Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Rise]

I've made a lot threads about it. You can check the discussions there. But it's that God can't be imagined to exist, because of his bigness/greatness/perfection can only be seen to exist, because his bigness for example proves he is the necessary being. Therefore if God is perceived, it's the real thing we are looking at.

The problem is you have unproven assumptions that your conclusion depends on.

Your premise is that God is too perfect to be imagined.

But on what basis should we assume your claim is true?
How can you say God's attributes can't come out of our imagination?
How can you say God's attributes can only arise out of observation of someone that already exists?

Everything else depends on that assumption. But your assumption is not established as logically true. Nor are we given a reason to assume it should be true.

By assuming God can only be described if he exists, and then arguing that your ability to describe he exists is proof he exists, you are engaged in circular reasoning.

The reason it's circular reasoning is because the premise indirectly assumes God already exists. And the conclusion is trying to prove God exists.

The reason the premise indirectly assumes God exists is because the premise states as an unproven assumed fact that you can't describe God unless he exists but the premise also carries with it the knowledge that descriptions of God already exist otherwise you wouldn't even be talking about God in the first place.

So the implication in the premise itself is already assuming the conclusion is true that God exists. From the premise alone you can conclude God is true because the premise mentions God as a concept (which first involves describing him) and then after that says God can't be described unless he is real. So you don't even need the argument to reach the conclusion because the conclusion is already contained within the premise if you just unpack the full implications of the premise itself.

The argument just appears to be couched in a way that cleverly obscures the circular nature of it's reasoning. It doesn't directly engage in overt circular reasoning but in an unusual kind of indirect circular reasoning where the conclusion is hidden in the premises without overtly being stated to be in the premises.
But it's still circular reasoning because by definition you can still arrive at the conclusion with only the premise and have no need for an argument to reach the conclusion from the premises.

That's probably why Meowmix said Plantinga said he thought the argument was weak because the conclusion was too close to the premises. I would go further and to say it's a fallacy of circular reasoning - just well hidden circular reasoning.

I think that's why it has evaded refutation for so long - because it's fallacious reasoning is so cleverly obscured. You intuitively know it doesn't make sense but it's hard to logically demonstrate why.

 

[Rise]

You seem to be some sort of presuppositionalist,

There are two problems with your claim:

1. It's the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion at least, or worse an ad hominem, red herring, or genetic fallacy.

The logical validity of my arguments and evidence, and truth of my conclusions, doesn't change just because you try to put a label on me.


2. It's not even true.
A presuppositionalist by definition doesn't use reason and evidence to establish support for a claim of God being true.

I have affirmed Craig's arguments which are based on logic and evidence for a creator behind the universe.

I have also made additional arguments based on logic and evidence to establish that objective morality has to come from an ultimate creator it objective morality exists.

As well as many other logic and evidence based arguments that necessitate an ultimate creator to exist if we accept self evident concepts like objective truth and free will to be real.

None of those arguments depend on even mentioning the Bible for the logic to be valid, the premises to be sound, or the conclusions to be true. So they can't be presuppositionist by definition.

but you also seem to have a hard time understanding the position I'm actually holding, and the burdens of proof associated with our respective arguments.

I can quote your own posts from the first page proving your claims about what you have said is not true:

Craig used cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument and the resurrection of Jesus and the immediate experience of God as his main arguments.
​

Does God Exist Debate Successful and Encourages Dialogue​

Exactly. Each of these arguments are fallacious (invalid) or have unsound premises, or both. This has been clearly, concisely demonstrated countless times. As atheists, we point this out and explain that this is why we don't believe you. It's not that complicated. If you want to make metaphysical claims about the fundamental natural of reality, you need to bring more than conceptual speculation, post-hoc rationalization, intuition, personal feelings, ancient anonymous hearsay, or logical fallacies.

Here you make several claims. Every claim you make puts the burden on you as the one making the claim to support why your claim is true using logical argumentation and evidence.

Your claims are:
1. That each of Craig's arguments is fallacious, or has unsound premises, or both.
2. That this fact has been proven by others already.
3. You also imply the claim that Craig's claims only constitute speculation, post hoc rationalization, intuition, personal feelings, hearsay, or logical fallacies.

You have offered no logical arguments or evidence to demonstrate that there is any truth to your claims. When challenged to provide proof of your claims, you try to claim you have no burden to, which makes you guilty of the fallacy of assertion. It's not proven true just because you assert it is true.

We simply need to point out why theistic claims fail, and why the gods claimed by theists are not evident in reality. Craig is very easy to dismantle in that regard.

Here also you make three claims:
1. That Craig's claims are easy to dismantle.
2. That what Craig presents as evidence does not count as being evident in reality.
3. That Craig's claims have failed.

You provide no logical arguments or evidence to prove your claims are true.
And when asked to do so you claim you don't need to, which makes you guilty of the fallacy of argument by assertion.

1. I'm not claiming Craig's arguments are false, or that evidence disproves them.

You are either unaware of what you are saying, or lying and backpedaling to try to pretend you didn't say what you actually said.

I just quoted your own posts from the first page where you explictly claimed Craig's arguments are false and can be disproven.

I'm claiming his arguments cannot be shown to be true, and that no good evidence supports them. Can you see the difference, here?

You are very confused about how the process of logical argumentation and evidence works and you don't understand the implications of your own statements. You are, in fact, making the very same claim you made originally but just changing the wording a little bit. Let's break down why:

The process unfolds as such:
1. Craig claims his conclusion can be shown to be true.
2. Craig gives pieces of evidence to support his conclusion.
3. Craig gives logical argumentation to support his conclusion.
4. Now you come in and claim (CLAIM, as in assert something is true. Not merely say it's your opinion) Craig's arguments cannot be shown to be true.
5. You also claim that the evidence is insufficient or nonexistent to support Craig's arguments or conclusion.

You again, by your very own statements, have put a burden of proof on yourself by claiming it is true that Craig's arguments don't justify his conclusion and that the evidence is insufficient to justify his conclusion.

You are not merely saying "I believe" or "I think" but you are making a "claim of truth".

Therefore the onus is on you to prove your claims about Craig's arguments or his evidence are true if you expect anyone to regard your claims as being true.

If you are unwilling or unable to do that then your claims are nullified as being just unsubstantiated opinion and you therefore cede that Craig's argument stands unrefuted.

In either case, I still don't accept his claims,

This statement by you also seems to illustrate a wrong belief you have about how logical truth is established.

Your willingness to "accept" the conclusion of a logical argument has absolutely nothing to do with refuting or verifying the truth of the logic and it's conclusion.

Logic is objective, like math - it's continues to be true regardless of what you think about it.

Your "acceptance" of a logical argument is not required in order for the logic to be valid and for the conclusion to be true.

As Craig pointed out: He is making a deductive argument. Meaning that if the premises are true then the conclusion has to follow as true. Your opinion about that is not relevant to determining the validity of the logic and the truth of the conclusion.

To think otherwise is to arrogantly deify yourself as the decider of what is and is not true in reality unbound by the laws of logic.

I might encounter behavior like that on some of the religious debate forums amongst new-agers, but to encounter behavior like that by someone to be professing materialistic atheism and adherence to science (ie. the laws of logic and math) is quite interesting.

and in the latter case I also have no burden of proof beyond describing that I personally don't accept them. This is not an "argument by assertion" fallacy. I'm simply stating that I've evaluated his arguments and I don't find them convincing, and that I'm happy to say why if anyone is interested.

As I have just shown, your claim isn't even true. I just established using your own words that you are, in fact, asserting claims of truth which puts a burden of proof on you.

When you say things like "I'm not personally convinced", you're talking about the realm of opinion.
And if that was all you had said then we wouldn't be dealing with your need for a burden of proof.

The problem for you is that is not all you've said. You have also in the same posts made assertive claims of truth that carry with them a burden of proof.

I think what you're doing here is you're throwing out claims of truth but then hiding behind statements of opinion and trying to pretend the statements of opinion are the only things you've ever said. When clearly they aren't because I can still quote them back to you and show why they are actually assertive claims of truth.

2. I said I've never seen an argue put forth by Craig that is both valid and sound. The clear invitation, from me to you, is for you to list one of Craig's arguments that you feel is the strongest and we can discuss it. If you can show it is valid and sound, then I will admit I was mistaken and maybe be convinced of a god's existence. If you cannot then I will continue to hold my current opinions. Pretty clear, right?

