Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Moonjuice]

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.

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.

I actually attended this debate live in person at Biola (got my copy of God is Not Great signed here). I attended with three Christians (including my wife) as the lone atheist in the group. All three came out with the same opinion. He didn't prove god didn't exist, Craig's arguments were never refuted. What a terrible "debate".

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.

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

That says it all. This is a dishonest discussion right out of the gates. A Christian, who does not value evidence over faith, is pretending to provide evidence for a position he doesn't really hold, expecting Hitchens to provide evidence for a positive claim (god does not exist) that he is not actually making.

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

 

[Rise]

Actually Hitchen does present an argument. His presentation of the Abrahamic God as being an invention is that his character reflect the Hebrew's geopolitical desires and customs, something that could represent evidence of a "fabricated" deity instead of a "discovered/revealed" one. Another use of this argument is linked to Epicurus problem of evil. In the Epicurian formulation, the last position that if God isn't able nor willing to prevent all evil, why call him God. This implies, at least to Epicurus that a being, even if powerful, cannot prevent all evil and isn't even willing to do so, should not be even considered one. Thus, it's actually two arguments.

Argument one: the Abrahamic God's character displays clear signs of fabrication for geopolitical purpose and is thus fictional.
Argument two: the Abrahamic God's character is so poor that even if he were an actual real being, he doesn't deserve the title of God in the least.

These are logical arguments.

You failed to understand how a logical debate works.
Proposing arguments that are irrelevant to the issue being debated is not a logical response but is actually the logical fallacy of “irrelevant conclusion.”

Even if we assumed your argument against the specifics of the Abrahamic God were true - that is irrelevant to refuting the arguments Craig made. It does nothing to disprove the cosmological, teleological, moral, or existential arguments put forth by Craig that demonstrate theistic origin for creation.

You are committing the same mistake Hitchens did.

Craig even addressed how illogical it is for you to try to hold God to an objective moral standard when your materialistic atheism provides no means for objective morals to exist. That gets into the moral argument Craig made demonstrating the existence of God. You’re trying to have it both ways by denying the only potential source of objective morality exists (God) while at the same tike trying to use an objective moral standard to claim God is immoral. You can’t have it both ways, you’re contradicting yourself.

 

[Rise]

I think one of the best ways to discuss this sort of topic is through a collaborative method, by establishing points of common ground and then, together, building from there.

As for exact dating on the age of the universe, certainly a literal exact date is not required, but the relative disparity between the two considered dates is quite significant. If the disparity is quite large, that difference must be reconciled. One must look at what facts support each of the conflicting dates to see where any errors or ambiguities may lie.

Craig seems to be comfortable with dating the cosmos at approximately 13 billion years, why do you think he settled on that date? How does he justify it?

Based on other positions he has taken: I believe he settled on it because he thinks the science is settled and can’t be argued against, therefore he feels compelled to find a way to reconcile it with his belief in the Bible. I also see on other positions he takes that he’s willing to irrationally ignore the Biblical text’s plain meaning and it’s theological implications if he feels he has no choice in order to conform to popular academic belief on certain issues of science.

When it comes to the age of the universe I think you may have some more potential leeway with the text - but I believe his motivation for searching for that leeway comes out of an ignorance of the alternative scientific arguments out there and their merits. Because that is what I have seen him do on other issues where he has no scriptural leeway. He invents scriptural leeway in those cases, or writes it off as a symbolic allegory, because he thinks he is forced to. Instead of putting faith in the truth the text and searching to see if there are flaws with certain conclusions by academics about science - as others have done. PHD holding scientists of various disciplines who have looked at the data and come to valid but different conclusions than mainstream science. Conclusions that are consistent with the Bible.

 

[epronovost]

You failed to understand how a logical debate works.
Proposing arguments that are irrelevant to the issue being debated is not a logical response but is actually the logical fallacy of “irrelevant conclusion.”

Showing that the God of Abraham is a fabrication of Ancient Hebrews does deny the existence of that deity.

