Happy Atheist Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=related


Can someone explain to me what happened here? I didn't read the God Delusion..was Dawkins premise's for his arguments in his book weak or something? Or is William Lane Craig just misunderstanding Dawkins arguments? Basically I just want to know where this Craig guy went wrong..(assuming Dawkins argument was right) Thanks!

Quote from: "minotza"Can someone explain to me what happened here? I didn't read the God Delusion..was Dawkins premise's for his arguments in his book weak or something? Or is William Lane Craig just misunderstanding Dawkins arguments? Basically I just want to know where this Craig guy went wrong..(assuming Dawkins argument was right) Thanks!

William Lane Craig criticizing another person's logic is like poodle correcting a person's grammar.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "minotza"Can someone explain to me what happened here? I didn't read the God Delusion..was Dawkins premise's for his arguments in his book weak or something? Or is William Lane Craig just misunderstanding Dawkins arguments? Basically I just want to know where this Craig guy went wrong..(assuming Dawkins argument was right) Thanks!

William Lane Craig criticizing another person's logic is like poodle correcting a person's grammar.

But could you show me where his "logic" went wrong in this particular video? I didn't read the God Delusion so I don't know what Dawkins exact premises are =/

And I'm not talking about the second part of the video where he just assumes god is a mind without a body, I'm more focused on the first part.

Quote from: "Davin"William Lane Craig criticizing another person's logic is like poodle correcting a person's grammar.

Eminently quotable.  

Hello and welcome to HAF, minotza.

This video actually has been discussed here already.  It was brought into the discussion in the fifth post here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5684).  I myself examined Craig's arguments in the video later in the thread, here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5684&start=15#p79799). I will readily admit that my rebuttal to Craig may not be all that great, and there are other takes on it in that thread.  As I said in that post, in some ways I admire Craig.  He's very adept at making his arguments sound reasonable, if they aren't examined too critically.  Though he relies on the same arguments again and again, that means that he knows them very well, and has encountered and grappled with most of the objections to them, which gives the appearance of having an agile mind.  (I'm not sure that appearance corresponds to reality, but I won't say that it doesn't.  I'll leave that for somebody else. ) He seems to come to debates quite well prepared, so when he deals with somebody who hasn't done their homework, he can bury them under piles of his stock arguments.  I don't think his arguments are all that strong, but I think it takes some thinking time to properly tear them apart.

Thanks for showing those posts to me, I can see where he went wrong now.

For a moment, I thought this was a video to an actual debate between the two, which would have been surprising since I believe Dawkins said he will never debate ID advocates. Can't say I blame him, but he should probably find a way to respond to Craig's argument through some medium.

I agree, Sophus. I don't blame Dawkins at all for giving Craig and similar blatherskites the brush-off.  There are plenty of other people around who are happy to share a stage with them.  He really doesn't deal in the kind of casuistry that is Craig's forté. (I almost said paralogy, but maybe that's being a little harsh. :cool:

I just watched the YouTube video.  Craig is a persuasive speaker, and the first argument sounds logical at first.  The second is bogus.

He was trying to refute Dawkins point that: You cannot infer a designer of the universe based on the complexity of the universe - because then you would have to answer the question, "Who designed the designer?" - since the designer would have to be more complex than the universe in order to create it.  Dawkins feels that the explanation must be simpler than a designer.

Craig's first point was: In order to recognize that an explanation is the best (for certain conditions), you don't need an explanation of that explanation.  He gave the example of inferring a designer by finding arrowheads or finding machinery on the moon and knowing that there must have been intelligent design of those items, even though you might not be able to pinpoint who did design them.

Craig's second point was that God, being a mind without a physical existence, was actually simpler than the universe.  I find that argument silly and rather off the point, since a mind with no physicality might be able to imagine a universe, but without any way to act, it couldn't create it.  In fact, I'm not all that convinced that complexity is that great an argument, anyway, for either side, since it all depends on your definition of "complexity".

But the first is a little more challenging.  And let's expand it to include the old argument as to first cause, which I think is more convincing.  I don't recall whether Dawkins used it in his book or not.  Regardless, there are similarities.  The first cause argument was that everything has a cause, and if you go far enough back, there must have been a very first cause, and that was God.  The argument against that is that in order to be consistent you then have to explain what caused God.  (And of course even if there were a first cause, which is called God, there's no reason to think that that first cause had any intelligence or awareness, and without those, it wouldn't be anything anyone would recognize as God.)  Likewise, the argument against intelligent design is that if you want to use the fact that the universe is so complex as proof that an intelligent God designed the universe, then in order to be consistent, you have to say that an intelligent superdesigner created God, and of course an intelligent superdooperdesigner designed the superdesigner, on and on.