As I said, if that were all you said then this wouldn't be an issue.
But I proved with your own quotes that you did make assertive claims of truth. You therefore did not merely express an inability to see why Craig's arguments would be successful.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth: One side claims Craig's arguments are "false and unsound". The other side merely states "I just don't see it, I am personally not convinced". Those are two completely different kinds of statements. But you're trying to pretend they aren't different, and trying to pretend they all fall under the category of opinion. When clearly, as I quoted for you, they don't all fall under the category of merely stating an opinion.

3. I described why one of Hitchens' main arguments against god's existence is a good one: it shows that god's qualities appear to entail a logical contradiction.

And I already showed why your conclusion was wrong because it cannot be objectively called a good counter argument. Because by definition it does nothing to refute Craig's central claim that theism better explains reality than atheism.

It's also wrong to claim it's a good counter argument because it's logically self refuting. A materialistic atheist by definition has no basis with which to accuse God of being immoral. Therefore Hitchens cannot logically show there exists a contradiction in God's qualities.

As Craig offered in his counter argument: As long as there is any possibility that God has a good reason for what He does, you can never claim to assert as fact that what God has done is a contradiction of his good nature. Asserting that would require having infinite knowledge and understanding of the reasons behind every action of God and the outcome of that action.

But arguing that point is not even necessary to establish theism vs atheism. That's merely a point of contention when one starts to talk about the exitence of the God of the Bible specifically.

Logically, refuting the Bible would do nothing to advance the atheist's cause over theism because Craig's theism arguments still stand unrefuted.

The evidence still forces you to accept that theism is the better explanation for the universe, and then must cause you to ask yourself why you continue to believe in materialistic atheism when the scientific evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

 

[Rise]

I never claimed that this point of Hitchens was meant to refute any of Craig's arguments,

Which, it true, would show you don't understand how logical debate works.

Because by definition you can't call an argument Hitchens uses "good" if it both fails to prove his claim that God doesn't exist and also fails to refute any of Craig's arguments for why God does exist.

By the definition of any standard for logical debate that's what is called a "bad" argument.

Which brings us back to my conclusion at the start of this thread: Hitchens had an objectively miserable debate performance from a logical argumentation standpoint.

4. The only standard I have by which to judge your god's character is my own moral standard.

Woah, hold up right there. There are a lot illogical reasoning and false presumptions baked into that one statement. Let's unpack this:

First lets go back to your original claim that you think you can call God immoral.
Doing this by definition requires an objective standard of morality. Otherwise you have no basis for truly calling God's actions immoral because it's just your opinion against his.

(And, point of order: if we want to speak more accurately, it is logically impossible to even assert it is merely just God's opinion vs yours. Because God's as the creator is the only one who can by definition assign intention and purpose to creation. Morality is "how things are suppose to be" and "how things are suppose to be" can only be logically determined by the one who created something with an intention behind what the purpose of that creation was. So by definition God's virtue of being the creator automatically makes his intention for creation objective morality by definition.
Since you have no power to put intention behind the creation of the universe, and no power to change it's intention, you have no logical basis to claim to lay that your opinion of how creation is suppose to be can in anyway go back in time and alter the intention God had for creation when He created it.)

But, that's not really necessary to argue to prove your statement is wrong. Because objective morality as an true concept isn't possible to exist if materiailstic atheism is true.

So if you admit your claim that God is immoral is based on a subjective standard (ie. Just your opinion or preference) then you automatically refute your own claim because you have no basis on which to truly call God's actions objectively immoral, and therefore you have no basis for claiming his actions contradict his moral nature.

So by admitting that is your "only standard" by which to judge God that means you admit you actually have no standard by which to actually judge God - so therefore any claim you make based on judging God is invalid.

If you wanted to try to deify yourself and claim your judgement constitutes objective morality, and therefore gives you the authority to judge God as immoral, then I could logically refute your claim as well - but I don't think you're going to try to do that.

Judging god by his own standard would be unreliable and fallacious, because literally any person or being will be judged good by their own standard, no matter their moral code.

Claiming you can't expect to be able to judge God by His own standard doesn't solve the logical problem of you not having any other objective standard by which to judge God.

As I just pointed out, have no other basis on which to render a true judgement of what is moral and immoral.

Your just talking about your opinion.

You can't say it's truly objectively right or wrong because you've provided no standard by which that could be determined.

And since your original argument against God's existence is based on the premise of being able to judge God's morality that means your entire argument fails and is rendered invalid because it was based on false premises.

We can go further and say that if you are trying to use what the Bible says about God's actions and moral nature in order to disprove God then it's actually a self refuting argument because the Bible also says He is the ultimate and sole source of creation with no other equal to or above Him.
So based on that; we can logically say that by virtue of being the One who created everything that would mean God was the only one who could imbue creation with a purpose through His will of intention. Therefore, by definition, God's intention for creation becomes it's objective purpose which is to say it's objective morality. Because no person's opinion about God's purpose can change what God intended the purpose of His creation to be. So God's purpose for creation stands as objectively true about His creation. That is the very definition of subjective vs objective. Ie. Objective remains true regardless of what any person thinks about it. The purpose of creation is logically embedded in the act of creation itself as part of what the creator intended when he created it. And your opinion of that intention can't go back in time and change God's intention. So your opinion of it is just subjective.

If god gets to say what is right because he has the power to make us suffer, then I don't see how that's a moral scenario either.

Your ability to understand God's decisions doesn't have any logical bearing on proving your claim that God is immoral.

You can't establish your claim is true logically.

In fact, if we assume God is the creator then I have already shown why it is logically impossible for your claim to be true.

You seem to be deifying your own mind again. It's as though you seem to think that something is determined to be true based on your ability to understand it.

That is fallacious reasoning. Truth is not determined to be true by your ability to understand it as truth. In that case you are not allowing for faults in your reasoning abilities or for gaps in your knowledge to explain why you can't understand something. Nor is it allowing for the possibility of willful suppression of the truth on your part because you decide you want to believe a lie instead.

If you can't point to any faults with the logic or evidence of a position then simply claiming you don't understand it doesn't prove anything about that position.

 

[Rise]

If you look at the thousands of mutually exclusive Christian denominations, it seems clear to me that people are simply grafting their personal moral preferences onto their "true interpretation" of god's word. (You can't all be right, or is god the author of confusion?)

You are engaging in the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion or red herring.

The existence of disagreements amongst people about what they think God would say is moral does nothing to prove any claim you have tried to assert is true nor does it refute any argument Craig or I have put forth .

Your appeal is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that your claims about being able to judge God as immoral is still logically disproven. And pointing to people who disagree with each other doesn't logically salvage your original claim because it's not relevant to defending that claim. It's just a distraction.

Nor does it prove your claim that Craig's arguments don't actually prove his conclusion, which is that theism can better explain what we observe about reality than atheism.

Furthermore, if I can't judge the Christian god as evil because I'm a rudderless, fallen human, then I don't see how you can judge god as good, since you're supposedly afflicted by the same innate depravity as I am along with everyone else. God could as easily be deceiving you into believing he's good, due to your flawed moral compass, as I could be falsely concluding he is evil because of my flawed moral compass. You can't have it both ways.

You are committing the fallacy of a false dilemma because you don't understand the nature of what morality is as a concept and how we can say it's objective.

I never said I could, or needed, to judge God as moral. I never said anyone needed to, or could, judge God as moral.

As I outlined already: Morality is declaring how things are suppose to be.

Who gets to decide how things are suppose to be?

By definition the one who creates the thing is the one who assigns purpose to it. Therefore, by definition, the one who creates a thing is the one who declares how it is suppose to be and what it is suppose to do.

The reason I say "by definition" is because every act of creation requires a will/mind to engage in an act of intention. Otherwise by definition we wouldn't call it an act of creating but would simply just say it happened. If paint spills to the ground on accident and creates a pattern, it's not called an act of creation - because there was no intention behind it. In contrast, if an artist splashes paint intentionally on the ground then we would say it is an act of creation because a mind willed something to happen according to an intention within their mind.

