reality".
Hitchens did address this though by saying that science points to a natural origin
...
You might want to actually listen to his arguments in the future and be more honest about your critique, because he did directly counter Craigs arguments.
You can't point to a single argument hitchens made that refuted the validity of Craig's first three arguments which establish theism is more likely true than atheism.
Hitchens did not even try to argue against points 1 and 2 as far as I recall.
Vague statements like "science points to a natural origin" don't prove anything about any particular point Craig made.
You are committing the fallacy of assertion by merely asserting that hitchens disproved Craig's arguments without being able to give a single example of such a thing supposedly happening.
and that every time science makes a discovery, religion either denies it outright, or absorbs it into the dogma.
Your statement is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Whether or not religions have ever changed what they believe based on science doesn't prove any of Craig's first three arguments are logically invalid or factually untrue.
Those three arguments demonstrate that theism explains what we see but materialism can't.
He said with the cosmological argument specifically, that it wasn't falsifiable. That is true.
Your statement doesn't even make sense. It seems you don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and a deductive logical argument.
falsifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
Deductive reasoning, or deductive logic, is a type of argument used in both academia and everyday life. Also known as deduction, the process involves following one or more factual statements (i.e. premises) through to their logical conclusion. In a deductive argument, if all the premises are true, and the terms correctly applied, then it holds that the conclusion will also be true.
Cosmological argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument from the impossibility of an actual infinite
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exit.
2.2 Argument from the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
A deductive logical argument doesn't have to be "falsifiable" to be valid.
If the premises are true then the conclusion is true.
The only question is are the premises true?
Craig showed why they are. Hitchens didn't try to dispute it.
He did spend quite a bit of time slandering what the bible says about "god's character", because it is important to point to the idea that we are a special creation of this god. The idea being that the entirety of creation was created with us in mind, which is not a humble concept.
Your statement is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Your opinion about the humbleness of the Biblical narrative has no bearing on doing anything to disprove the validity of Craig's arguments for theism.
Also speaking to the mentality of believers to look past all of the bad and just look upon the world with rose colored glasses.
Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion again.
Whether or not you think believers look at anything with rose colored glasses doesn't do anything to disprove the validity of Craig's arguments for theism.
There's nothing "angry" about Hitch. This is a common misrepresentation by christians that is dishonest. Any and all critiques of the bible, or the "character of god", even if biblically accurate, are dismissed and the atheist is called "angry". We can't be angry at something that we do not believe in, that doesn't make any sense and calling out the "character of god" as evil, or bad, isn't anger, it's a critique that is either valid or invalid. If it is invalid, then it should be easy to attach the argument and not the person. It's ironic that you call him out for an ad hominem...then commit it yourself.
If you don't see the disgust, resentment, and bitterness in Hitchens voice and demeaner when talking about God in the Bible then I can't help you see it.
That's a lot of emotion over a being you claim to not believe in.
I have never seen anyone get emotional like that when talking about how bad the greek/roman gods, or the mayan gods, etc.
You probably haven't either.
They talk about them as though they are fiction. They are dispassionate by default.