The subject of the debate wasn't "is the cosmological or teleological argument for God logical?", but "does God exist?" and in that case God is the Abrahamic God since its the one espoused by Craig not Zeus or Kronos or Odin or Shiva.

Even if we assumed your argument against the specifics of the Abrahamic God were true - that is irrelevant to refuting the arguments Craig made. It does nothing to disprove the cosmological, teleological, moral, or existential arguments put forth by Craig that demonstrate theistic origin for creation.

Actually neither the cosmological argument, the teleological or the moral argument demonstrate the theistic origin for creation either. They simply demonstrate, fallaciously, the existence of some prime actor and then design this actor as God even though it could be anything and everything in the case of the cosmological argument and no longer existent. That's a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. Plus the God of Craig is very much the Abrahamic god though in debates he uses a Motte and Bayley tactic that Hitchens voluntarily ignores because it's deception.

 

[MikeF]

Based on other positions he has taken: I believe he settled on it because he thinks the science is settled and can’t be argued against, therefore he feels compelled to find a way to reconcile it with his belief in the Bible. I also see on other positions he takes that he’s willing to irrationally ignore the Biblical text’s plain meaning and it’s theological implications if he feels he has no choice in order to conform to popular academic belief on certain issues of science.

When it comes to the age of the universe I think you may have some more potential leeway with the text - but I believe his motivation for searching for that leeway comes out of an ignorance of the alternative scientific arguments out there and their merits. Because that is what I have seen him do on other issues where he has no scriptural leeway. He invents scriptural leeway in those cases, or writes it off as a symbolic allegory, because he thinks he is forced to. Instead of putting faith in the truth the text and searching to see if there are flaws with certain conclusions by academics about science - as others have done. PHD holding scientists of various disciplines who have looked at the data and come to valid but different conclusions than mainstream science. Conclusions that are consistent with the Bible.

If we are talking about astrophysics, I would think we would restrict the pool of experts to astrophysicists. This idea that PhD-holding scientists of various disciplines seems to allow in quite a broad spectrum of unqualified opinion.

It seems clear that when science and the bible conflict, for you, the bible prevails and is infallible.

I can only refer you back to your other post in which you said, if everyone sees an apple fall from a tree, it is silly to deny gravity exists. What you are saying above is, "If the bible say gravity does not exist and apples cannot fall from trees, then it does not matter who sees apples fall, it is not true, so says scripture."

I can understand anyone's skepticism of theoretical physics, but to even question long standing, run-of-the-mill science because it conflicts with scripture seems extreme.

 

[Rise]

Showing that the God of Abraham is a fabrication of Ancient Hebrews does deny the existence of that deity.

You again fail to understand how logical debate works.

You don’t refute the specific logical points of the cosmological, teleological, moral, or existential argument by saying you think God is immoral thus he can’t be God.

Firstly, because none of these arguments are designed or intended to establish that the God of Abraham specifically is true. These arguments are only designed to establish theism in general, in contrast to atheism. Craig only ever sets out to prove theism with those four particular arguments.

Which is why you are engaging in the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion by trying to attack the Bible’s moral character of God. Even if we assumed your claim was true that God’s actions were immoral, if would do nothing to disprove all the evidence and logic for a theistic creator. All you’d do is be proving that either the Bible isn’t a true representation of that theistic being or that whatever theistic being created everything is capable of acting in immoral ways. Both of which are contentions that can be logically refuted, but there is no need to get into that because it’s irrelevant to disproving the issue in contention here: which is whether or not evidence exists for a theistic creator.

Since you have failed to give a counter argument to the evidence for general theism, you are engaging in the fallacy of a red herring by trying to change the topic.

In keeping with your lack of understanding for how to wield logic in a debate: your argument is also flawed because it presupposes things you can’t prove are true.

Those unproven claims are:
1. That your standard of morals is objectively right.
2. That God’s existence depends on him conforming to your morals.