That is why there can definitionally be no purpose to materialistic atheism because there is believed to be no mind behind the act of creation to have an intent behind his creation. Which is likewise why morality itself is impossible to exist in materialistic atheism. Because you need intention before you can declare how things are suppose to be. Without intention, which can only come from an abstract mind, you can't say the universe is suppose to be anyway - it just is what it is and it doesn't matter how it is. Because there is no standard to judge how it is against what it is suppose to be.

5. I don't care what you think I'm asserting fallaciously, because describing my opinion is not an objective truth claim.

As I have shown, you are actually making claims of truth. And by thinking you don't need to support your claims you are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion.

I'm talking about my response to Christian apologetics. From everything I've seen, every argument is fallacious or unsound,

Right there you just made a claim again.

You just claimed it is true that every argument you've seen in Christian apologetics is fallacious and unsound. You didn't say you don't see how they are valid and sound. You claimed they ARE fallacious and unsound. You're making a claim of truth.

Now, that by itself might not be something I could take issue with if I didn't know what arguments you've seen.
But the fact is I do know some of what arguments you've claimed to see because you claim to have watched the video of the debate with Craig.

So we know for a fact that Craig's arguments must be included in your category of "all Christian apologetics" that "you've seen".

Which by extension also means you are again accusing Craig's arguments of being fallacious and unsound.

And you didn't just say that is your opinion - you stated it as though it were a true fact.

But you have given no evidence or arguments for why we should conclude your claims about Craig's arguments would be true.

none of the explanations are explanatory,

You are again, by extension, accusing Craigs arguments of failing to explain what we see in reality by theism.

But you provide no evidence or arguments for why we should conclude that to be true.

You merely assert it is true, committing the fallacy of argument by assertion.

and the most common descriptions of the Christian god are what I would consider evil.

And I already refuted the premise on which you claim to be able to make that determination.

I don't feel like relabeling evil as good because I avoid cognitive dissonance.
A god that intentionally creates a universe such that he can torture nearly every sapient being eternally, with the small remainder being gaslit sycophants living our their eternal lives with Stockholm syndrome, is essentially the most evil scenario I could possibly imagine.

Your line of reasoning is fallacious for two fatal reasons.


1. What you "feel like" doing has nothing to do with determining what is true from what is false. Again you are deifying the preferences of you own mind above what logic and evidence conclude.

I thought we were people of science here? Since when did your subjective feelings trump the cold hard evidentiary truth of reality?

I say that because your statement is basically asserting that even if the evidence did point to God's existence and the Bible being true you would still choose to reject it for the reason that it doesn't line up with your feelings.

You're not talking like a man of science but instead talking like someone who is part of the new age faith movement.


2. You are committing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
You are posing a false dilemma between following a God whom you think is immoral or following your own feelings in opposition to that.

There is a third option you don't appear to have considered: Maybe you're wrong about God being immoral. Maybe you're approaching the Bible with misunderstanding and wrong assumptions about what God is doing, why He is doing it, or what truly is moral.

But, as I think we've already seen at multiple points in your response, if you engage in deifying your own thoughts and opinions over logic and evidence then it's unlikely you would even stop to think that #3 is a possibility.

I must also point out that your false dilemma is also a self refuting one. Because if you admit God exists, but just say you don't want to follow him because you think He's immoral, then you automatically cede that you can't call him immoral because he was the one who purposed the intent behind creation and by definition becomes that which is objectively moral.



In fact, your statements here refute something you tried to claim earlier:

Your "angry at god" trope is so meaningless. One of the few things I can be absolutely certain of is the content of my own thoughts. If you claim that I'm not thinking what I in fact know I'm thinking, then this lets me be absolutely certain you are wrong. You should really stop psychologizing atheists because it dramatically weakens your case. I don't believe any gods exist. I can't be angry at something I think is imaginary. If you "deny in your heart" that the Hindu pantheon exists, does that mean you are secretly angry at karma? Can you see why this argument is ridiculous?

By admitting that you wouldn't follow or accept God even if the evidence showed He were real and what the Bible says about Him were true, and saying you would do so on the basis that you think he's "evil", you are proving the angry atheist trope is actually quite accurate.

Your rejection of God in this case is not based on evidence or truth but on subjective preference, aired with a disdain for who you think God is and angry indignation for what you think He has allowed to happen.

So it becomes eminently relevant, and not at all meaningless, to talk about the real reasons that motivate you to reject God's existence when the evidence and arguments Craig has presented shows one should logically say theism explains reality better than atheism.

P.S. Did you actually want to discuss one of Craig's arguments?

I would love to. But we're still waiting on you to provide support for your claims about his arguments.

Unless you want to withdraw your claims and admit you are unable to support them as being true.

 

[Rise]

He was exceptionally effective. Others went after the poor claims with specific rebuttals, Hitchens didn't;t have to. He went after the absurdities of the Bible, the hypocrisy of believers, the corruption in religion, the lack of promised morality, the negative influence of religion on education, etc.

When you do not rebut your opponents claims or arguments, or even offer an argument which makes doing that logically unnecessary, you by definition have completely failed from a debate standpoint.

What you are describing Hitchens doing is nothing more than throwing out a series of logical fallacies: Irrelevant Conclusion, Red Herring, Ad Hominem, Genetic, To Quoque, and probably others that don't immediately come to mind.

Which is exactly what we see Hitchens try to do with Craig - but, unlike some others Hitchens has debated, Craig is a pre-eminent logician and philosopher. As a result, it's extremely easy for him to shut down Hitchens by exposing the fallacious and contradictory nature of his arguments and not allowing Hitchens to sidetrack the debate with red herrings.

You claim Hitchens is effective. That raise the question: Effective at what exactly? How do you define success? Because he wasn't effective at winning this debate from an objective logical standpoint.

His fallacious appeals might work at changing the minds of people who aren't very skilled at analyzing the logic of an argument - but that doesn't make them effective or successful arguments from a logical standpoint.

What you must not realize is that there are a lot of dishonest, untrue, and manipulative ways to convince people to change their minds.
That's why people who are arguing against what is true use fallacious arguments and appeals. Because they can, to a certain extent, achieve the effect you desire of convincing people your viewpoint is right by dishonest rhetoric tactics alone, if those individuals lack the sophistication to understand why your arguments are faulty and are easily swayed from what they intuitively know to be true.

But getting people to change their opinion based on fallacious arguments and dishonest rhetorical tactics is not success if your definition of success is the pursuit of truth.

He had a very human approach, and theists could rebut his observations nor address his questions.

It is obviously false to claim no theist could rebut Hitchens' arguments because we plainly see Craig did just that in this debate. And I have already given many examples and reasons to show why Craigs rebuttals were effective throughout this thread.

If you want to claim that Craig did not actually rebut Hitchens the the onus is on you to prove your claim is true by providing an example of any argument Hitchens made and then giving specific logical reasons why you think Craig failed to rebut it.

Actually he gets stomped pretty badly trying to argue this. Craig's arguments are designed to appeal to the believer's weakness and bias, and that's why believers think it's good. It's terrible factually and objectively. It's easy for non-believers to recognize these cheap tricks because the emotional appeals don't work.

You commit the logical fallacy of argument by assertion multiple times.
You assert many claims without any logical arguments or evidence to support or justify your claims.

You claim:
1. That Craig's argument from morality "gets stomped".
2. That his arguments aren't logically valid.
3. That his arguments are based on a appealing to bias (whatever that means)
4. That his arguments are based on appealing to "weakness" (whatever that means).
3. That his arguments are factually wrong.
4. That his arguments are objectively wrong.
5. That he is using a fallacious appeal to emotion in his arguments.

Merely asserting those things are true doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is.

You need to provide logical reasons and evidence to support your claims if you want to assert they are true.

You won't be able to support your claims because they aren't actually true. I could go over many reasons why they aren't true, but I have no need to do that when the burden of proof is first on you as the one making those claims to give some attempt at justification for your claims.

He certainly had an attitude and swagger that carries a lot of credibility.

I assume you don't mean to imply he has credibility because of his attitude and swagger, but you simply mean that it gives him the illusion of credibility.

I do agree that the manner in which he speaks probably creates the perception in unsophisticated viewers that what Hitchens is saying is credible simply because he sounds authoritative and smart to them.

