• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

Rise

Well-Known Member
"Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater."
How does it matter if Hitchens was over-rated or under-rated? I am an atheist but I have read absolutely nothing written by Dawkins, Hitchens or any other Western atheist (barring a small books of essays by Bertrand Russell). My atheism originates from ancient Hindu philosophy (Advaita - non-duality).

Hitchens has for a long time been lionized and idolized by many atheists as some great thinker and speaker for their cause.

I find this to be shocking considering how poorly he performs from a purely logical debate standpoint.

The idolization of hitchens is completely unwarranted on the basis of the strength of his arguments. There has to be something else that drove that idolization.

It seems to be people who don't know or understand what a good argument looks like.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
You have proven by your last post you are not arguing in good faith, by claiming to be unwilling to read counter arguments which clearly disprove your claims. This makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of males fides.

Therefore, in light of your fallacy of males fides, it is puzzling why you would try to initiate a new argument when you couldn't bring yourself to simply admit you were mistaken on the last issue.

Nonsense. You guys are the ones supporting the concepts of the actual existence of supernatural entities. The burden is not on our shoulders to prove there are no supernatural entities. The burden is on your shoulders to prove there are.

Should I expect you to disprove the Tooth Fairy? If you want to support belief in the Tooth Fairy, it is your burden to show that the Tooth Fairy actually exists.

Nevertheless, your claim is easy to refute.

Craig gave three positive arguments for why theism better explains the evidence of reality and why atheism can't explain what we see.

1. The cosmological argument.
2. The teleological argument.
3. The moral argument.

Craig's conclusion that theism better explains reality than atheism therefore remains standing unchallenged unless you can refute those arguments.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The idolization of Hitchens is completely unwarranted on the basis of the strength of his arguments. There has to be something else that drove that idolization.
Idolization of anything whatsoever, is unwarranted. That is what Buddha said in his 'Kesamutti Sutta' - Release from a hair-hold. Idolization is a hair-hold. Neither Einstein nor Planck should be idolized. Neither the founders of religions nor any religious scripture. Because in time, we will move ahead of them. All things should be scrutinized against evidence. Yes, when something is idolized, it is ignorance. Love, peace, brotherhood also fall in this category. There are times when these could be detrimental.

BTW, William Craig is regressive and out-dated. It is a waste of time to discuss what he proposed. But I can do that, I have time on my hands. You are welcome to discuss. His points (from Wikipedia):

Kalam Argument: "Universe was created." None has proved that. Bogus.
Molinism (foreknowledge): First prove existence of any God, then we will talk about foreknowledge.
Resurrection of Jesus: Fiction.
Philosophy of time: Present does not exist. It lasts less than a Planck's moment (10 raised to power −43 seconds, i.e., something less than what we can measure). There is either past or future.
Divine Eternity: First prove the existence of any God.
Divine Aseity: First prove the existence of any God.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
By being unwilling to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a counter argument in defense of your refuted claims you have conceded the debate.

You are not able to defend your claim any longer because it is plainly obvious now you misunderstood or misrepresented what I said.

You're now trying to bow out without having to admit you were wrong.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

What is it about "That topic has been hashed and rehashed . I'm done with it." that you don't understand.

The following may or may not refer to you...
I don't like having discussions with people who post inaccuracies about me and then report me when they are called out.
 
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. Craig can "erect" a case for his belief, but he has to prove that it is true. Hitchens doesn't have to disprove something that is at best...a hypothesis

1. The cosmological argument. This isn't an argument for the Abrahamic god at all, it's a general (science can't explain x), it's a logical fallacy. You can't get from a non-explanation to "therefore this specific god exists", which Hitchens covered in the debate in great detail.
2. The teleological.argument. Same as above
3. The moral argument. The fact that morality has been around before the bible and that there's perfectly good reasons and even scientific ones, not to mention good old fashion common sense, not to mention how many times christianity and even the bible itself has been on the wrong side of history, this one fails spectacularly.
4. Evidence for the historical reliability of the New Testament. Except it isn't completely reliable. It...like so many pieces of literature from that time, is a mix of real history and myth. There's no extra biblical evidence of anything with regards to Jesus's life that is contemporary. For example, lots of 1st century historians living in Palestine, Alexandria and the surrounding areas, yet not a single one mentioned the walking dead (the saints rising out of their graves "for many to see", when Jesus died). In fact, no one mentions it outside the bible.
5. Personal experience - proper basic belief. If you dismiss the "personal experiences" or testimony if Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Shiks, Mormons, etc....then why you are just giving special bias to claims that align with yours. Personal experience will never be regarded with much weight by non-believers.


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. This universe, yes.
2. That the universe needs a cause. No disagreement
3. That the cause can only be uncaused and timeless if we are to avoid an impossible infinite regress. Wrong, there are actually multiple options at this point.
4. That past eternal universes are logically impossible. Wrong, astrophysicists have several models that show this premise is untrue.
5. That it is logically impossible for materialism to provide an uncaused and timeless cause for the universe. Wrong and several astrophysicists have done exactly that. So basically you are just ignoring all of them and saying "nu uh".

What you also probably don't understand is that the cosmological argument is not meant by itself to prove God exists. Yet believers invoke it all the time as if it is actually credible. It's not. It fails, because you assume the very thing you are trying to prove, with an illogical discourse and an incorrect one.

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. Yet it doesn't establish that at all...you and other believers just insist it must be true and to hell with what Cosmologists, Astrophysicists and others actually say...because you apparently have knowledge they don't. Stop pretending.

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. Except they don't at all.

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. Except inference is based upon actual evidence. Testable, repeatable evidence. For example with evolution and the fossil record, combined with DNA, ERV's Atavisms and the like...show that that inference that life evolves is the best explanation. You have nothing of the sort with creationism as nothing Craigs says can be tested or held up to scrutiny in the same way.

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. You can explain anything with magic. That doesn't mean it's the best way of explaining things, it's just he easiest and the laziest.

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". Except it's not at all as it's not testable. You are just basically saying "It's proven correct", with zero methodology and without an understanding of why his concepts fail.



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. I already did.