You can’t prove either of those things, so therefore your line of argumentation is logically invalid to begin with. You have no basis as an atheist for laying any claim to the idea that any objective morality exists at all, let alone that yours is the right one. Furthermore, there is nothing to logically preclude the possibility that a creator exists but also does the things you find immoral. There is nothing that logically prevents such a being from existing from your point of view.

Actually neither the cosmological argument, the teleological or the moral argument demonstrate the theistic origin for creation either. They simply demonstrate, fallaciously, the existence of some prime actor and then design this actor as God even though it could be anything and everything in the case of the cosmological argument and no longer existent.

Craig’s arguments demonstrate only God could be that prime actor because by definition that prime actor has to be outside of our universe, unconstrained by it’s limitations, and not caused by what caused it.

So you end up being forced to describe a being that:
1. Created everything by his will and power.
2. Gave it purpose with intention.
3. Is outside the bounds and limitations of this universe.

Those are the attributes of God.

You can slap whatever label on that being you want, but you're still forced to recognize he has all the attributes that make it what we call God. It is those attributes which essentially define God as God. To call it something else doesn’t change the fact that it still fits our definition of God.

That's a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

I think you are misusing that term. It’s not clear to me what exactly you think is a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion or specifically why. I need you to elaborate more clearly on what you are trying to claim.

Plus the God of Craig is very much the Abrahamic god though in debates e uses a Motte and Bayley tactic that Hitchens voluntarily ignores because its deception.

You are falsely accusing him of that tactic. Try to give us a timestamp of any point where you think he actually commits that tactic. I don’t think you can find any such instance.

You have a misunderstanding of what that tactic means.

Craig separates his arguments for theism clearly from his arguments for Christianity specifically and makes no effort at any point to conflate the two deceptively.

Disproving your claim of a motte and bailey tactic is the fact that Craig repeatedly admits that there is a difference in his arguments between merely proving theism and proving Christianity specifically.

Craig even specifically tells Hitchens that even if he were to attack Christianity successfully, he still hasn’t even attempted to disprove Craig’s arguments for general theism - which disprove atheism.

Craig does this to point out that his position as an evidence based theist is still unchallenged while Hitchens position as an atheist has no ground to stand on.

Hitchens is the one guilty of deceptively conflating the two. And so are you. You both try to slander the character of God in the Bible as a way of trying to disprove theism in general, because you have no logical grounds with which to refute the arguments of general theism via arguments like the cosmological, teleological, moral, and existential.
But your entire tactic is a fallacy because disproving the Bible specifically, even if you could do it, wouldn’t disprove theism in general.

 

[epronovost]

You don’t refute the specific logical points of the cosmological, teleological, moral, or existential argument by saying you think God is immoral thus he can’t be God.

Yes you do. God can't be immoral. If you demonstrate that there is a prime mover and that this prime mover should be called God then that prime mover must also be moral. If the prime mover is immoral or amoral then it cannot be God. You have thus proven that though there might be a prime mover of some sort, it's incorrect to call it God since its immoral and/or amoral. The cosmological argument establishes, albeit fallaciously, the need for a prime mover, but cannot establish the nature of that prime mover which could be God or an unknown particle that no longer exists since it has transformed into all the other particles of hat constitute the universe.

Firstly, because none of these arguments are designed or intended to establish that the God of Abraham specifically is true. These arguments are only designed to establish theism in general, in contrast to atheism. Craig only ever sets out to prove theism with those four particular arguments.

Except, none of these argument do and again the subject of the debate isn't "is there a prime mover" or 'is the cosmological argument for God correct". The subject is "does God exist?". Hitchens doesn't counter Craig argument because its inherently weak and at best can only be used to defend some vague deistic sort of deity. Hitchens sets out to prove that a God people actually believe in, including Craig, the Abrahamic God doesn't exist because his character shows clear signs of fabrication and if he did would be too immoral and weak to be called a God. You don't need to address your opponent's argument in a debate. You only need to address the question if you think your arguments are so strong as to be useless to respond to that of your opponents.