It's not unlike the problem some people have when listening to the Craig v Carrol debate. Many of them in this thread couldn't specifically, logically, tell you why they thought they could assert as truth that Craig's arguments were refuted. But nonetheless they talk as though Craig got demolished. I believe it is because Carrol has a PHD in the subject matter and makes reference to a lot of stuff they don't understand so they just assume he must be right when he asserts that these things prove Craig's argument is wrong. (And I'm going to address some of their attempts to explain why they think Carrol refuted Craig in one of my next posts, demonstrating they don't have specific or valid logical reasons for why they think Craig was refuted).

At least in Carrol's case they at least have a reason for why they would assume what he is saying is right because of his credentials. It's still a fallacy of appeal to authority and therefore not a valid conclusion to draw. But it's at least better than in the case of Hitchens where sheer attitude and an eloquent accent seem to be enough to convince some people what he is saying carries more weight than it actually does on the merits of it's logic and evidence.

Craig's arguments were exceptionally weak and make constant annoying assumptions that he was often allowed to get away with.

You again commit the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.

You have asserted:
1. That Craig's arguments are weak.
2. That Craig is making assumptions that are somehow in error.

But you have not given any logical reason or evidence to establish your claims are true. You have demonstrated no weakness in Craig's argument nor error in the presumptions he based his argument on.

Your claims about the quality of Craig's argument aren't proven to be true just because you assert it is so.

I don't remember Hitchen's arguing that a God doesn't exist. Perhaps he's made some conclusions by using theistic claims that could be debunked.

He has asserted that he believes he can claim as truth that the Christian God doesn't exist.
But Craig shot down his attempts to show a contradiction in the character of God by pointing out the flaws in his reasoning and the faulty assumptions he was using.

Hitchens seems to try to avoid having to assert that atheism in general is true.
But, as Craig pointed out, that is not a defensible position for Hitchens to take in this debate.
Because Craig has put forth a positive logical argument for why we must believe God exists. Meaning: if Hitchens can't invalidate the logic or the premises then the conclusion is necessary.

I'll note that theists have a huge and unwindable burden.

You have given no reason or evidence to prove your claim that Craig didn't meet the burden of proof for his conclusion.

His conclusion was that theism better explains reality than atheism.

He established that with both logical argumentation and appeals to evidence.

You have exposed no specific flaw in his argument or with his evidence.

Therefore you have no basis for claiming he did not meet the burden of proof for his conclusion.

Atheists just have to point out the serious shortcomings in the claims theists make.

You have a misunderstanding of what yours and Hitchen's true burden of proof is in this case.

Craig provided five arguments that would lead us to conclude theism is more likely true than atheism.

If you want to claim Craig's conclusion is false then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate why you think there is any error in his argument.

If you aren't claiming Craig's conclusion is false then you are ceding that it is true because the logic forces you to reach that conclusion.
As Craig said, he's making a deductive argument - meaning if the premises are true then the conclusion has to logically follow as true.

So which is it? Are you claiming Craig's conclusion is false or are you claiming nothing about it?

If you claim it's false you have a burden of proof to demonstrate why his argument is faulty (And, as I've quoted you, you do indeed try to claim Craig's argument is false and faulty - so you do have that burden of proof).

If you don't claim his conclusion is false then you tacitly cede his conclusion must logically be true because you can find no fault with it.

Simply saying "I am just personally not convinced" doesn't do anything to disprove the truth of Craig's claim. Your ability to be convinced by an argument doesn't determine whether or not that argument is logically valid or true.

The logic objectively shows his conclusion to be validated irrespective of your subjective opinion. You are at that point merely stating your opinion and not a fact. An opinion which has already been shown to be objectively false by Craig's logic and evidence because no logically successful refutation of Craig's arguments has occurred.

We can also take this further and say if you want to start asserting your own claim that materialistic atheism better explains reality than theism (as proponents of atheism usually do) then the burden of proof falls on you to answer for all the ways in which atheism literally can't explain what the evidence shows. Evidence of a beginning to the universe. Evidence for free will, consciousness, objective morality, etc.

 

[osgart]

Your conclusion is not true because you are starting from faulty assumptions. Which is that you are misdefining the concept of “objective”.
And I can also show that you know that is not the right way to define objective because how you define objective with regards to truth is inconsistent with how you define objective with regards to morality.

I will explain why:

Your argument about god creating morality presumes god exists and is our creator. So let’s go from there:

What makes something objectively true in that case? Objective truth is defined as something which continues to be true regardless of what a person believes to be true.

Now you affirm that such a concept exists. Ok. But now you have to ask what makes it true in the first place?

Truth is defined by the the one who created reality. You can say something is true about reality only because the creator determined reality is that way. There is no other context in which to define what is true about reality other than what the creator has created to be true about reality.

So if you apply your original standard of objective morality to objective truth then you are forced to conclude that there is no objective truth because God was the one who defined what is true by creating reality. By your original logic you would be forced to conclude that god’s truth isn’t objective truth but is just his opinion about what should be true.

But even that argument by you would be logically wrong - because you can’t claim God’s defined truth is not the standard by which truth is judged unless you can say either there are other gods equal to him also creating in the same way or unless you can say that there exists something above god which created him and subjected him to a higher truth.

To think of it another way; Is God subject to a truth that is not Himself? If the answer is no then logically there can be no other standard for objective truth other than that which comes from God.

If God is uncreated and uncaused, and there are no others equal to him, then by definition there is no other standard by which to judge his truth of reality against. His truth becomes the very definition of truth by virtue if being the source of everything. You have no basis for claiming there exists any other truth but God’s truth when nothing above or equal to Him exists.

That is why the Bible says that God is not merely true but that God is the very embodiment of Truth itself. It says that something is not merely true because God decided it is true but that God created creation as a reflection of who He is and He IS Truth.

If there did exist something above or equal to god then he wouldn’t be God as revealed in the Bible. So you would cease to be describing God by Biblical definition as the unique and sole creator above all else.

At that point you don’t have a debate over the nature of objective truth but you have a debate over which idea of God is true.

But if you believe objective truth exists then you are logically forced to believe in a singular creator who has no equal and who was himself not created. Because that is logically the only way objective truth can exist. Does your current belief system even make room for such a being to exist? If not then you need to re-evaluate what you believe about creation to be consistent with you belief about objective truth. Because otherwise you are currently holding two contradictory beliefs.

Objective morality is no different.

So what is the true definiton of objective morality?
Morality is really just a statement of how things are suppose to be.
Therefore objective morality means that something is suppose to be a certain way and that doesn’t change based on what any person thinks about it.

That is why the existence of morality requires a creator being with will to declare what the purpose of creation is. Because you cannot say how things are suppose to be unless you designed and created things with the intent that they should be a certain way.
You cannot by definition have morality without purpose/intent behind your creation. And you can’t by definition have a purpose without a designer/creator to assign a purpose based on what their intent for you was.

So if God says this is how things are suppose to be, and there is no other above him to override him, and no other equal to disagree with him, then you have no basis for claiming God cannot be called the objective source of morality anymore than you would try to claim he can’t be called the objective source of truth.

By virtue of the fact that He is responsible for creating reality as it is and assigning it’s purpose He has through the act of creation applied the very concept of truth and morality to our reality. There is no one else to apply anything different. He is the source. And if that doesn’t make it objective by definition then nothing would.

By definition the only way it can be subjective is if there is someone else with equal or greater authority to disagree with god about how things are suppose to be.

You as a created being, created by God, aren’t in a position to objectively dispute the purpose God intended for you. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but you have no logical basis for claiming your opinion about God’s purpose for you overrides the purpose you objectively have because that is the purpose your creator gave you when be created you.

Since your purpose was logically decided at creation your purpose is an objective fact about your creation and inherent to your creation.
So your opinion about the purpose of your creation can no more change the objective purpose behind your creation than your opinion of the laws of physics can objectively change the truth of them.

It reminds me of Romans 9:
Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?”

A creator by definition gets to define what the purpose of their creation is. He actually has to. Because you can’t create without first having an intention. And with an intention carries with it the implication of a purpose.

You by definition have an objective purpose because God gave you one as part of your creation act.

Your opinion of that purpose doesn’t change the objective fact of what purpose God gave you at the act of creation.

You as a created being never had the ability to create yourself and the universe you live in. Therefore you never had the ability to intend a purpose behind your creation. So your opinion of your purpose can’t change the objective fact of your purpose because you have no ability to recreate yourself according to your own intentions and create a new purpose.