Hitchens did not even try to argue against points 1 and 2 as far as I recall. Then you didn't watch the video.

Vague statements like "science points to a natural origin" don't prove anything about any particular point Craig made. Except that science does point to natural origin, that's a fact and one that you can't dispute.

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. I didn't say he disproved Craig's arguments. Again, the burden of proof is on Craig, not on Hitchens, although Hitchens did say why his arguments weren't logical. Again, you can't "disprove" something, that doesn't have a basis in reality to begin with (unproven).

A deductive logical argument doesn't have to be "falsifiable" to be valid. You've just proven why the cosmological argument isn't logical, because all the premises aren't true.

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. No, Craig just made a bunch of incorrect assertions about the state of the universe and ones in which Astrophysicists don't agree with.


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. Yes, Craig's arguments aren't valid to begin with.

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. Yes, Craig's arguments aren't valid to begin with.

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. Yes, I guess that's just you projecting onto Hitchens and seeing what you want.

That's a lot of emotion over a being you claim to not believe in. Where? Again, you are projecting. This is a common christian defense mechanism that I find laughable because it is so absurd and dishonest. "Thou shall not bear false witness" always seems to go to the wayside when you are defending the faith.

I have never seen anyone get emotional like that when talking about how bad the greek/roman gods, or the mayan gods, etc. I still don't see this rampant emotion you are talking about, but when we talk about christianity in the world, it is the #1 religion and has and continues to cause a lot of harm in the world. The Catholic church, still has doctrines that are harmful, such as the message and teachings with regards to condoms, not to mention the cover-up abuse scandal. Thousands die every year due to practices such as "Faith healings", casting out "demons", praying for medical care instead of going to doctors, snake handling.... not to mention the anti-scientific views of those who spread misinformation because they so entrenched they mistrust all of science. You have major leads who spread hate by saying that homosexuals are responsible for earthquakes, who constantly and consistently say that non-believers like myself are evil. I literally could go on all day about this, which goes into the why the moral argument is so absurd as well and fails so miserably. I'm guessing now you are thinking "Wow he's so emotional over this", except it is you feeling emotional over the facts I just listed and probably feel a bit attacked at me listing these things. So you project onto me. But me listing facts isn't emotion, it's just facts.
You probably haven't either. Maybe that's because there are less than 1% of the world's population.
They talk about them as though they are fiction. They are dispassionate by default. Yet Hellenists do get upset when they are dismissed. Just look up Richard Dawkins when he got responses from those who still do believe in Zeus, Poseidon, etc. So he stopped using that "We know they are myth", because he found out there were still people who believed in them.

Look, all you've shown by this long diatribe is that you are the one lacking in understanding. For all that you wrote, it still boils down to a large logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance and I don't even think you watched the whole video given that you incorrectly stated that Hitchens (as you recalled) didn't even attempt to address the issues. He did...directly and said why it just doesn't work logically, but I guess you skipped those sections, or just ignored it. Either way, it was a long reply for basically nothing, because all you did was assert things that are blatantly not true.
 
Last edited:
Your analogy is a fallacy of false equivalence with regards to what hitchens was required to show.

Because Craig did provide positive evidence and arguments for the existence of God. You therefore cannot claim atheism is a default position in light of those arguments. Anyone can provide "positive evidence and arguments" for their gods or beliefs, but it doesn't mean they are proven nor valid. There are quite a number of Muslim scholars who present the same types of arguments for Allah, yet I don't think you'd consider them the default position.

If you want to continue to be an atheist you are first required to refute those arguments or disprove that evidence. That's a false premise. If the arguments are unproven to begin with, all the atheist need do is consider if they are valid or not. In this case, they are not, therefore no change in belief is required.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Yadda, yadda, yadda.

What is it about "That topic has been hashed and rehashed . I'm done with it." that you don't understand.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

Your original response was a failure to meet the burden of rejoinder and a concession of the debate.

Repeating your original comments don't mean they stop constituting a concession of the debate.

Nor does it change the fact that you are incapable of responding because you have clearly been shown to be wrong.

You're just trying to bow out without having to admit you were wrong.

The following may or may not refer to you...
I don't like having discussions with people who post inaccuracies about me

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You can't quote anything I have said that is inaccurate about what you said.

If you are referring to accusing you of lying; I conceded it is possible you weren't lying in my last post.

I may have incorrectly assumed you must be being dishonest by your repeated attempts to mischaracterize what I said despite my repeated plain explanations to you of why you were wrong. Explanations so clear and simple I couldn't imagine you couldn't understand them.

This was actually me giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had the ability to process and understand simple and clear sentence structure.

Or giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually reading what I wrote instead of just ignoring it and repeating yourself.

I stopped assuming that with my last post and outlined things in the most basic of terms, even teaching you how to exercise reading comprehension of sentence fragments and using a red ball analogy that even a child could easily relate to.

I do believe my last post has been effective in finally communicating to make you understand why you were wrong to mischaracterize what I said - which is why you're trying to bow out because you don't want to have to admit you were wrong.


and then report me when they are called out.

I never reported you for anything.

If a mod was in here and slapped you for something then you have no one to blame but yourself.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Anyone can provide "positive evidence and arguments" for their gods or beliefs, but it doesn't mean they are proven nor valid.

You don't understand how deductive logic works, for two reasons:

1. You don't understand where the burden lays in a debate and why.

The burden of proof has been met by Craig to provide reasons for why God exists.

Now the burden of rejoinder falls on you as the atheist to provide counter arguments against Craig's arguments for theism if you want to insist his conclusion is wrong.

If you aren't willing to do that then you can't claim his conclusions are wrong, nor can you claim your conclusion is right.


2. You don't understand the nature of deductive logic. If the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true.

The only way you disprove a logical deduction is either by:
a) Proving the premises aren't true (which may involve showing why any evidence is faulty).
b) Showing if their logic is faulty, which makes the logic invalid and therefore invalidates the conclusion even if the premises are true.

If Craig provides three arguments which logically show why we must conclude that theism explains the universe better than atheism then his conclusion stands as true unless you can show error with his premises, logic, or evidence.