But of course at this point Craig isn't arguing specifically in favor of intelligent design - which we could demolish with one brain held behind our backs - he's arguing against Dawkin's bullet points.  And Dawkins' statement is pretty much what I wrote in the paragraph just above - that the argument from design or complexity isn't logical.  Craig's is saying that Dawkins' logic is flawed in proving that God doesn't exist - and that's true, but I don't think Dawkins is claiming to prove that God does not exist, just that it is very unlikely.  And Dawkins is attacking the arguments by the ID'ers, and Craig is counterattacking.  

Craig's statement is that in order to recognize the best explanation for a situation, it isn't necessary to fully explain that explanation.  Of course that assumes that the best explanation is obvious, and of course it isn't in this case.  The bottom line is that Craig is saying that God shouldn't be subjected to the same burden of logic as everything else.  

Further analysis to come.

Dawkin's analysis of the "complexity demonstrates design" argument is right on.  Even if God is extremely simple, He is more complex than nothing and therefore His existence could be used as evidence to demonstrate design.  Dawkins is pointing at the real problem of the intelligent design theory.  (Not to mention that religionists often claim that God is more sophisticated than all the universe).

The notion accepts that certain levels of complexity can result from the natural interaction of various forces or materials, whereas complexity above these levels demonstrates intelligent design.  This very simplistic analysis is often offered support by claims that monkeys jumping on typewriters could have never by chance produced one of Shakespeare's works.  Or, the fact that no reasonable person finding a watch on a beach would assume that it was produced by random events in the ocean or sand.  Both the works of Shakespeare and a watch require intelligent designers.  However, it is not because of relative simplicity or complexity that we figure a watch on a beach was produced by an intelligent designer.  It is because of our understanding of the origins of watches (that they are man-made) that we think this.

What is more complex, a push-pin or a tree?  Would we say that the push-pin must be naturally produced and the tree intelligently designed because of their relative complexity?  In the case of the universe, relative complexity offers no indication as to whether or not it was created ex nihilo by an intelligent designer.

What is further mind-boggling is that Christians stick so ardently to the non-biblical, illogical, medieval notion of ex nihilo creationism.  Intelligent design is actually an ancient argument expressed in somewhat scientific terms.  It points to existence as evidence of creation, yet excuses God of the very argument with which His existence is asserted.

-a-train

Quote from: "Recusant"It would be a shame to allow himself and the science he represents to come off badly simply because he's not as skilled at wrangling as a person like Craig. Though I do agree-- tackling something like this by Craig in a format of Dawkins' own choosing would be interesting to see. I'm not a particular fan of Dawkins in his public appearances. I think he does a much better job of presenting his position in writing.

Don't know about you, but I don't get over to the Richard Dawkins website much these days. It's possible he has a written response posted somewhere. With all of the books quickly published in response to The God Delusion it would surprise me if Dawkins releases a revised edition responding to arguments like Craig's.

Quote from: "Wilson"I just watched the YouTube video.  Craig is a persuasive speaker, and the first argument sounds logical at first.  The second is bogus.

He was trying to refute Dawkins point that: You cannot infer a designer of the universe based on the complexity of the universe - because then you would have to answer the question, "Who designed the designer?" - since the designer would have to be more complex than the universe in order to create it.  Dawkins feels that the explanation must be simpler than a designer.

Craig's first point was: In order to recognize that an explanation is the best (for certain conditions), you don't need an explanation of that explanation.  He gave the example of inferring a designer by finding arrowheads or finding machinery on the moon and knowing that there must have been intelligent design of those items, even though you might not be able to pinpoint who did design them.

Craig's second point was that God, being a mind without a physical existence, was actually simpler than the universe.  I find that argument silly and rather off the point, since a mind with no physicality might be able to imagine a universe, but without any way to act, it couldn't create it.  In fact, I'm not all that convinced that complexity is that great an argument, anyway, for either side, since it all depends on your definition of "complexity".