Purpose by definition is only assigned by a creator based on the intent of the creator.

And since morality is merely a description of purpose, we can say morality by definition can only be assigned to a creation by the creator as part of intending what their purpose was when they created them.

So it’s actually wrong to think of morality as some kind of standard imposed upon creation post creation. It is more accurate to understand morality as an inherent aspect of the creation itself, intrinsic to the purpose given to the creation by the intent of the creator.

It is therefore logically impossible to have a universe and beings created by a creator without having an objective morality to go along with it. Because the very act of creation carries with it an intrinsic intent and purpose which we then call objective morality. It is impossible to have an act of creation without intent and purpose so it is impossible to have creation without morality.

It is the same principle behind the fact that truth is not a post creation invention, but truth is intrinsic to the act of creation itself as a description of what creation is and how it works.

We can sum this also up with a question: Is God subject to a moral standard that is not Himself? If the answer is no then logically by definition God is the only standard of objective morality.

I should also point out that Biblically we know God does not invent morality as something separate from himself but morality is an expression of who He already is. Much as the truth of our reality is an expression and reflection of God’s nature as Truth - so too the sense of morality we have is a reflection of God’s nature. We define what is good based on what is like God. And we define what is evil based on that which is not like God.

Objective morality has a goal and a purpose. The goal is for all of life to live in harmony and peace. The purpose of objective morality is for well being and relationship values. The truth of objective morality is true regardless if there is or is not a God. Virtues are not refutable. Vices only lead to destruction.

The self evident truthes are true on their own merits regardless if a God exists or not. The many virtues are the standard of acceptable morality.

We do not live in a universe that is an expression of objective morality, and truth. Therefore no God exists.

Objective truthes are factual based on their own merits. Objective truthes are brute facts. They just so happen to be without further reason.

 

[Rise]

Hitchen's approach has often been from assuming the Bible is true and exposing the absurdities of believing in these stories and this God. It's not my approach but I do find him entertaining.

Which is why Hitchens objectively, logically, failed to refute Craig's theism vs atheism arguments - because they are purely based on logic and empirical evidence without the need to appeal to any Scripture for them to be true.

Craig only appeals to Scripture to establish that Christian theism specifically is true, but even then he does so on the basis of appealing to the logical historicity of the New Testament account - so even in that case he's not appealing to it on the basis of it's inspiration, but purely on it's basis as a historical document and therefore what conclusions we should be able to draw from it as a historical document. Ie. Concluding that we have reason to believe the resurrection account is a genuine eye witness event. Therefore we have reason to believe hat Jesus said was true.

So he starts first from an appeal to logic and the practical discipline of a historian and only after the resurrection is established in his view as a fact of history does he then make the logical conclusion that we should regard the words of Jesus as truth.

I personally would not take that approach towards arguing why Christianity is the right truth about theism. I don't think it's the strongest way to argue that case.

But, nonetheless, the point is that it would be wrong if one were to try to accuse Craig of appealing to the Bible to prove something is true because he's not appealing to the Bible on the basis of divine inspiration for his conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead. He appeals to it first only on the basis of it being a historical document (which is why he cites mainstream scholars in the field to establish the historicity of Jesus),

 

[Rise]

Objective morality has a goal and a purpose.

"Objective morality" is not a being with a mind. Unless you want to give God the title of "objective morality".

"Objective morality" as we commonly use the term is merely an abstract concept that cannot by definition create anything nor establish a purpose for anything.

By definition purpose requires a mind to give intention to something that is created.

So "objective morality" is not a mind capable of either creating or giving intention to anything.

"Objective morality" is merely a description of the intent behind the universe which the creator gave it it when he created it.

The goal is for all of life to live in harmony and peace.

Says who?
Who established this goal?

Goals require intention. Intention requires a mind.

What mind set the goals for life?

By definition only the one who creates life can set the goals for life.

If you don't have a mind that is capable of creating life then by definition you can't have goals for life.

The purpose of objective morality is for well being and relationship values.

The fault with your statement is that assuming "objective morality" is some kind of created object which is imbued upon other created things after they are already created to give those creations something which they did not already have.

By definition the purpose/goal of a creation is decided at the moment of creation by the intent of the one doing the creation.

Since objective morality is nothing more than an expression of the purpose/goal/design intention of a creation, we can say that the definition of objective morality for people was already set at the moment of their creation based on what God's intention was for people and how He thought things were suppose to be.

Therefore, objective morality is embedded in the creation itself as an expression of what the intent of the creator was when they made the creation.

It's not something you have to go back in and add later.

In fact, creating something without intent would be a logical contradiction because the definition of creation requires first an intent.

And since morality comes out of intent, we are forced to conclude that morality for people was determined by our creator when he intentioned to create us.

To put it another way: God had a purpose in mind for us before He created us. That purpose is objective and doesn't change based on any person's opinion of it. Objective morality therefore by definition when we align with God's purpose for us. Immorality is when we don't.

The truth of objective morality is true regardless if there is or is not a God....
The self evident truthes are true on their own merits regardless if a God exists or not.

You contradict yourself.

If you assert that objective morality exists as true then you are inextricably forced to come to the conclusion that there must be creator behind creation.

Because without a mind to give intent to creation there can be no purpose to creation - and therefore no declaration of how things are suppose to be.

Not only are you forced to come to the conclusion that a creator exists but you are also forced to come to the conclusion that this creator is singular, without equal, and above all else. Because if those things are not true then you can't call the Creator's morality objective.
If something were above the creator then that creator would be subject to what above him declared was his purpose, and therefore whatever he created would only be an outworking of the intention established by whatever mind was above him.
And if there were an equal to him, and they disputed about what was the right purpose to give a universe, then we would have no basis for declaring one's opinion is right and the other's is wrong.

Virtues are not refutable. Vices only lead to destruction.
...
The many virtues are the standard of acceptable morality.

I would agree that you can't refute virtues as a real existing concept. But that doesn't prove your claims about the source of objective morality are true.

The Bible tells us that the reason we all know objective morality exists is because God, our creator, put that understanding within us.

We do not live in a universe that is an expression of objective morality, and truth. Therefore no God exists.

There are two critical errors with your statement:

1. It's already disproven by what I pointed out that logic inextricably forces one to concluding that there must be an ultimate creator behind us if objective morality exists.

If you affirm objective morality exists then you have no choice but to affirm an ultimate creator.
There is logically no other possible source.
Any other potential source one tries to come up with invariably ends up either not being "morality" by definition or not being "objective" by definition.


2. You are basing your conclusion on a false premise.

Just because you don't see people living perfectly according to an objective morality doesn't prove that objective morality as a concept doesn't exist

Because there are logically other reasons to explain what we are seeing that could be true. So you have no basis for assuming your explanation for what we see is the only possible way to explain it, or even the best way to explain it.

The Bible tells us that we have the free will to choose to following our design or not and that there are consequences for our choices.


It's also not clear how you are trying to introduce the idea of "truth" into this mix. Are you denying that objective truth exists?

Objective truthes are factual based on their own merits. Objective truthes are brute facts. They just so happen to be without further reason.

Your statements about truth don't refute anything I've said about objective morality.

 

[osgart]

"Objective morality" is not a being with a mind. Unless you want to give God the title of "objective morality".

"Objective morality" as we commonly use the term is merely an abstract concept that cannot by definition create anything nor establish a purpose for anything.

By definition purpose requires a mind to give intention to something that is created.

So "objective morality" is not a mind capable of either creating or giving intention to anything.

"Objective morality" is merely a description of the intent behind the universe which the creator gave it it when he created it.




Says who?
Who established this goal?

Goals require intention. Intention requires a mind.

What mind set the goals for life?

By definition only the one who creates life can set the goals for life.

If you don't have a mind that is capable of creating life then by definition you can't have goals for life.



The fault with your statement is that assuming "objective morality" is some kind of created object which is imbued upon other created things after they are already created to give those creations something which they did not already have.

By definition the purpose/goal of a creation is decided at the moment of creation by the intent of the one doing the creation.

Since objective morality is nothing more than an expression of the purpose/goal/design intention of a creation, we can say that the definition of objective morality for people was already set at the moment of their creation based on what God's intention was for people and how He thought things were suppose to be.