What you are correct is that Hitchens doesn't address the argument of Craig, but the biggest failing is in not defining what God is supposed to mean in the debate question. Is it God as the stand in term for any all sort of prime mover be they conscious entity doted of will or unspecified particle? Is it God as in a anthropomorphic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent super being? Is it some sort of superhuman? Is it some sort of king with absolute power over all his subjects and an object of veneration and worship? In other words, in a debate with no clear definition on the existence of a vague concept you can indeed get two people talking passed each others and it is the case in this example. That's not so much a failing of the debater more than a failure of the organizer.

 

[Rise]

Yes you do. God can't be immoral. If you demonstrate that there is a prime mover and that this prime mover should be called God then that prime mover must also be moral. If the prime mover is immoral or amoral then it cannot be God. You have thus proven that though there might be a prime mover of some sort, it's incorrect to call it God since its immoral and/or amoral.

You have now laid bare the logical fallacy of your position.

You are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion. Merely asserting that god cannot exist if he is immoral doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.

You need to justify why you think your claim is true with logical arguments.

You have put forth no logical arguments about why you think we must accept your proposition as true that god cannot exist if he is immoral.

Without establishing the truth of your premise, all the arguments you try to make based on that premise fail and are rendered invalid.

The cosmological argument establishes, albeit fallaciously, the need for a prime mover, but cannot establish the nature of that prime mover which could be God or an unknown particle that no longer exists since it has transformed into all the other particles of hat constitute the universe.

There are two things wrong with your statement

1. The cosmological argument was never intended to establish what specific type of god might be behind creation, but only that there was in fact a creator - which gives evidence for God and evidence against atheism being true.

2. By trying to claim that a particle could fulfill the requirements of the cosmological argument shows you do not understand the implications of the argument.

The cosmological argument says that all things which have a beginning have a cause, and that an infinite existence regressing into an infinite past is logically impossible.

Therefore, it's impossible that a particle just always existed waiting to turn into a universe. You therefore need an explanation for what created that particle you think turned into the universe.

You are confused in equating god with the particle, when the particle is actually just part of the creation.

God would have to be that which created the particle in the first place, bringing forth something from nothing, the cause of the beginning.

And because you cannot have an infinite regress into the past according to this argument, you have to conclude that whatever caused the beginning of the universe had to be causeless and not bound by time. Which when you frame the cause that way happens to describe what we call God. There is no materialistic alternative for this causeless and timeless creator.

Except, none of these argument do and again the subject of the debate isn't "is there a prime mover" or 'is the cosmological argument for God correct". The subject is "does God exist?".

Exactly.
To which Craig gave five arguments for why we can logically say that God exists.

And Hitchens didn't give a single argument for why God can't exist. Nor did he do anything to refute any of Craig's five arguments for why God does exist.

In both ways Hitchens failed the debate, offering neither his own positive affirmation for his belief nor a refutation of Craig's positive affirmation for his belief.

Hitchens doesn't counter Craig argument because its inherently weak and at best can only be used to defend some vague deistic sort of deity.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy by essentially claiming "you're argument is so weak I don't even need to refute it".

That's not how logic or debate works.

If you want to claim an argument is wrong, or even just insufficient, you need to prove that by using logical argumentation and evidence to establish why.

The fact is that Craig has positively proven the evidence supports a theistic conclusion over atheism. And neither you nor Hitchens have offered anything to disprove the validity of those arguments.

Claiming that you don't think the argument is good enough because it's just an argument for theism instead of Christianity does nothing to disprove the validity of Craig's arguments as a method of proving theism over atheism.

Once we can agree on the fact that there has to be a theistic beginning then we can debate how we should know what the exact nature of that theism is.

But if you can't first recognize the logical truth of a theistic origin for the universe then there's no point in trying to argue over whether or not the Christian God could be that theistic beginning.

Hitchens sets out to prove that a God people actually believe in, including Craig, the Abrahamic God doesn't exist

Which is a logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

You don't disprove craig's arguments for theism by attacking the moral character of God in the Bible.

