What is wrong with Dawkins?

[Belk]

I'm not explaining myself properly.
Take any question, keep asking why in that mildly annoying way a 4 year old child might and keep it going to you have reached the "just is" moment.
Now most people, myself included think they have reached the just-is moment long before they actually have and with a little more thought and a little more knowledge you can push it further.
Once you've reached the real just-is, ponder it for a moment meditate on it if you like, think of all the ramifications of this quantum of knowledge.
Sometimes it's exciting and sometimes it's a bit of a head-messer.

I believe this would be the Socratic method, yes?

 

[PantsMcFist]

Okay watched all 14 parts last night, William Lane Craig was certainly one of the best or most intelligent Christian or theist apologist I've come across, however I remain unconvinced by his conclusions (as you'd probably expect from an atheist, but I try and keep an open mind!). I skipped most of Dacey's parts, so didn't hear his rebuttals, but will listen again at some point.

I think he makes a bit of a leap when he says the universe has an external transcendent personal cause. I just don't see how we can know the nature of the cause of the universe yet, and much less attribute it to a God.

The fine tuning of the universe or the initial conditions of the big bang are to support life are so precise that it defies human comprehension. I'm not sure how true that is, but assuming it is, how do we know we're not just one of a countless amount of universes, we just happen to be in the one that can support life.

I've already said what I think of him with regards to objective morality. I don't believe objective morality exists, so therefore I can't agree with him on this premise.

I did like the fact that Craig wasn't an apologist who makes you want to pull your hair out for once, so credit to him for that! In the Q&A he does realise that we would be living in a deterministic world, but he thinks our soul gives us freewill if I heard him correctly. That maybe so, but we have no knowledge of a soul, so I'd still say we live in a deterministic world.

Good debate though, might watch it again at the weekend, as I don't think I took everything he said in, and wouldn't mind listening to what Darcey has to say.

He makes the point in the Q&A that the drawback to debating is that you have to talk in soundbites, which is a lot of what you're pointing out. His book contains a much better fleshed-out version of the basic kalaam cosmological argument, which is what most of his talking point are based on, specifically explaining his inference of a transcendent personal cause (it relates to the properties of being necessary and contingent).

All in all, I'm glad you took the time to watch it

I don't expect to convince anyone out of hand with any arguments, but I would like to at least show that there are theistic/Christian intellectuals out there that can think and argue on a respectable level.

 

[cantata]

I understand but, if it "just is" as in it "just exists" wouldn't that lend to the idea that it had no cause and is not the effect of anything? If that is the case, would it not have to have been there for eternity?

My problem with your last post was merely that you were misusing "infinite" to mean "sempiternal". "Infinite" just means "boundless". It is not limited to boundless time.

To respond to this post, a "just is" (i.e. necessary) being is either outside time, like the number 3 (i.e. it's eternal), or has existed for infinite time (i.e. it's sempiternal).

I'm not sure that sempiternity is a coherent concept, though. I think the possibility of a sempiternal being needs more than just stating. An argument is required in defence of a concept that is so difficult to grasp.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I believe this would be the Socratic method, yes?

Maybe. I'm not too sure.

 

[BigBadWlf]

=

Islam. As in the history of . . .

Get your history and religions straight.

(No pun intended.)

So all those individuals in the confederate states…all those slave holders, all those people involved in the slave trade…were Muslims?

And every one in the KKK is Muslim? Which is odd because it is a Christian organization. Same with the Nazis.

In fact just about all the various hate groups in the country are Christian

And I have never heard a Muslim explain that the torture, mutilation and murder of the children (it was explained that adults might fight back so its better kill their children)of gays and lesbians was a way to receive special blessings form Jesus…just Christians

 

[Polycarp_fan]

So all those individuals in the confederate states…all those slave holders, all those people involved in the slave trade…were Muslims?

The Muslims caught and enslaved the people that were sold into slavery. Get your history straight. Look up Christian abolitionists.

And every one in the KKK is Muslim? Which is odd because it is a Christian organization. Same with the Nazis.

Look up Aryanism. Get your history straight.

In fact just about all the various hate groups in the country are Christian

You have the label machine. What else could we expect.

And I have never heard a Muslim explain that the torture, mutilation and murder of the children (it was explained that adults might fight back so its better kill their children)of gays and lesbians was a way to receive special blessings form Jesus…just Christians

What kind of babble is that?

Show me where that is written and by whom in the Christian community where we are blessed for killing anyone?

In Islam as of right now, they are pushing instant heaven for killing people.

Get your facts straight would ya.

 

[selfinflikted]

Get your facts straight to would ya.

We've been asking you to do this all along. Why should we play by your rules if even you do not?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread makes my brain hurt.

A critique of Richard Dawkins has lead to a debate on Abrahamic racism?