Therefore, objective morality is embedded in the creation itself as an expression of what the intent of the creator was when they made the creation.

It's not something you have to go back in and add later.

In fact, creating something without intent would be a logical contradiction because the definition of creation requires first an intent.

And since morality comes out of intent, we are forced to conclude that morality for people was determined by our creator when he intentioned to create us.

To put it another way: God had a purpose in mind for us before He created us. That purpose is objective and doesn't change based on any person's opinion of it. Objective morality therefore by definition when we align with God's purpose for us. Immorality is when we don't.



You contradict yourself.

If you assert that objective morality exists as true then you are inextricably forced to come to the conclusion that there must be creator behind creation.

Because without a mind to give intent to creation there can be no purpose to creation - and therefore no declaration of how things are suppose to be.

Not only are you forced to come to the conclusion that a creator exists but you are also forced to come to the conclusion that this creator is singular, without equal, and above all else. Because if those things are not true then you can't call the Creator's morality objective.
If something were above the creator then that creator would be subject to what above him declared was his purpose, and therefore whatever he created would only be an outworking of the intention established by whatever mind was above him.
And if there were an equal to him, and they disputed about what was the right purpose to give a universe, then we would have no basis for declaring one's opinion is right and the other's is wrong.



I would agree that you can't refute virtues as a real existing concept. But that doesn't prove your claims about the source of objective morality are true.

The Bible tells us that the reason we all know objective morality exists is because God, our creator, put that understanding within us.



There are two critical errors with your statement:

1. It's already disproven by what I pointed out about the logical inextricably of concluding that there must be an ultimate creator behind us if objective morality exists.

If you affirm objective morality exists then you have no choice but to affirm an ultimate creator. There is no other possible source.


2. You are basing your conclusion on a false premise.

Just because you don't see people living perfectly according to an objective morality doesn't prove that objective morality as a concept doesn't exist

Because there are logically other reasons to explain what we are seeing that could be true. So you have no basis for assuming your explanation for what we see is the only possible way to explain it, or even the best way to explain it.

The Bible tells us that we have the free will to choose to following our design or not and that there are consequences for our choices.


It's also not clear how you are trying to introduce the idea of "truth" into this mix. Are you denying that objective truth exists?



Your statements about truth don't refute anything I've said about objective morality.

Objective self evident truthes exist. And morality has cause and effect. A virtue such as honesty is necessary for survival, and relationship. If there were no honesty then people could not relate or work together. The opposite of honesty is deceit and that vice seeks to harm, or deprive a deserve through trickery. So these are qualities of intention. As long as conscientious life exists then objective morality will always be the standard for health and well being.

I'm not clear on your reasons that make God the reason for objective morality. A God could make life for sport or amusement and not necessarily care one way or the other what happens to his/her creations. I would have to judge a God according to God's honesty. I can't judge honesty according to a God. Regardless I have to be about honesty if I hope to live well, no one wants to live a lie.

 

[F1fan]

Which is why Hitchens objectively, logically, failed to refute Craig's theism vs atheism arguments - because they are purely based on logic and empirical evidence without the need to appeal to any Scripture for them to be true.

Craig's arguments are laughable. He tried inserting religious assumptions any time he could. His arguments only appeal to theists who can't recognize the baseless assumptions he makes because theists make the same assumptions. So Craig lost based on that.

Craig only appeals to Scripture to establish that Christian theism specifically is true, but even then he does so on the basis of appealing to the logical historicity of the New Testament account - so even in that case he's not appealing to it on the basis of it's inspiration, but purely on it's basis as a historical document and therefore what conclusions we should be able to draw from it as a historical document. Ie. Concluding that we have reason to believe the resurrection account is a genuine eye witness event. Therefore we have reason to believe hat Jesus said was true.

So he starts first from an appeal to logic and the practical discipline of a historian and only after the resurrection is established in his view as a fact of history does he then make the logical conclusion that we should regard the words of Jesus as truth.

I personally would not take that approach towards arguing why Christianity is the right truth about theism. I don't think it's the strongest way to argue that case.

But, nonetheless, the point is that it would be wrong if one were to try to accuse Craig of appealing to the Bible to prove something is true because he's not appealing to the Bible on the basis of divine inspiration for his conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead. He appeals to it first only on the basis of it being a historical document (which is why he cites mainstream scholars in the field to establish the historicity of Jesus),

Creationists learned some time ago that they cannot win honest debates, so they used these platforms as a way to promote their bad arguments. And they gained fame and acclaim by theists who ate up their bad arguments. If you want to see how bad Craig and other theists' arguments are just look at objective criticisms. There''s where you find truth.

 

[Rise]

Did you miss the much larger reply I made to you? You're only responding to the second smaller one. I had to spread my response out between two posts because it was too long.

Craig's arguments are laughable. He tried inserting religious assumptions any time he could. His arguments only appeal to theists who can't recognize the baseless assumptions he makes because theists make the same assumptions. So Craig lost based on that.

Creationists learned some time ago that they cannot win honest debates, so they used these platforms as a way to promote their bad arguments. And they gained fame and acclaim by theists who ate up their bad arguments. If you want to see how bad Craig and other theists' arguments are just look at objective criticisms. There''s where you find truth.

You are committing the same logical fallacy of argument by assertion I pointed out you were doing in my first post responding to you.
Which suggests to me you did, in fact, miss that post.

Merely asserting claims doesn't make your claims true just because you assert it is true. You need to provide logical arguments and evidence to support why we should believe your claims are supposedly true.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claim to support why you think your claim is true.

You have made the following claims here:
1. That there is something faulty with Craigs presumptions within his arguments.
2. That he is using baseless assumptions in his arguments.
3. That Craig is using bad arguments.
4. That there exists proof of his arguments being bad via some person's criticisms whom you do not even name
5. That this other mystery person is speaking the truth.
6. That Craig isn't speaking the truth.

You have given no examples of what Craig argued, or what anyone else has counter-argued, as evidence of your claims.

You won't be able to find examples because your claims are not actually true.

If you aren't willing to support your claims with logical arguments and evidence then you don't get to claim it's true. It's merely your unsupported and unproven opinion.

Although I could still take considerable time to prove your opinion is wrong, there's no burden for me to do so because it's just your opinion.

Only if you could present a logical argument in support of your claim would the burden fall on others to offer a counter argument to disprove your claim.

 

[F1fan]

Did you miss the much larger reply I made to you? You're only responding to the second smaller one. I had to spread my response out between two posts because it was too long.




You are committing the same logical fallacy of argument by assertion I pointed out you were doing in my first post responding to you.
Which suggests to me you did, in fact, miss that post.

Merely asserting claims doesn't make your claims true just because you assert it is true. You need to provide logical arguments and evidence to support why we should believe your claims are supposedly true.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claim to support why you think your claim is true.

You have made the following claims here:
1. That there is something faulty with Craigs presumptions within his arguments.
2. That he is using baseless assumptions in his arguments.
3. That Craig is using bad arguments.
4. That there exists proof of his arguments being bad via some person's criticisms whom you do not even name
5. That this other mystery person is speaking the truth.
6. That Craig isn't speaking the truth.

You have given no examples of what Craig argued, or what anyone else has counter-argued, as evidence of your claims.

You won't be able to find examples because your claims are not actually true.

If you aren't willing to support your claims with logical arguments and evidence then you don't get to claim it's true. It's merely your unsupported and unproven opinion.

Although I could still take considerable time to prove your opinion is wrong, there's no burden for me to do so because it's just your opinion.

Only if you could present a logical argument in support of your claim would the burden fall on others to offer a counter argument to disprove your claim.

It's been a while since I've heard Craig present his arguments, but I recall at the time how poor his assumptions are. They aren't factual. That's why he's not acclaimed as some fabulous thinker.

The funny thing is you ask me to follow the rigid standards of debate and logic while you don't demand the same from Craig.

 

[Rise]

Objective self evident truthes exist. And morality has cause and effect. A virtue such as honesty is necessary for survival, and relationship. If there were no honesty then people could not relate or work together. The opposite of honesty is deceit and that vice seeks to harm, or deprive a deserve through trickery.

Nothing you said there refutes any point I argued about objective morality.

So these are qualities of intention.

You are misusing and misunderstanding that word in relation to how I used it.

I said that every act of creation by a mind involves intention behind the creation.