As I already pointed out, you have no logical argument for your presupposition that God can't exist if he is immoral. So you have no logical grounds for claiming God can't exist even if you could prove he's immoral (which you can't do anyway, because as an atheist you have no justification for calling anything objectively moral to begin with).

because his character shows clear signs of fabrication

Logical fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion.
Even if we assumed your claim were true (and I could dispute it) you do not disprove any of Craig's arguments for theism by attacking the veracity of the Bible.

Craig's arguments for theism are based in logic and science and do not depend on the Bible.

and if he did would be too immoral and weak to be called a God.

Your argument is fallacious because it's based on presumptions you can't justify. The unproven and unsupported presumption you have that god can't exist if he is immoral.

You have no logical reason for saying Craig's theism evidence is disproven if god could be shown to be immoral.
The evidence for a cause and design remain completely unchanged and still best explained by theism, with athiesm offering no alternative.

I am also not sure what you mean by "weak", but it's not relevant anyway because as we already established no argument you make from the Bible can disprove the truth of those four arguments he made because none of them depend on the Bible to be valid arguments in their own right.

You don't need to address your opponent's argument in a debate.

Demonstrating that clearly you don't understand how logical debate works.

Addressing our opponent's relevant arguments is, in fact, the very definition of a proper debate. Otherwise there's no point - you're just talking past each other and ignoring each other

Which, unfortunately, is basically what Hitchens did. He just ignored everything Craig argued and spoke off his script of slandering God's character.

What you are correct is that Hitchens doesn't address the argument of Craig, but the biggest failing is in not defining what God is supposed to mean in the debate question.
Is it God as the stand in term for any all sort of prime mover be they conscious entity doted of will or unspecified particle? Is it God as in a anthropomorphic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent super being? Is it some sort of superhuman? Is it some sort of king with absolute power over all his subjects and an object of veneration and worship? In other words, in a debate with no clear definition on the existence of a vague concept you can indeed get two people talking passed each others and it is the case in this example. That's not so much a failing of the debater more than a failure of the organizer.

You are trying to create a distinction that Hitchens himself never tried to make in the debate. Likely because he knew full well the debate was really about the general concept of theism vs atheism, and not about whether or not the Christian God specifically is true.

This is not unexpected considering that Hitchens is a general atheist against all theism, not just an anti-christian.

The debate is not titled "Is the Christian God true?", for a reason.
There is no doubt a reason you have a generic title like "Does god exist?"

 

[Rise]

If we are talking about astrophysics, I would think we would restrict the pool of experts to astrophysicists. This idea that PhD-holding scientists of various disciplines seems to allow in quite a broad spectrum of unqualified opinion.

I was already referring to people who have PHDs in their respective fields where they advocate creation science alternatives to mainstream viewpoints.
Of which there are astrophysicists and related disciplines.

You are wrong to label anyone without a PHD as an "unqualified opinion". Titles and degrees don't make what you say true. And a PHD isn't what qualifies you to speak truth.
Ideas must be judged on their merits, not on the degrees of those who advocate them.

I only mention that PHDs in their respective fields do advocate creation ideas to dispel the false notion people like yourself often have that only "unqualified" people could believe in creation. That is disproven by those with PHDs who do hold to a Biblical creation model.

I can only refer you back to your other post in which you said, if everyone sees an apple fall from a tree, it is silly to deny gravity exists. What you are saying above is, "If the bible say gravity does not exist and apples cannot fall from trees, then it does not matter who sees apples fall, it is not true, so says scripture."

You are engaging in the fallacy of a false dilemma. There is nothing in the Bible that says gravity doesn't exist.

Your argument is also fallacious because you are operating from the unproven assumption that the Bible contradicts obvious observed reality. You would need to prove your assumption is true before you could try to draw any such analogy and have it be taken as valid.

I can understand anyone's skepticism of theoretical physics, but to even question long standing, run-of-the-mill science because it conflicts with scripture seems extreme.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity and appeal to tradition.