Once a positive argument for theism has been offered atheism doesn't stand as the default assumption unless you can either make a stronger positive case for it than theism or unless you can completely disprove the entire argument for theism.

There are quite a number of Muslim scholars who present the same types of arguments for Allah, yet I don't think you'd consider them the default position.

Your statement is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. The truth or falseness of your statement doesn't have any bearing on disproving any point I or Craig made.

The reason muslims can use the same first three arguments as Craig is because Muslims believe the same basic things about the attributes of God as Jews and Christians do with regards to being the sole all powerful creator and designer of everything and who is the originator of moral values and duties.

So pointing to muslims using these arguments doesn't disprove the validity of the arguments because muslims already believe in exactly what the arguments are setting out to prove.

Of course those three arguments by themselves don't allow you to prove whether Christianity is true over Islam - but those arguments were never intended to draw a conclusion about that issue. There are other arguments one uses to deal with that fact, which gets into Craig's argument #4 which appeals to the historical reliability of the New Testament.

The purpose of the first three arguments is to disprove atheism in relation to theism. Not to disprove islam in relation to Christianity.

Although, it should be noted, that the first three arguments do, by themselves, disprove many religious ideas about god. Craig doesn't get into that in the debate, but if you follow the logical conclusions of those first three arguments to their ultimate conclusions you can use them to disprove a whole host of other ideas such as pantheism, polytheism, etc. Not just disproving atheism.

Craig has told the story of how his arguments converted an atheist philosopher (can't remember their name) to believing in a singular theistic creator god on purely philosophical grounds (not necessarily Christianity specifically, but just a general philosophical concept of a singular creator deity) simply on the basis of the weight of the logical evidence for general theism.

This is where the saying from Francis Bacon comes from which basically says; "A little philosophy will lead man away from God, but depth in philosophy will lead man to God".

It's easy to put forth surface level philosophical objections in favor of atheism - but if you really dive down deep to examine the premises and logical conclusions one has to draw, you simply can't get away from the need for a theistic creator.

Craigs first three arguments are a taste of this. But there's a lot more going on under the hood of these arguments than is readily apparent because there's only so much he can say in a short presentation. If you really try to actually engage with the substance of his arguments and logically disprove them that you'll be forced to go down a rabbit hole that only leads to a theistic creator.

That's a false premise. If the arguments are unproven to begin with, all the atheist need do is consider if they are valid or not. In this case, they are not, therefore no change in belief is required.

You are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion and begging the question/circular reason.

You're saying Craigs arguments are false because they are not proven.

But you are merely asserting they are not proven because you assert they aren't. You haven't given a single reason why you think you can claim Craig's arguments failed to prove his conclusion.

The onus is on you as the one claiming Craig's conclusion is false (or claiming Craig failed to prove his conclusion with his argument) to meet your burden of rejoinder by showing specific reasons why either his premises are unsound, his logic is invalid, or his evidence is faulty,

If you are unwilling or unable to do that then Craig's conclusion stands and you cannot claim otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
BTW, William Craig is regressive and out-dated. It is a waste of time to discuss what he proposed.

You can't claim any of that is true if you can't disprove anything he argued.

You're welcome to try, but you won't get very far because your claims aren't actually true.

But I can do that, I have time on my hands. You are welcome to discuss. His points (from Wikipedia):

Kalam Argument: "Universe was created." None has proved that. Bogus.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that his cosmological argument is false, or that his arguments have failed to prove it, doesn't make it true just because you assert it is true.

You need to give specific reasons why there is any fault with Craig's premises, logic, or evidence, before you can even begin to claim his conclusion is not proven or false.


Molinism (foreknowledge): First prove existence of any God, then we will talk about foreknowledge.

There are many problems with your statement here:

1. It's a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. The issue of God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with Craig's arguments for the existence of God.


2.You seem to be confusing two separate issues.
You seem to be talking about divine foreknowledge as a general concept, which we would normally call omniscience.

But then you reference molinism specific - which is only one type of belief about the nature of divine foreknowledge.

I don't believe molinism is a true theologian viewpoint of God so I have no need to defend it. That doesn't mean I reject divine omniscience.
But I don't need to prove the concept of divine omniscience to prove the cosmological/teleological/moral arguments for the existence of God.

Resurrection of Jesus: Fiction.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that the resurrection is fiction doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You have given no reasons to prove your claim is true.

You have not tried to disprove even any of the arguments Craig used to prove it as a historically real event.

Philosophy of time: Present does not exist. It lasts less than a Planck's moment (10 raised to power −43 seconds, i.e., something less than what we can measure). There is either past or future.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Craig's philosophy of time and God's relation to it has no relevance to the five arguments Craig has proposed in this debate for the existence of God.

Divine Eternity: First prove the existence of any God.
Divine Aseity: First prove the existence of any God.

He already proved with his first three arguments his conclusion that "theism better explains, and is a more likely explanation of, reality than atheism".

You can't give any reasons why you think his conclusion in the debate is false.

Therefore, you have no basis for claiming Craig has not proven his conclusion is true.
 
You don't understand how deductive logic works, for two reasons:

1. You don't understand where the burden lays in a debate and why. Yes I do, but clearly you do not. The one who makes the positive claim is the one with the burden. The subject of the debate was "Does God Exist" and arguing the affirmative was Craig. The burden of proof was on Craig to prove that a god exists, not for Hitchens to prove a god doesn't exist, all he needed to do is show that Craig's reasons were faulty and they were.

The burden of proof has been met by Craig to provide reasons for why God exists. Glad we agree that the burden is on Craig.

Now the burden of rejoinder falls on you as the atheist to provide counter arguments against Craig's arguments for theism if you want to insist his conclusion is wrong. I addressed this already, but what you fail to understand is that the atheist doesn't have to disprove the premise, just show that it's illogical or unfounded. In the case of Craig's arguments, he couldn't hope to prove any of it since it's all theoretical and most of it based upon false conclusions. So Hitchens rightly attacked that. Sorry you can't see the difference.

If you aren't willing to do that then you can't claim his conclusions are wrong, nor can you claim your conclusion is right.