You have no other mechanism by which purpose can be assigned to something.

Purpose requires intention behind creation which requires a mind.

That is by definition, what makes it a creative act and not just something that happened.

An earthquake creating a hole in the ground has no intention because it has no mind.
A person digging a hole in the ground has intention behind their actions because they have a mind.

Nothing you described counters the logic of what I just said about every act of creation has intention behind it.

Intention is by definition what makes it an act of creation and not just something random that happened. And intention can only come from a mind.

As long as conscientious life exists then objective morality will always be the standard for health and well being.

You are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.
You are assuming in your premise what you are trying to prove in your conclusion.

You merely assume that the existence of life somehow creates objective morality, and don't specify how it does, and then you go on to conclude that objective morality exists because life exists.

It's circular reasoning.

I'm not clear on your reasons that make God the reason for objective morality.

I can try to summarize what I said again and see if that helps:

1. Morality by definition is "how things are suppose to be".
2. By definition, there is no "how things are suppose to be" unless someone decides how things are suppose to be.
3. The one who decides how the universe is suppose to function is the one who creates the universe.
4. Objectivity is defined as that which continues to be true regardless of what a person thinks about it.
5. Your objective purpose is by definition decided by the one who created you, who decided what you are suppose to be and do. And no opinion of man can ever change that.

You have no other process by which morality could both exist and be objective.
The only thing that can logically fulfill both requirements is an ultimate creator being who has with no equal and who is above above all else.

No other scheme you try to invent is going to satisfy both conditions. Go ahead and try. I will logically show why they fail to either meet the definition of either morality or objectivity.

A God could make life for sport or amusement

That would still be a purpose.
There would still be intention behind the act of creation.

Every act of creation has intention. And intention can only come from a mind.

If something comes into existence without the intention of a mind behind it then it's not an act of creation. It just is a random happening.

Random happenings are not "suppose to be" a certain way. They just are what they are. So you can't say anything is suppose to be a certain way if everything is materialistic. It just is. Neither right nor wrong. Because there's no one intended it to be a certain way because no mind created it.

and not necessarily care one way or the other what happens to his/her creations.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Even if we assumed your claim were true, it would not be relevant to refuting my arguments about objective morality.

Whether or not a creator cares what happens to their creations has no bearing on the fact that they required an act of intention in order to create them in the first place.

You might be able to say he didn't intend much for his creations, but he had to intend something for them to even exist because by creating them a certain way that means by definition he had something in mind behind what he was doing.

Even if an artist splashes random paint on a wall, there is still intention behind what they are creating. Even if that intention is to create something that has no plan. They are still following through on their intention to create something based upon that criteria.

Of course, we have reason to believe God does care about us as His creations, but that's not relevant to the point I was making about how we logically can know where objectivity morality comes from.

I would have to judge a God according to God's honesty. I can't judge honesty according to a God.

You are engaging in the fallacy of circular reasoning.

You don't have the capacity to judge anything about anyone if objective morality exists.

But objective morality can't be shown to logically exist without God to define it for His creation.

You have no other standard other than what God has given you.

So logically the only thing you're forced to conclude is that you aren't in a position to even judge God.

Funny, that's what the Bible actually says. That we as mere people aren't in a position to judge God.

Regardless I have to be about honesty if I hope to live well, no one wants to live a lie.

Who says you have to live honestly?

And what makes you think that qualifies it as objective morality?

You can't answer these questions because there is no other definition for objective morality other than an ultimate creator with no equal above all else.

Any answer you give other than that is going to have holes in it that I can expose to show the logical failings of what you are believing.

 

[Rise]

It's been a while since I've heard Craig present his arguments, but I recall at the time how poor his assumptions are. They aren't factual. That's why he's not acclaimed as some fabulous thinker.

The funny thing is you ask me to follow the rigid standards of debate and logic while you don't demand the same from Craig.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

You have not only repeated your original fallacy of merely asserting claims of truth without supporting them, but you have compounded your fallacious behavior by thinking you can support the truth of your argument by merely repeating it.

Repeating your original fallacious logic doesn't make it stop being fallacious just because you repeat it.

You need to amend your original fallacy of assertion by offering valid logical arguments and evidence to support your claims.
Otherwise you cannot assert your claims are true. They are merely just your baseless opinion.

In this post you again have several baseless assertions without logical support or evidence to back them up:
1. That Craig's assumptions are poor.
2. That Craigs assumptions aren't factual.
3. That Craig has failed to meet a certain unspecified standard of debate.
4. That you think I am not holding Craig to some unspecified standard of debate.
5. That you think I have engaged in a hypocritical action.

You have no logical reasons or evidence to back up any of your claims.

Your baseless claims can be dismissed as the baseless assertions they are without any need to offer a counter argument because you have done nothing to substantiate why we should believe there is any truth to your claims.

Given what you have displayed so far with your repeated inability and unwillingness to formulate a logical arguments based on evidence, we can conclude you are mentally in no shape to be making any claims about whether or not Craig's arguments were logically sound or well evidenced.

 

[infrabenji]

I'm uniquely positioned to rebut his cosmological argument because I'm an astrophysics grad student. I've read the paper he usually cites by Vilenkin et al and I know he (Craig) doesn't understand it.

That's awesome. Don't let me miss that debate!

 

[infrabenji]

How can you take one debate out of so many, not to mention his books, publications, journalistic contributions, his professorships et al. you feel he didn't do well in and say he is an over rated thinker and debater. Do we take the one time you pooped your pants and throw the rest of that which comprised your life and dismiss it off hand. I've seen the debate. I've seen every Christopher Hitchens debate available and yes he was incredibly elegant, poised, sophisticated, and a great orator. I can't say the same for William Lane Craig who's own accomplishments are dwarfed by the accomplishments of Christopher Hitchens who was sick with cancer at the time of the debate. I look forward to seeing Meow Mix destroy William Lane Craig in a debate.. .

 

[Rise]

The truth is, Hitchens dismisses his arguments pretty quickly.
He explains that Craig is expecting Hitchens to provide evidence for God's non-existence (33:04 and 41:56 again at 1:20:00). I would be surprised if any Christian in this forum thinks evidence for the non-existence of anything supernatural needs to be provided before you should dismiss the claim of its supposed existence. It's such a strange misunderstanding of basic burden of proof for positive claims, especially when its coming from an educated person. This is an obvious illogical position.

You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Craig said, and by extension what burden of proof Hitchens actually has.

Craig explicitly pointed out that he was making a positive argument for God existing based on logic and evidence. It was not an argument from ignorance of a "god of the gaps" argument.
He said he is making a deductive argument. Meaning if the premises are true then the conclusion has to follow as true from that.

He said at the end of his opening remarks that Hitchens now had the burden of tearing down his arguments.

The only way you can refute Craig's argument is either by showing that the logic was invalid or the premises were wrong.

Hitchens did neither.

The premise of the debate is Does God exist. Meaning by definition Hitchens is trying to assert the opposite is true.

But even if we grant Hitchens that he can join a debate where he's suppose to argue for something, but refuses to take that position - he still isnt off the hook.

Because if Craig puts forth evidence and arguments that God does exist then the burden in the debate falls on Hitchens to at the very least refute those arguments.
And if Hitchens wanted to have a strong performance he would also expect to be able to produce his own arguments and evidence for why God doesn't exist.

Even if we granted to you the assumption that the later is not required of him, the former absolutely is required by the definition of any bare minimum standard of how debates are conducted and judged.

But Hitchens didn't even try to refute Craig's arguments for theism. He ignored it and went into red herrings and ad hominems against God.

He at one point said he didn't find it convincing, or make a quick comment about founding the reasoning fallacious - but he never gave a single reason why it would be fallacious. The former is not relevant to determining the truth of an argument and the later would be the fallacy of argument by assertion.

He goes on to explain why all of Craig's arguments are unconvincing.

There's two critical flaws with your statement.

1. It's not true. Craig had five main arguments and as I recall Hitchens didn't even touch four of them. The only one he tried to deal with was the historicity of the resurrection argument. But even if you assumed he won that issue it's doesn't change anything because Craig still has four arguments that establish theism in general can better explain reality than atheism.

If Craig was debating a muslim or jew this could be an issue for Craig in the debate. But he wasn't. He was debating an atheist. So putting forth four arguments which demonstrate that atheism can't properly explain reality, but theism can, is a death blow to Hitchens worldview.


