Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I have been and will continue to ignore you for the time being but what the heck is this? and how much does it cost?
You forgot to give it a special name and present a long list of famous people who use it...
That reply is so reasonable I am suspicious. You are exactly right that I did not include enough information as to his specific reasons why he rejected Dawkin's argument.1robin,
Thank you for posting your thoughts on Craig's claim that Dawkins has made the worst argument against God in Western history. Dawkins isn't just wrong .... he's the most wrong, ever! It must feel good to say it.
You provided plenty of your own opinion/analysis on the validity of Craig's argument. However, you did not provide enough specific information about Craig's argument for the rest of us to evaluate it. Perhaps you could provide a link, or a quotation, or a bit more summary/clarification?
You said of Craig's argument, "every point has sound philosophical basis". Show, don't tell.
Thanks for trying but I am afraid your eloquent effort is wasted.
Well said!
That is absurd. Dismissing a source because he is Christian is like saying no evolutionist can be allowed to speak about evolution. Ridiculous. He did not randomly select a few sentences from a book. He addressed every single sentence in what Dawkins calls his central argument. Dawkins grouped the argument into points and Craig addresses every one of them.
What are you talking about? Craig is an international respected and well-credentialed philosopher and attempts to dismiss someone who speaks the obvious truth that however is inconvenient for you says more about you than him. This crap gets old. I accuse people of intellectual dishonesty if they claim absolute knowledge of facts they have no access to not because I disagree with them. I hope the rest of this post will not be a long litany of accusations and intellectual gymnastics devoid of merit or justification of any kind?
Once again what the heck are you talking about. Craig gave philosophic objections to the argument not theological ones. Craig usually does not use a single scripture in an entire debate. This is one of the worst counter claims I have ever seen.
You should really pay better attention to what he says instead of glazing over when you hear things you do not like. Craig said that within this distinct argument the conclusion in no way what so ever follow the premise even if the premise was true (which it isn't). It was not a conclusion on the book, (that would make the amount of garbage to be refuted impractical) it was instead a undeniable dissection of an argument so stupid that many believe it to be the worst ever uttered. Given the long lists of bad arguments from Dawkins and others that is quite an achievement. I do not think you have made a correct statement yet.
I never said anything about Dawkins being the greatest influence on anyone. I would hope atheists are more intelligent than that. I gave you a very simple principle that makes his explain the explanation invalid and every single philosophy 101 student knows this. I then went on to give you the argumentation from one of todays most reputable philosophers. You can neither challenge my original principle nor apparently even make a coherent response to Craig. You are simply weaving a cloak of false accusations as a defense. You have no presented a single reason for anything you have said, you simply say it is so and move on to the next absurd point.
I never claimed that he was alone, I never claimed there were no other atheists, in fact I never claimed a single statement you made above. I did hint at one but that is as close as I got. I do not resent Dawkins because his claims are inconvenient, I do not resent him because he apparently hates the concept of God and it seems at times religion. I resent him because he is incompetent. Since you seem to have twisted and warped my claims into whatever you thought useful, let me restate them one last time.
Your telling me to stop being vague is like Hitler telling Mother Theresa to quit being so cruel. There is not a single fact or even an attempt at one in your entire post dealing with Dawkins central argument. I gave my own absolute refutation of his ridiculous reasoning and supplied links to a blow by blow, line by line professional dismantling of his pathetic argument. This was a very inept unjustified rhetorical rant. It only serves to prove that you only have an emotional objection to what Craig or I have said and could not produce a single philosophical principle in support. If you can only make unjustified assertions and rearrangements of my claims to the exclusion of any actual philisophical arguments or refutations I do not think a discussion justified. Unless actual philisophic or theologic reason are used to justify your strange position I shall not respond to pure rhetoric.
I do not think you understand that Dawkins is omniscient and there for is competent to tell anyone about anything in any subject. Any attempt to show the obvious truth that competance in biology has nothing whatever to do with theology or philosophy is deemed sacrilege and resisted by any means necessary (true or not). Dawkins is Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, and Muhammad in one. He can circumvent any law deny any principle and simply assert things into existence. Unfortunantly he is actually only OZ behind a shower curtain.
And again, you so completely miss the point. Craig is not being dismissed because he is Christian. I question his conclusions because they are simply pandering to his agenda which is immaterial to say the least. All Dawkins said was that he highly doubts that there is a god and Craig starts the usual creationist blathering of non-facts and then assumes he refuted Dawkins.
You say it is not because of his being a Christian and then say it is because he is making faith judgments not academic judgments. That is self-contradictory unless you engage in hair splitting semantics to find some reason to say very similar things are not identical. Your assertions that Craig was not making an academically justified critique are simply wrong. He is very professional and well respected. He used very simple and well founded reasons to show Dawkin's argument wrong on almost every level. He did not do so by quoting scripture or evoking faith he did so by the science of philosophy. If you wish to contend one of his responses that is reasonable to dismiss his entire argument with a claim of bias is absurd.
That is not what he said. This is: Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist. What did you read or watch? His dismantling of Dawkin's nonsense is philosophy 101 and he said almost nothing about Biblical creation. Even the simplistic but absolute point I made weeks ago about demanding a cause for an uncaused concept or an infinite regression of causes is enough to just shut Dawkins argument down for good. What craig said was just icing on the cake. Craig is not in any way sensationalistic or unprofessional. It is impossible that his claim that Dawkins argument was the worst in western thought would have been made unless it indeed is deplorable. Any claims to the contrary arise from the bias you falsely accuse Craig of. It is very very simple why Dawkins argument does not work for anything, much less God. This rabid defense of a man that has no more qualifications in theology or philosophy than Billy Graham has in quantum physics is quite telling and desperate.
I have no need of additional words when the ones I have given still stand. Although I learned a new term (word wall is not bad). You cannot make claims that an explanation must be explained in order to be accepted. That is not even coherent much less logical and freshmen philosophy students know better.
Well when we actually discuss one of them then that may apply. This was purely philosophical at least on Craig's part, Dawkins part was simply rhetorical nonsense.
There is a organized group of atheist thought in academics. I do not suggest that it is very large nor includes even a meaningful fraction of common every day atheists. There is even a subset of the group described as militant atheists and I have heard many people question me about this modern phenomena. They do not think God exists and they hate him. I liked Hitchens very much but he was a leading member of that group. Dawkins being a GURU is evident by the unjustified and prolific defense of his absurd reasoning in a field he has no qualifications in, even in this thread alone. There is no other explanation for the venomous defense he has received here. We can tweak the terms a bit but the concept is justified by reality. He is not just wrong he is absurdly wrong yet defended with a vengeance. Of course this is an exaggeration but it kind of reminds me of Gollum and his precious.