2. You don't understand the nature of deductive logic. If the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true.

The only way you disprove a logical deduction is either by:
a) Proving the premises aren't true (which may involve showing why any evidence is faulty).
b) Showing if their logic is faulty, which makes the logic invalid and therefore invalidates the conclusion even if the premises are true. Which Hitchens did and I already addressed this in my last post...so did you not read everything or just not comprehend it?

If Craig provides three arguments which logically show why we must conclude that theism explains the universe better than atheism then his conclusion stands as true unless you can show error with his premises, logic, or evidence. Which Hitchens did as well as me earlier.

Once a positive argument for theism has been offered atheism doesn't stand as the default assumption unless you can either make a stronger positive case for it than theism or unless you can completely disprove the entire argument for theism. I think you don't actually understand what atheism is. It literally means "no belief in a god". That's it. It has no stance on the universe, or life, or political views....nothing. A lot of atheists share common beliefs, but I've met atheists who think the earth is flat and that the covid vaccine was fake. So if you just take the options of "There are gods, or there is a god, I don't believe in any", yes the default is non-belief because the first two are positive claims about reality and how it works. If you don't believe in Allah for example, because you aren't convinced, then you are correct in saying that is the default position because you haven't been convinced yet. No one is born believing in any gods, we have to be taught about them. So yes the default is non-belief logically.


Your statement is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. The truth or falseness of your statement doesn't have any bearing on disproving any point I or Craig made. You really don't actually know what these fallacies are do you?

The reason muslims can use the same first three arguments as Craig is because Muslims believe the same basic things about the attributes of God as Jews and Christians do with regards to being the sole all powerful creator and designer of everything and who is the originator of moral values and duties. I was using this as a comparative to show how you don't accept the claims of another religion using the same arguments to demonstrate your hypocrisy. Your failure is understanding that, not "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy.

So pointing to muslims using these arguments doesn't disprove the validity of the arguments because muslims already believe in exactly what the arguments are setting out to prove. Didn't say they did and now you've demonstrated that you didn't comprehend why I pointed that out.

Of course those three arguments by themselves don't allow you to prove whether Christianity is true over Islam - but those arguments were never intended to draw a conclusion about that issue. There are other arguments one uses to deal with that fact, which gets into Craig's argument #4 which appeals to the historical reliability of the New Testament. Which I noticed you didn't address even though I specifically listed a reason as to why that argument fails, but you ignored it conveniently.

The purpose of the first three arguments is to disprove atheism in relation to theism. Not to disprove islam in relation to Christianity. I'm aware of that, they just failed anyways.

Although, it should be noted, that the first three arguments do, by themselves, disprove many religious ideas about god. Craig doesn't get into that in the debate, but if you follow the logical conclusions of those first three arguments to their ultimate conclusions you can use them to disprove a whole host of other ideas such as pantheism, polytheism, etc. Not just disproving atheism. They didn't disprove anything, they only showed why guys like Craig are not "great thinkers", but instead just peddle dishonest arguments that pretend to be scientific, but are completely out of alignment with what Astrophysicists actually say about the "origins" of the universe. Did you watch the Craig vs Krauss debate? Krauss corrected Craig several times and he still repeats many of the same fallacious arguments today revealing he's not an honest debater or thinker.

Craig has told the story of how his arguments converted an atheist philosopher (can't remember their name) to believing in a singular theistic creator god on purely philosophical grounds (not necessarily Christianity specifically, but just a general philosophical concept of a singular creator deity) simply on the basis of the weight of the logical evidence for general theism. I don't care, this is irrelevant.

This is where the saying from Francis Bacon comes from which basically says; "A little philosophy will lead man away from God, but depth in philosophy will lead man to God". I don't care, this is irrelevant.

It's easy to put forth surface level philosophical objections in favor of atheism - but if you really dive down deep to examine the premises and logical conclusions one has to draw, you simply can't get away from the need for a theistic creator. *Yawn, more just asserting things that aren't true.

Craigs first three arguments are a taste of this. But there's a lot more going on under the hood of these arguments than is readily apparent because there's only so much he can say in a short presentation. If you really try to actually engage with the substance of his arguments and logically disprove them that you'll be forced to go down a rabbit hole that only leads to a theistic creator. Yet the majority of astrophysicists are not, thus disproving your statement.

You are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion and begging the question/circular reason.

You're saying Craigs arguments are false because they are not proven. I did not say that.

But you are merely asserting they are not proven because you assert they aren't. You haven't given a single reason why you think you can claim Craig's arguments failed to prove his conclusion. Did you not read the last post. I'm not going to repeat just because you didn't read.

The onus is on you as the one claiming Craig's conclusion is false (or claiming Craig failed to prove his conclusion with his argument) to meet your burden of rejoinder by showing specific reasons why either his premises are unsound, his logic is invalid, or his evidence is faulty,

If you are unwilling or unable to do that then Craig's conclusion stands and you cannot claim otherwise.
You don't understand how deductive logic works, for two reasons:

1. You don't understand where the burden lays in a debate and why.

The burden of proof has been met by Craig to provide reasons for why God exists.

Now the burden of rejoinder falls on you as the atheist to provide counter arguments against Craig's arguments for theism if you want to insist his conclusion is wrong.

If you aren't willing to do that then you can't claim his conclusions are wrong, nor can you claim your conclusion is right.

Yeah...that's not actually how claims and proving them are done. For example, there is a strong claim that due to the increasing levels of intelligence and technology, that there's a 99.7% chance that we are living in a computer simulation. The evidence is in the doubling and tripling of technology every year, as well as in software, AI, and other technological areas and the logical deduction on this is sound as well. Does that mean we are living in the Matrix and it is proven unless you can show that it's not true?

2. You don't understand the nature of deductive logic. If the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true. Are you a bot or something? You keep repeating yourself.

The only way you disprove a logical deduction is either by:
a) Proving the premises aren't true (which may involve showing why any evidence is faulty).
b) Showing if their logic is faulty, which makes the logic invalid and therefore invalidates the conclusion even if the premises are true. I already addressed this in the last post.