Truth is not determined by how many people believe something, nor how long it has been believed. Each claim must be assessed on it's merits.

 

[epronovost]

You have now laid bare the logical fallacy of your position.

You are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion. Merely asserting that god cannot exist if he is immoral doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.

You need to justify why you think your claim is true with logical arguments.

You have put forth no logical arguments about why you think we must accept your proposition as true that god cannot exist if he is immoral.

Without establishing the truth of your premise, all the arguments you try to make based on that premise fail and are rendered invalid.

I already did by referring you to the Epicurean Problem of Evil. A deity that cannot or will not solve this problem doesn't deserve worship and a deity is by definition something worshiped that's the only point in common in all definition of God employed except when used as a metaphor to refer to a great mystery or something simply extraordinary and these usages aren't that which atheism rejects.

There are two things wrong with your statement

1. The cosmological argument was never intended to establish what specific type of god might be behind creation, but only that there was in fact a creator - which gives evidence for God and evidence against atheism being true.

Incorrect. The cosmological argument states that a prime mover must exist. Of course this is fallacious and a complete misunderstanding of both causal mechanics and a bare assertion, but that's beside the point.

2. By trying to claim that a particle could fulfill the requirements of the cosmological argument shows you do not understand the implications of the argument.

The cosmological argument says that all things which have a beginning have a cause, and that an infinite existence regressing into an infinite past is logically impossible.

Therefore, it's impossible that a particle just always existed waiting to turn into a universe. You therefore need an explanation for what created that particle you think turned into the universe.

You are confused in equating god with the particle, when the particle is actually just part of the creation.

God would have to be that which created the particle in the first place, bringing forth something from nothing, the cause of the beginning.

And because you cannot have an infinite regress into the past according to this argument, you have to conclude that whatever caused the beginning of the universe had to be causeless and not bound by time. Which when you frame the cause that way happens to describe what we call God. There is no materialistic alternative for this causeless and timeless creator.

You just made a case of special pleading there. You are arguing that it's impossible for the prime mover to have always existed and yet argue that a prime mover always existed at the same time. You also fail to notice the fact that both spacetime and causality are materialistic concepts and features of the universe themselves. If causality exists, a portion of the observable universe thus exist and it isn't created. A feature of the observable universe cannot be prior to the universe. You cannot "cause causality" nor can you use logic to prove logic itself. The first cause will always be causality itself and its caused by the first causal chain which implies movement, space and time. You cannot use causal logical chains to explain the existence of all causal logical chains. It would be the same as asking "what was going on before time". It doesn't make sense. There can be no "before" if there is no time. That's one of the many reason why this argument is pure nonsense even if you were to accept its first premise which are also questionable at best.

This argument doesn't present any characteristic of the prime mover/first cause. It only erroneously assert that there must be one and that it can be referred to as God (but anything and everything can be referred as God it doesn't mean it's one).

 

[Rise]

There are many great counter-apologists out there. Craig debated several atheists and you never found ANY of them compelling? That smells like a strong bias to me.

You are committing a strawman fallacy by misrepresenting what I said.
I never said anything about “compelling”. I said I haven’t yet seen a debate where Craig’s core arguments are refuted.

Whether or not a debater is compelling is irrelevant to whether or not what they say is logically true and consistent, and capable of refuting Craig.
If your criteria for judging an argument is whether or not they are personally “compelling” to you then you don’t know how to judge the logical objective merits of an argument.

You are also committing an ad hominem fallacy by accusing me of bias without basis.
In order for your claim of bias to have any merit you would have to find a debate in which Craig’s arguments are refuted, and have it be one I’ve already seen, in order to prove that I had some kind of bias to miss Craig’s argument being refuted.

But you haven’t even presented a single video of Craig’s arguments being refuted - much less a great body of them that would be impossible for me to miss.

Anyway, we can discuss Craig's arguments if you want. I believe that in the end you will just say something like, "We will have to agree to disagree" when your bag of counter-arguments empties out.

I have never once told anyone we will have to agree to disagree, nor do I believe in that as a concept.