But the first is a little more challenging.  And let's expand it to include the old argument as to first cause, which I think is more convincing.  I don't recall whether Dawkins used it in his book or not.  Regardless, there are similarities.  The first cause argument was that everything has a cause, and if you go far enough back, there must have been a very first cause, and that was God.  The argument against that is that in order to be consistent you then have to explain what caused God.  (And of course even if there were a first cause, which is called God, there's no reason to think that that first cause had any intelligence or awareness, and without those, it wouldn't be anything anyone would recognize as God.)  Likewise, the argument against intelligent design is that if you want to use the fact that the universe is so complex as proof that an intelligent God designed the universe, then in order to be consistent, you have to say that an intelligent superdesigner created God, and of course an intelligent superdooperdesigner designed the superdesigner, on and on.

But of course at this point Craig isn't arguing specifically in favor of intelligent design - which we could demolish with one brain held behind our backs - he's arguing against Dawkin's bullet points.  And Dawkins' statement is pretty much what I wrote in the paragraph just above - that the argument from design or complexity isn't logical.  Craig's is saying that Dawkins' logic is flawed in proving that God doesn't exist - and that's true, but I don't think Dawkins is claiming to prove that God does not exist, just that it is very unlikely.  And Dawkins is attacking the arguments by the ID'ers, and Craig is counterattacking.  

Craig's statement is that in order to recognize the best explanation for a situation, it isn't necessary to fully explain that explanation.  Of course that assumes that the best explanation is obvious, and of course it isn't in this case.  The bottom line is that Craig is saying that God shouldn't be subjected to the same burden of logic as everything else.  

Further analysis to come.

basically he's trying to rationalize that his said GOD is made of nothing and is thus simpler than the Universe  :yay:

So he's relying on you to not notice this inherent failure in his argument. Nor does he want you to consider the fact that it takes more cause to support consciousness than it does for unconsciousness or things that are not conscious.

Quote from: "TheJackel"So he's relying on you to not notice this inherent failure in his argument. Nor does he want you to consider the fact that it takes more cause to support consciousness than it does for unconsciousness or things that are not conscious.

^That. He basically just defined god as something that must necessarily not exist in order to exist.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "TheJackel"So he's relying on you to not notice this inherent failure in his argument. Nor does he want you to consider the fact that it takes more cause to support consciousness than it does for unconsciousness or things that are not conscious.

^That. He basically just defined god as something that must necessarily not exist in order to exist.

You mean he defined a GOD as a Nothing GOD  :P

In fact, one of the theist members here tried to make that same argument :headbang:

Nothing = God

God = Nothing

*shrug* suits me.

It's as if they think they can win an argument by defecting to the other side.  

Quote from: "elliebean"Nothing = God

God = Nothing

*shrug* suits me.

It's as if they think they can win an argument by defecting to the other side.  :blink:

You can't get anymore pleading for ignorance than that  :P Basically, it was shown that the universe could come from zero-point energy.  :P

Quote from: "TheJackel"basically he's trying to rationalize that his said GOD is made of nothing and is thus simpler than the Universe  :yay:

And all of this would deny Christ anyway.  If God has no physical body and was not raised physically from the dead to immortality, then Jesus is not God.  Luke 24:39 says that Jesus, appearing after the resurrection said to the disciples who thought his appearance was a ghost: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."  How can Jesus have hands and feet, flesh and bones, and yet be non-material, a-spatial, a dimensional etc.?  If the God that Craig espouses is without any body or form, then it cannot be Jesus.  Yet he clearly advocates the bodily resurrection of Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNHuRkWEhs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNHuRkWEhs)

Now, when did Jesus lose his body?  If he did, then the resurrection is not permanent.  If he did not, then God is material, spatial, and dimensional.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "TheJackel"basically he's trying to rationalize that his said GOD is made of nothing and is thus simpler than the Universe  :yay:

And all of this would deny Christ anyway.  If God has no physical body and was not raised physically from the dead to immortality, then Jesus is not God.  Luke 24:39 says that Jesus, appearing after the resurrection said to the disciples who thought his appearance was a ghost: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."  How can Jesus have hands and feet, flesh and bones, and yet be non-material, a-spatial, a dimensional etc.?  If the God that Craig espouses is without any body or form, then it cannot be Jesus.  Yet he clearly advocates the bodily resurrection of Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNHuRkWEhs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNHuRkWEhs)

Now, when did Jesus lose his body?  If he did, then the resurrection is not permanent.  If he did not, then God is material, spatial, and dimensional.

-a-train

Yes that would be true  :P