If Craig provides three arguments which logically show why we must conclude that theism explains the universe better than atheism then his conclusion stands as true unless you can show error with his premises, logic, or evidence.

After reading all of this nonsense and going back to my prior post to make sure I wasn't crazy...I can only conclude that you aren't being honest, didn't read half of my replies and I guess just feel like repeating ad nauseum logical fallacies that you don't actually understand because I guess it makes you feel smart? Yet, I got tired of addressing the same points over and over, so I'm going to move on since clearly you aren't interested in an honest debate.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I didn't realize you had responded with two posts when I responded to your earlier post.

Here is the response to your second post:


Except that science does point to natural origin, that's a fact and one that you can't dispute.

Logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

You don't disprove Craig's arguments by appealing to someone who is a scientist that disagrees with him.

You need to deal with Craig's arguments directly if you want to be able to claim they are false.

If any scientist actually has valid points against Craig's arguments, then it should be an easy thing for you to simply extract their reasons and relate them to us.

But you can't.

I didn't say he disproved Craig's arguments.

Then you admit Craig's conclusion is true because he used a deductive form of argument whereby if the premises are true than the conclusion must be true.

Again, the burden of proof is on Craig, not on Hitchens, although Hitchens did say why his arguments weren't logical. Again, you can't "disprove" something, that doesn't have a basis in reality to begin with (unproven).

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You claim that Craig did not meet the burden of proof for his claims, but you cite nothing specific Craig arged and you give no specific reasons why anything he argue was insufficient or flawed.

You've just proven why the cosmological argument isn't logical, because all the premises aren't true.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You haven't attempted to give any evidence or logic for why Craig's premises aren't true.

Making fallacious arguments of assertion and appeals to authority don't constitute giving evidence and valid logical reasons for why we should believe Craig's premises are supposedly not true.


No, Craig just made a bunch of incorrect assertions about the state of the universe and ones in which Astrophysicists don't agree with.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and appeal to authority.

You have given no reasons of evidence to show why Craig's arguments are supposedly in error.

Claiming astrophysicists out there somewhere disagree with Craig doesn't do anything to refute the validity of Craig's logic or the truth of his premises.


Your statement is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

Yes, Craig's arguments aren't valid to begin with.

...

Yes, Craig's arguments aren't valid to begin with.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Your statement has no relevance to what you are responding to.

I said your claim that the Bible isn't humble is irrelevant to disproving Craig's arguments for the existence of God.

You haven't tried to dispute what I said with your comment.


Yes, I guess that's just you projecting onto Hitchens and seeing what you want.

...

Where? Again, you are projecting. This is a common christian defense mechanism that I find laughable because it is so absurd and dishonest. "Thou shall not bear false witness" always seems to go to the wayside when you are defending the faith.

...


I still don't see this rampant emotion you are talking about, but when we talk about christianity in the world, it is the #1 religion and has and continues to cause a lot of harm in the world. The Catholic church, still has doctrines that are harmful, such as the message and teachings with regards to condoms, not to mention the cover-up abuse scandal. Thousands die every year due to practices such as "Faith healings", casting out "demons", praying for medical care instead of going to doctors, snake handling.... not to mention the anti-scientific views of those who spread misinformation because they so entrenched they mistrust all of science. You have major leads who spread hate by saying that homosexuals are responsible for earthquakes, who constantly and consistently say that non-believers like myself are evil.... I'm guessing now you are thinking "Wow he's so emotional over this", except it is you feeling emotional over the facts I just listed and probably feel a bit attacked at me listing these things. So you project onto me. But me listing facts isn't emotion, it's just facts.

...

Maybe that's because there are less than 1% of the world's population.

...

Yet Hellenists do get upset when they are dismissed. Just look up Richard Dawkins when he got responses from those who still do believe in Zeus, Poseidon, etc. So he stopped using that "We know they are myth", because he found out there were still people who believed in them.

If you don't see any bitterness, resentment, or disgust in the way hitchens talks about God, then I'll just accept you don't acknowledge my premise and even be willing to withdraw my point for the sake of moving on.
Not because I think it's untrue, but because I am simply not interested in spending the necessary time to try to argue why we have reason to believe hitchens does have that demeaner.

The main issue worth spending the time on debating is the three arguments Craig made. It doesn't really matter to me what hitchens demeaner was as much as it matters that he couldn't logically disprove Craig's arguments.

I did not start this thread to argue over hitchens demeaner, but that was a side comment made in reference to how hitchens spent almost no time dealing with Craig's arguments directly but instead spent all his time trying to attack God's character and the character of his followers - which would be a type of ad hominem fallacy because he's ignoring Craig's arguments for the existence of God.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I literally could go on all day about this, which goes into the why the moral argument is so absurd as well and fails so miserably.

You don't understand what the moral argument even is. So you're not in any position to claim it fails.

As I already pointed out. The moral argument is about what could logically only be the ontological source of objective moral values and duties if objective morality exists.

Whether or not you think theists behave morally is irrelevant to Craig's arguments.

Look, all you've shown by this long diatribe is that you are the one lacking in understanding.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You haven't given any specific valid logical reason why anything I have said shows a lack of understanding abut anything.

In all cases, as you see above, your statements were either fallacious/invalid or I refuted them with a valid counter argument.
But mostly you were just committing fallacies.

For all that you wrote, it still boils down to a large logical fallacy,

That's ironic coming from someone who has literally set the record for the most fallacious arguments by assertion in a single post I have ever seen. That is not an exaggeration.

You need to learn that making a valid logical argument in support of a conclusion requires giving reasons and evidence, not just making naked assertions.

the argument from ignorance

I addressed your claim up above already where I pointed out that not only have failed to meet your burden of proof for your claim b demonstrated why yo think Craig's argument qualified as a fallacy of argument from ignorance, but also why your claim is false by giving you some pointers on what the structure of Craig's argument actually was.

and I don't even think you watched the whole video given that you incorrectly stated that Hitchens (as you recalled) didn't even attempt to address the issues.

...

He did...directly and said why it just doesn't work logically, but I guess you skipped those sections, or just ignored it.