You are also quite arrogant to think you already have it in the bag when you’re only two paragraphs into a post and you’ve already committed two logical fallacies and seemed to admit that you don’t judge the quality of an argument on it’s logical merits but rather simply by whether it has sufficiently tickled your fancy to be considered personally compelling to you.

 

[firedragon]

I actually attended this debate live in person at Biola (got my copy of God is Not Great signed here). I attended with three Christians (including my wife) as the lone atheist in the group. All three came out with the same opinion. He didn't prove god didn't exist, Craig's arguments were never refuted. What a terrible "debate".

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.

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

That says it all. This is a dishonest discussion right out of the gates. A Christian, who does not value evidence over faith, is pretending to provide evidence for a position he doesn't really hold, expecting Hitchens to provide evidence for a positive claim (god does not exist) that he is not actually making.

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

He does not respond to a single argument. He simply says "its not convincing" like you said. He does not address anything.

Hitchens doesnt have the research or the knowledge to do so.

Your accusations of dishonesty, evidence over faith, pretending accusations, et etc are all accusations one could throw right back at you. Thats another script. This is how you have been groomed by fundamentalist atheistic evangelists like Hitchens and gang. So you heard the rhetoric right back at you.

Craig was not arguing for a deist position. He was arguing for the first position in the argument. He doesnt have to argue for his current position right away. It shows that even you didnt bother to understand the argument and think of a good enough response but to make up an ad hominem.

 

[MikeF]

I was already referring to people who have PHDs in their respective fields where they advocate creation science alternatives to mainstream viewpoints.
Of which there are astrophysicists and related disciplines.

You are wrong to label anyone without a PHD as an "unqualified opinion". Titles and degrees don't make what you say true. And a PHD isn't what qualifies you to speak truth.
Ideas must be judged on their merits, not on the degrees of those who advocate them.

I only mention that PHDs in their respective fields do advocate creation ideas to dispel the false notion people like yourself often have that only "unqualified" people could believe in creation. That is disproven by those with PHDs who do hold to a Biblical creation model.

To be fair, it is you who first made an Appeal to Authority. And I certainly agree that we should apply reasoned and rational skepticism to claims made by anyone, regardless of PhD status.

However, since you have not presented specific arguments from your referenced PhD-holders for us to evaluate, we can set this issue aside.

You are engaging in the fallacy of a false dilemma. There is nothing in the Bible that says gravity doesn't exist.

Your argument is also fallacious because you are operating from the unproven assumption that the Bible contradicts obvious observed reality. You would need to prove your assumption is true before you could try to draw any such analogy and have it be taken as valid.

In your second paragraph it is clear that you understand the analogy and that I am not claiming the bible actually says gravity does not exist.

As to where the bible contradicts empirical evidence, here are some examples:

1. The claim of a seven day creation is not supported empirically.
2. That man and animals were created by a creator entity in that seven day period, as opposed to Evolution, is not supported empirically.
3. The global flood as described is not empirically supported.
4. That linguistic diversity occurred as described in the Tower of Babel myth is not supported empirically.
5. Referring to the heavens as firmament is Genesis conflicts with empirical evidence.
6. Genesis has the earth formed before the Sun, which conflicts with empirical evidence.

Hopefully, that is enough to support the point. There are many other errors and contradictions in the bible.

MikeF said: ↑
"I can understand anyone's skepticism of theoretical physics, but to even question long standing, run-of-the-mill science because it conflicts with scripture seems extreme."
​

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity and appeal to tradition.

Truth is not determined by how many people believe something, nor how long it has been believed. Each claim must be assessed on it's merits.

You have mischaracterized my statement as based solely on popular belief. You know this. My comment is supported by empirical evidence and intersubjective corroboration.

Your belief system hinges on prohibiting the use of empirical evidence, logic, and math as sources of factual information with which to counter your beliefs systems claims. You only specifically allow for Christian scriptural support and Prior Basic Beliefs (of religious people only, it seems).