2. "Unconvinced" is not the same as "refuted". Whether or not you convince your debate opponent of the validity of your argument is not a criteria upon which the validity or truth of your argument is judged.

There needs to be a new fallacy name just to define this. I have never encountered this kind of behavior or attitude before, but it's pervasive amongst the atheists in this thread.

I would call it the Hitchens fallacy, perhaps, because it seems to be a fallacious tactic he pioneered.

Here is why it's fallacious: You don't refute an argument by simply saying you don't find it convincing. The objective logical truth of an argument remains objectively true regardless of what your opinion about that truth is.

You only refute an argument by exposing flaws in it's logic, premises, or evidence.

It's also fallacious because it's often used as a tactic to avoid the logical burdens one has.

In a debate, if someone puts forth a positive argument in support of the issue being debates, you have a burden as the opposition to try to refute their argument.

SImply saying you are unconvinced by it doesn't absolve you of having the burden to demonstrate any logical flaw in their argument which would give you a basis for claiming their argument is insufficient and therefore why we have reason to not find it convincing.

If Hitchens isn't willing to refute Craig's deductive arguments then he cedes the truth of those arguments and Craig wins the debate having provided logical arguments that demonstrate theism is more likely true than atheism.

The reason he gives is based on the fact that Craig is a Christian and he is arguing for a deist position (which is even less available for scientific evidence, since there is zero interaction with the physical world). The deist position Craig is arguing for, is not the position Craig actually holds.

You are engaging in a strawman fallacy. A strawman which Craig already refuted.

There is nothing inherent to Craig's arguments which forces you to reach the conclusion of deism. It's a completely baseless claim by Hitchens.

You can't give one logical reason why you'd be forced to conclude Craig is arguing for deism.

If you believe that you either didn't understand what Craig argued or you don't know what deism is.

Deism is a type of theism. Deism is not something different from theism.
Craig is arguing for a general theism position with four of his arguments.
So naturally a deism position could be included in that - but so could Christianity.
But nothing in Craig's arguments would force you to be advocating for deism over Christianity.
It's a completely baseless charge.

"Retrospective Evidentialism" as Hitchens called it, is just presuppositionalism. He quotes a line directly from Craig's book: (46:24)

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the holy spirit to the truth of the Christian Faith and beliefs based on argument & evidence, it is the former that must take precedence of the later, not vice-versa."

Your quote is not relevant to refuting any of Craig's specific arguments.

You are also wrong to call what Craig is doing presuppositionalism. Which shows you don't know the meaning of that word.

A presuppositionalist doesn't believe in using logical or evidence to prove God exists.

Craig disproves your claim quite obviously as his spends his entire time giving logic and evidence to support theism over atheism. He doesn't need to appeal to a single BIble verse in order to show theism is a better explanation for reality than atheism.

That says it all. This is a dishonest discussion right out of the gates. A Christian, who does not value evidence over faith,

You are commiting a type of ad hominem fallacy.
The value an indivdual places on their faith has no bearing on disproving the validity of their logic or the truth of their conclusion.

Trying to attack Craig in such a manner does not refute any of his arguments in any way..

is pretending to provide evidence for a position he doesn't really hold,

What position?
Who says he doesn't hold his position he is arguing for
What you're saying makes no sense.

You have no reason to presume Craig doesn't hold to the positions he provides evidence for - which is evidence for theism and a position of theism.

expecting Hitchens to provide evidence for a positive claim (god does not exist) that he is not actually making.

You are committing a strawman fallacy. Craig never actually asked for that.

There are two things Craig asked Hitchens to do at the end of his opening remarks:
1. Try to tear down my positive deductive argument based on logic and evidence that shows theism better explains reality than atheism.
2. Try to erect an argument in support for why we should believe atheism is a better explanation for reality than theism.

I would have settled for hitchens at least trying to do #1. But he didn't even try.

Confirmation biases cause most to only listen to the person you agree with, which is probably why you missed it.

Looks like you're just describing your own situation
Because I just refuted your attempt to claim HItchens refuted Craig's arguments.

So we're left with me being the only one between us who actually analyzed and understood the debate from a logic and evidence perspective.

I disagree, I think he addresses all of Craig's arguments and I think my accusations are accurate. This is how you have been groomed by evangelicals pretending to be physicists like Craig and the gang. You obviously didn't bother to understand the argument. Thanks for all the assertions, but as you can see, they make for terrible conversation.

Your opinion about what you think happened doesn't mean anything. All that matters is what you can logically demonstrate is true.

You can't demonstrate that any of Craig's specific arguments were refuted, much less that his overall conclusion was refuted.

 

[Justanatheist]

You can't demonstrate that any of Craig's specific arguments were refuted, much less that his overall conclusion was refuted.

No all you have to do is show there are alternative answers to the premises, you do not have to prove those alternative answers are true. Example
Everything has a cause.
Answer, we do not know that everything has a cause, there are alternative answers.
Craig has the burden of proof to show that everything has a cause and no one has ever done that.

 

[Rise]

How can you take one debate out of so many, not to mention his books, publications, journalistic contributions, his professorships et al. you feel he didn't do well in and say he is an over rated thinker and debater.

What good did all that do him?

When it came down to facing an ironclad logical argument showing theism is the only logical conclusion we can draw and atheism fails to explain reality, he had nothing to offer.

All that thinking on behalf of atheism, and all that prior debate experience, got him absolutely nowhere.

Granted, when you are arguing for a lie you've got an uphill battle to begin with. It's a lot harder to argue for something that simply isn't true.
But at least try to offer a counter argument against your opponent. Don't just ignore it entirely and spew ad hominems and red herrings.

It's sophomoric. I don't believe it was simply a bad performance but instead that it shows he was way out of his depth.
It's really exposes how woefuly unequipped he was to deal with a real philosopher by training and profession.

Craig meticulously structured his argument to be ironclad from a logical standpoint. There was no angle you could attack it from.

I can't say the same for William Lane Craig who's own accomplishments are dwarfed by the accomplishments of Christopher Hitchens

Your statement doesn't mean anything unless you qualify what your definition of an accomplishment is.

What metric are you using to determine who is more successful?

I can certainly tell you it's not based on who has the most well formed logical arguments.

Craig is a master logician. His five point argument for God is ironclad in the way it is structured. It cannot be refuted unless you can disprove the premises. But you can't disprove the premises.

What good are hitchens' "accomplishments" if at the end of the day he can't do the same for his side?

If you don't value truth and being able to communicate it, maybe you can find other things to admire about Hitchens.

 

[infrabenji]

What good did all that do him?

When it came down to facing an ironclad logical argument showing theism is the only logical conclusion we can draw and atheism fails to explain reality, he had nothing to offer.

All that thinking on behalf of atheism, and all that prior debate experience, got him absolutely nowhere.

Granted, when you are arguing for a lie you've got an uphill battle to begin with. It's a lot harder to argue for something that simply isn't true.
But at least try to offer a counter argument against your opponent. Don't just ignore it entirely and spew ad hominems and red herrings.

It's sophomoric.

It's really exposes how woefuly unequipped he was to deal with a real philosopher by training and profession.

Craig built his argument to be ironclad from a logical standpoint. There was no angle you could attack it from.



Your statement doesn't mean anything unless you qualify what your definition of an accomplishment is.

What metric are you using to determine who is more successful?

I can certainly tell you it's not based on who has the most well formed logical arguments.

Craig is a master logician. His five point argument for God is ironclad in the way it is structured. It cannot be refuted unless you can disprove the premises. But you can't disprove the premises.

Pretty boring stuff not gonna lie. Is he your dad or something? Super christian of you to trounce all over a dead man. Can really see the light of Jesus shining through as you belittle a dead mans accomplishments. Gonna take that to heaven with you show jesus? I have a debates page if you want to argue the kalam or something but I find those arguments pretty worn out after 12 years. Every christian in the dimes thought they had the golden ticket. But, that debate was a long time ago and his arguments don't hold water anymore. Did you just find this or something? Pretty tired material. There are dozens et al. of additional sophistries from religious people that can be addressed that are far more interesting. But yeah 2009 crazy times. Christopher Hitchens was and will always be way way cooler than wlc will ever be.