Saying "address the issues" is so vague as to be false.

I said hitchens didn't say one single thing to try to refute the first two arguments in particular.

You can not produce a single argument hitchens made that tried to refute the first two arguments (cosmology, teleological)

Since you assert he did, the burden of proof is on you to produce the argument you claim he made.

Either way, it was a long reply for basically nothing, because all you did was assert things that are blatantly not true.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You have not given, and cannot give, any valid logical reasons or evidence to prove your claim is true that anything I said is supposedly not true.

This is again ironic coming from you, the person who has committed the argument of assertion fallacy in one post more than anyone else I have ever seen.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Yes I do, but clearly you do not. The one who makes the positive claim is the one with the burden. The subject of the debate was "Does God Exist" and arguing the affirmative was Craig. The burden of proof was on Craig to prove that a god exists, not for Hitchens to prove a god doesn't exist, all he needed to do is show that Craig's reasons were faulty and they were.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet your burden of proof/rejoinder

You don’t understand how burden of proof rejoinder works because you think you get to claim Craig’s conclusion is wrong without having to give any logical reasons why it would be wrong.

You have not given any valid logical reason why Craigs arguments would be wrong. Almost all you did in your last post was throw out a string of assertion fallacies. W

Glad we agree that the burden is on Craig.

You don’t understand how burden of proof is met. The moment you provide valid reasons for why you claim something is true you have met your burden of proof.

Which is what you are failing to do when you refuse to give any specific valid reasons why you think Craig’s argument is false.

I addressed this already, but what you fail to understand is that the atheist doesn't have to disprove the premise, just show that it's illogical or unfounded. In the case of Craig's arguments, he couldn't hope to prove any of it since it's all theoretical and most of it based upon false conclusions. So Hitchens rightly attacked that. Sorry you can't see the difference./quote]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and failure to meet the burden of proof/rejoinder.

You have made several claims here for which you have provided no logical reasons to meet your burden of proof for.

Your baseless unsupported claims:

1. That Craig’s argument is based on false conclusions.

2. That Craig’s argument is “theoretical” and that somehow that means he has failed to meet the burden of proof for his conclusion.

3. You imply that Craig’s arguments are illogical or unfounded in some way.

4. That hitchens successfully refuted Craig’s first three arguments for the existence of God.

As the one making those claims, the onus is on you to provide valid logic and evidence to support your claims as supposedly being true.

No one is required to accept your claims as true just because you assert they are true. You need valid reasons and evidence to prove your claims are true.




If you aren't willing to do that then you can't claim his conclusions are wrong, nor can you claim your conclusion is right.



Which Hitchens did and I already addressed this in my last post...so did you not read everything or just not comprehend it?



..

Which Hitchens did as well as me earlier.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot quote anything hitchens said that refuted Craig’s first three arguments.

Merely asserting he did doesn’t prove he did just because you assert it.

All you basically did in your earlier post, as I showed, was commit a string of assertion fallacies with a bit of authority fallacy mixed in for spice.

You had no legitimate arguments with valid logical reasons to support your claims.



If Craig provides three arguments which logically show why we must conclude that theism explains the universe better than atheism then his conclusion stands as true unless you can show error with his premises, logic, or evidence.
Once a positive argument for theism has been offered atheism doesn't stand as the default assumption unless you can either make a stronger positive case for it than theism or unless you can completely disprove the entire argument for theism. I think you don't actually understand what atheism is. It literally means "no belief in a god". That's it. It has no stance on the universe, or life, or political views....nothing. A lot of atheists share common beliefs, but I've met atheists who think the earth is flat and that the covid vaccine was fake. So if you just take the options of "There are gods, or there is a god, I don't believe in any", yes the default is non-belief because the first two are positive claims about reality and how it works. If you don't believe in Allah for example, because you aren't convinced, then you are correct in saying that is the default position because you haven't been convinced yet. No one is born believing in any gods, we have to be taught about them. So yes the default is non-belief logically.


Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Defining atheism does nothing to refute what you are responding to.

I said that Craig provided three logical arguments to prove his conclusion that theism better explains reality than atheism and is more likely to be true.

Which means if either you or hitchens wants to dispute Craig’s conclusion (by claiming either it was not sufficiently proven, or there was some kind of error in the premises or logic) then you are required to meet your burden of rejoinder by offering counter arguments to refute his arguments.

You haven’t done that in a nonfallacious way yet. And you can’t provide a single example where hitchens supposedly did it either.

Considering your demonstrated inability to make a logical argument that isn’t fallacious in defense of your position, perhaps it is not surprising that you erroneously think hitchens did so. You can’t recognize a legitimate logical argument if you don’t even know how to make one for yourself.



You really don't actually know what these fallacies are do you?



You cannot show any logical or factual error with my identification of your arguments by their related fallacies.

If you cannot do that, then you have no basis for claiming or implying they are in error.

Considering that there would be almost nothing left of your posts so far if all the fallacies were stripped out, you’re in no position to be questioning anyone about their knowledge of logical fallacies.



I was using this as a comparative to show how you don't accept the claims of another religion using the same arguments to demonstrate your hypocrisy. Your failure is understanding that, not "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy.

..

Didn't say they did and now you've demonstrated that you didn't comprehend why I pointed that out.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already explained why your point was a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

It doesn’t stop being a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion just because you repeat it.

The reason your attempted point is irrelevant is because I pointed out why muslims using the first three arguments to argue for their religion does not disprove the validity of those arguments Craig has put forth – because muslims believe the same thing about God’s basic attributes as Christians do with regards to what those three arguments set out to prove about God.

And if you cannot disprove the validity of the first three arguments, then you cannot dispute the conclusion that theism better explains reality than atheism and theism is therefore more likely true.

Your response doesn’t deal with my argument at all, but merely repeats your original claims.


Which I noticed you didn't address even though I specifically listed a reason as to why that argument fails, but you ignored it conveniently.

I wasn’t avoiding addressing it, I just had not gotten around to typing a reply to the second half of your post yet. I responded to it in the previous post.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I'm aware of that, they just failed anyways.


Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot give any specific reasons why Craig’s first three arguments have supposedly failed.