I have demonstrated why we must disregard the notion of Prior Basic Belief and you have not countered that. That leaves you only with scripture.

To limit a debate on the existence of your creator entity to arguments based and supported by Christian scripture seems like stacking the deck in your favor. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[tas8831]

Craig formed his arguments using sound logic and premises.

I actually have yet to see any atheist in a debate present any sound logical counter arguments to the core of what Craig argues on this topic.

Craig? Logic? Craig got demolished when arguing his silly cosmological argument with an actual cosmologist (Sean Carroll). He only impresses those that don't understand or care about the concept of evidence.

 

[Moonjuice]

He does not respond to a single argument. He simply says "its not convincing" like you said. He does not address anything.

Hitchens doesnt have the research or the knowledge to do so.

Your accusations of dishonesty, evidence over faith, pretending accusations, et etc are all accusations one could throw right back at you. That's another script. This is how you have been groomed by fundamentalist atheistic evangelists like Hitchens and gang. So you heard the rhetoric right back at you.

Craig was not arguing for a deist position. He was arguing for the first position in the argument. He doesnt have to argue for his current position right away. It shows that even you didn't bother to understand the argument and think of a good enough response but to make up an ad hominem.

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.

 

[firedragon]

This is how you have been groomed by evangelicals pretending to be physicists like Craig and the gang.

Maybe you think like that because you are used to being groomed by dogmatically religious atheists like yourself. See ad hominem fallacies work?

Mate. I dont agree with Craig by default. You imagined that because you blind worship Hitchens and you expect others to be just like you blind worshiping someone else.

You said "evangelicals pretending to be physicists like Craig. Well, Hitchens is not a physicist. But you worship him. So whats your standard? Also, dont you realise that not only double standards, but you also practiced the genetic fallacy?

Tell me, do you think "Doubt" is the key, the great engine, the great fuel to all discoveries, all inquiry and all innovation? If you do, can you provide evidence for that?

 

[Magical Wand]

He goes on to explain why all of Craig's arguments are unconvincing. The reason he gives is based on the fact that Craig is a Christian and he is arguing for a deist position

Hi, friend. I worry, though, that Billy also tried to provide evidence to support the proposition that a theistic God exists, namely, the Christian God. His fourth argument is a Christological argument which tries to increase the probability that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

I'm not saying this argument is correct. I'm just pointing out that Billy didn't argue merely for the existence of a deist god, but also his specific god.

 

[Moonjuice]

Maybe you think like that because you are used to being groomed by dogmatically religious atheists like yourself. See ad hominem fallacies work?

Mate. I dont agree with Craig by default. You imagined that because you blind worship Hitchens and you expect others to be just like you blind worshiping someone else.

You said "evangelicals pretending to be physicists like Craig. Well, Hitchens is not a physicist. But you worship him. So whats your standard? Also, dont you realise that not only double standards, but you also practiced the genetic fallacy?

Tell me, do you think "Doubt" is the key, the great engine, the great fuel to all discoveries, all inquiry and all innovation? If you do, can you provide evidence for that?

LOL. I guess you are not following what I'm saying. I am literally, taking your silly assertions and repeating them back to you. Now I get to watch you argue your own assertions with yourself. Not very productive, but entertaining nonetheless.

 

[Moonjuice]

Hi, friend. I worry, though, that Billy also tried to provide evidence to support the proposition that a theistic God exists, namely, the Christian God. His fourth argument is a Christological argument which tries to increase the probability that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

I'm not saying this argument is correct. I'm just pointing out that Billy didn't argue merely for the existence of a deist god, but also his specific god.

You are right, he did have an argument in there specifically for Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

I am literally, taking your silly assertions and repeating them back to you.

Me 2. Very silly ad hominem you used as arguments were repeated back at you.

But I asked you a question. Let me cut and paste it. I ask this since you worship Hitchens.

Tell me, do you think "Doubt" is the key, the great engine, the great fuel to all discoveries, all inquiry and all innovation? If you do, can you provide evidence for that?