. They didn't disprove anything, they only showed why guys like Craig are not "great thinkers", but instead just peddle dishonest arguments that pretend to be scientific

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You give no logical reasons or evidence for your claim.

Your statement is also supremely ironic considering that the overwhelming majority of your posts are made up of bald assertion fallacies – which is neither honest nor scientific.

For as much as you talk about revering the scientific method, you don’t seem to understand or respect the fact that science requires using valid logic and evidence to arrive at conclusions – you can’t just fallacious assert your way to demanding people accept your belief as fact.

, but are completely out of alignment with what Astrophysicists actually say about the "origins" of the universe.

Logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

You give no logical reasons or evidence for why Craig’s arguments are supposedly wrong.

Pointing to people who disagree with Craig doesn’t prove Craig’s arguments are wrong.

Did you watch the Craig vs Krauss debate? Krauss corrected Craig several times and he still repeats many of the same fallacious arguments today revealing he's not an honest debater or thinker.

I did.

And you are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion and/or appeal to authority.

You cannot point a single specific argument Krauss made that refuted Craig’s conclusions, and explain with specific reasons why it qualified as refuting Craig’s conclusions, about the cosmological and teleological.

Merely asserting that Krauss disproved Craig doesn’t make it true just because you assert it is so.


I don't care, this is irrelevant.

..

I don't care, this is irrelevant.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You have given no reasons or evidence to prove your claim is true that my point was supposedly irrelevant.

You won’t be able to do that because your claim is false.


*Yawn, more just asserting things that aren't true.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You have given no reasons or evidence for your claim.

And your claim is supremely ironic given the sheer amount of fallacious asserting you are guilty of in every post.


Yet the majority of astrophysicists are not, thus disproving your statement.



Logical fallacy, appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

Something is not proven to be true just because someone says it is.

Nor is something proven to be true just because a majority of a certain group says it is.

If it really were true, then it should be easy for you to pull out specific reasons why and present them to refute Craig – but you can’t. Because they don’t exist.


You are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion and begging the question/circular reason.

You're saying Craigs arguments are false because they are not proven.
I did not say that.

Your claim is false.

Here is what you said:

That's a false premise. If the arguments are unproven to begin with, all the atheist need do is consider if they are valid or not. In this case, they are not, therefore no change in belief is required.


You therefore claimed the following:
1. That Craig’s premises are false.
2. That Craig’s arguments are unproven.

You claimed both that Craig’s arguments were false and unproven, which is a claim you have never tried to support with any valid logic or evidence. The only thing you have offered with regards to that so far is a string of assertion fallacies and a few fallacious appeals to authority.


Did you not read the last post. I'm not going to repeat just because you didn't read.

As I already pointed out with your last post, you had no valid reasons or evidence to support your claim that Craig supposedly failed to prove his conclusion.




Yeah...that's not actually how claims and proving them are done. For example, there is a strong claim that due to the increasing levels of intelligence and technology, that there's a 99.7% chance that we are living in a computer simulation. The evidence is in the doubling and tripling of technology every year, as well as in software, AI, and other technological areas and the logical deduction on this is sound as well. Does that mean we are living in the Matrix and it is proven unless you can show that it's not true?

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion. Your statement has no relevance to my point you were quoting.

I said you don’t understand where the burdens lay in a debate.

If Craig provides reasons for why his conclusions is true then his burden of proof has been met (which is not the same as assuming his claim is actually true. But simply providing reasons means he has met his burden of proof).

The burden of rejoinder is then on you if you want to claim his conclusion is false, or insufficiently proven, to offer a logically valid counter argument to refute his premises, arguments, or evidence in some way.

You have not even attempted to do that. Therefore you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder and have no basis for claiming Craig’s conclusion is false.


2. You don't understand the nature of deductive logic. If the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true. Are you a bot or something? You keep repeating yourself.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem and irrelevant conclusion.

You did not address the fact that you don’t understand the nature of deductive logic. Ie: If the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true.

Namecalling doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have an answer to what I said.

And accusing me of repeating myself would be a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion because even if it were true that I repeated myself it doesn’t disprove the truth of what I said nor absolve you of the need to offer a counter argument to what I said if you want to dispute it’s truth.

I already addressed this in the last post.

You have not once given any specific logical argument to show why any of Craig’s premises are false, any of his logic is in error, or any of his evidence is flawed.

All you have done is fallacious assert he is wrong and fallaciously point to people who you think say he’s wrong without ever giving any reasons they supposedly think he is wrong so those reasons can be examined for validity.


After reading all of this nonsense and going back to my prior post to make sure I wasn't crazy...I can only conclude that you aren't being honest, didn't read half of my replies and I guess just feel like repeating ad nauseum logical fallacies that you don't actually understand because I guess it makes you feel smart? Yet, I got tired of addressing the same points over and over, so I'm going to move on since clearly you aren't interested in an honest debate.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You have made the following claims without any reasons or evidence to back them up:
1. That supposedly I am not being honest.
2. That any fallacy I have pointed out you have committed is supposedly in error.
3. That you have actually answered any of the arguments I raised, rather than just fallacious asserted things or appealed to authority.

You cannot quote anything and give any valid reason why anything I said is supposedly dishonest.

You cannot give any valid reason why you supposedly didn’t commit any logical fallacy I identified you as doing.


You cannot point to a single valid argument you made that I did not address.



If you have a need to repeat yourself it’s only because you made a fallacy of assertion or appeal to authority and never met your burden of proof/rejoinder to begin with for your claims.


If you moved on from this thread it would be absolutely no loss as you have so far shown you’re not capable of offering any legitimate arguments aside from assertion fallacies and fallacious appeals to authority. You aren’t posing legitimate logical challenges therefore your posts are of no value to helping anyone advance their understanding of what is true.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

Your original response was a failure to meet the burden of rejoinder and a concession of the debate.

Repeating your original comments don't mean they stop constituting a concession of the debate.
Actually, if you stop repeating false or irrational statements, ecco wouldn't have to call you out on them.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Actually, if you stop repeating false or irrational statements, ecco wouldn't have to call you out on them.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

You cannot point to a single thing I have said and give any valid logical reasons why it would be false and/or irrational.

Nor can you point to anything ecco argued about my posts that I did not already refute as invalid or false.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. (that universe had a beginning)
That doesn't mean I reject divine omniscience.
Merely asserting that the resurrection is fiction doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You have not tried to disprove even any of the arguments Craig used to prove it as a historically real event.

Craig's philosophy of time and God's relation to it has no relevance to the five arguments Craig has proposed in this debate for the existence of God.

He already proved with his first three arguments his conclusion that "theism better explains, and is a more likely explanation of, reality than atheism".

You can't give any reasons why you think his conclusion in the debate is false.

Therefore, you have no basis for claiming Craig has not proven his conclusion is true.
OK, give your arguments that universe was created. Science does not say that till now. They do not know what happened before 'inflation'.

First prove the existence of God, then we will discuss 'divine omniscience'. As I said discussing an imaginary idea is foolishness. Does Craig give any evidence of existence of God?
We have a saying in Hindi: "Soot, na kapas, Julahe se lattham lattha" (You neither have a thread nor any cotton, and you are arguing with the weaver).

What is your proof that Jesus resurrected after death? Why should I take Bible as the proof if you would not take Mahabharata as proof of "Krishna" avatara of Lord Vishnu. Just like Mahabharata it is a scripture created to popularize a cult. Your own people say that the evidence is unworthy of credence.

"Francis Gigot, writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia, states that "the additional details which are found concerning him in the apocryphal Acta Pilati ("Acts of Pilate"), are unworthy of credence." Joseph of Arimathea - Wikipedia

No proof for reappearance of Jesus other than those in Bible and by those who were his followers. Most of these were unlettered and superstitious, and from an age 2000 years ago. We cannot go by what they believed.

We also have a whole lot of of places (in thousands), related to the mythological personages in Hinduism - the birth places of Rama and Krishna, Sita's kitchen, and the place of disappearance of Krishna. But these cannot be taken as historical proofs.

Then there are four alternative locations for the tomb of Jesus. Tomb of Jesus - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
OK, give your arguments that universe was created.

You are the one trying to claim Craig is wrong.
The burden of proof is on you to give reasons why you think his arguments for the universe being created are wrong.

Science does not say that till now.

Which is not relevant to whether or not Craigs arguments about cosmology are correct.

They do not know what happened before 'inflation'.

Which is also not relevant to disproving Craig's arguments about cosmology. You have demonstrated no relevance.

First prove the existence of God,

...

As I said discussing an imaginary idea is foolishness. Does Craig give any evidence of existence of God?

Craig already gave you three arguments to prove that theism is more likely to be true than atheism.

If you want to claim Craig's conclusion is wrong then the burden of rejoinder is on you to provide counter arguments to show why there is any fault in Craig's premises, logic, or evidence.

If you cannot do that then you cannot claim his conclusion is wrong.

then we will discuss 'divine omniscience'.

Why would we? Divine omniscience as a concept is not relevant or necessary for Craigs three arguments demonstrating the existence of God.

What is your proof that Jesus resurrected after death? Why should I take Bible as the proof if you would not take Mahabharata as proof of "Krishna" avatara of Lord Vishnu. Just like Mahabharata it is a scripture created to popularize a cult. Your own people say that the evidence is unworthy of credence.

We would need to resolve the first three logical/scientific arguments for God's existence before it even became necessary to talk about which particular set of scriptures is true about God.

That's why I am not interested in debating the New Testament in this particular thread. There's no point in arguing with atheists about whether or not the New Testament is true when they have not first even accepted the fact that God exists based on the logical evidence someone like Craig has outlined.

The first three arguments by Craig are themselves enough to establish that atheism can't be true without even needing to get into the issue of the New Testament specifically.
 

Rawshak

Member
Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.
William Lane Craig has publicly stated that if all the evidence was against a God he would still believe by faith alone. So Craig's position in the debate is that regardless of what evidence anyone brings to the debate, he will still insist God exists.

You’ll notice that throughout the entire debate he really doesn't even attempt to present a real logical argument of his own that God doesn’t exist. He also never even tries to dispute Craig’s logical arguments for why God does exist.
Hitchens has no burden of proof to show that a God exists, Craig is the one making a positive assertion, Craig wants to prove the existence of God a feat that has eluded everyone since Aquinas.

So what does Hitchens fill all his time doing? Trying to slander God’s character by calling God’s behavior bad or pointing to bad things and blaming God for it. It’s the logical fallacy equivalent of an ad hominem. That makes up basically the entirety of Hitchens time. Which logically has nothing to do with disproving God’s existence even if you assumed the slander were true.
You cannot slander a figure that can not be proven to exist. Understand what slander is before you accuse Hitchens of it. I cannot slander Golem!

I think the only reason he had gotten away with that for so long and gained admiration for it is because the eloquent manner in which he speaks makes him sound far smarter and more poignant than what the logical substance of his argument actually is.
Gotten away with what?

This exposes the root of what I have noticed with most militant atheists - their objection to God is not based on logic, but anger. Anger at God. They don’t want to believe He is real, not because the evidence is in their favor but because they don’t like Him or don’t like the implications of His reality being true.
If you wish to make the assertion show the evidence that Hitchens is motivated by anger.

Hitchens displays unbridled anger and resentment at God, but puts forth no logical arguments or counter arguments against the reality of His existence.
All you are doing is making an assertion that God is a reality when you have provided no evidence this is the case.

Not much evidence or even arguments there that correspond to the title of your thread, you have not mentioned the 30 books Hitchens wrote or the numerous other polemics and and writings. If this is all you have to show to back up your title your arguments are very weak.
 
I'm not going to reply to your post in detail, because you are guilty of argumentum ad nauseam. You repetition of the same nonsense over and over and ignoring of rebuttals is amusing, but not an argument at all. You claim logical fallacies that aren't fallacies and you ignore my actual argument, put words into my argument that weren't there and repeat the same arguments. So, there's again, no point to continue, because you don't argue honestly or with integrity.
 
Top