Just like you!
All religions, including the atheistic ones, are revelations from God, differing according to time, place and circumstance.
Yeah, that's the level!
Richard Dawkins Again Refuses Debate With Christian Apologist William Craig
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Just like you!
All religions, including the atheistic ones, are revelations from God, differing according to time, place and circumstance.
Yeah, that's the level!
but I am not trying to distinguish myself from debate - professional or otherwise ....
then I guess you acknowledge the role debate plays then ... since its hard to comprehend how atheism can have a henological counterpart without debate, no?
Didn't mean to elevate it further from your topic of vicar's in tutus
Mindless idiots will do that anyway. What mindless idiot is going to watch a televised debate with a boring smart guy when American Idol is on?
Anyone who argues for creationism is inherently stupid.
Hey Musicians and entertainers got feelings to you know! There is a lot to learn from American Idol !!!
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
But he has debated everyone else so one wonders why this time he won't. I think he is terribly afraid.
I think professional 'debaters' spend more time thinking about the topic under debate than average 'bishops, etc....' as a 'bishop....etc' job is mostly faith based and preaching to the choir.
So in fact a professional debater is more qualified in my opinion.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Dr Craig wants to debate the arguments in Dawkins book, 'The God Delusion.'
Indeed, Craig is not debating creationism, he will be criticizing Dawkins' arguments. Dawkins' central argument is pretty bad and he did quite a horrible job of critiquing Aquinas' five ways.
The problem with Dawkins' criticisms is that they are completely oblivious of the Aristotelian principles that the arguments rest on.
For example, Aquinas' first way relies on a proper understanding of potentiality and actuality and how change is described in these terms. The first argument is an argument from change or becoming.
Aquinas' second way relies in part on the distinction between some thing's nature or essence and its act of existence. The second argument is an argument from being (thus different from the first which is an argument from becoming or change).
Aquinas' third way DOES NOT rest on the idea that "There must have been a time when no physical things existed". In fact he typically refrains from arguing for a universe that only stretches back to infinity and he even thought that it cannot be philosophically settled whether it does or does not.
The fourth argument relies on different grades of being and relies on an understanding of transcendentals, the Scholastic doctrine of analogy of being and again the distinction between some thing's nature and its act of existence. Dawkins is completely ignorant of this.
The fifth way has NOTHING to do with Paley's watchmaker analogy or ID or an argument from complexity, instead it is based on the reality of natural ends or final causes inherent in all substances, again relying on Aristotelian views of causality. Dawkins again completely misses this and essentially tears down a massive straw man.
The traditional, classical theistic arguments for the existence of God are not empirical scientific hypotheses or theories but rather resemble formal and logic proofs (e.g. Thomistic proofs) that rely on certain empirical observations/evidence (e.g. change happens). While the proofs are falsifiable, it relies on either denying the empirical observations as axioms (again, e.g. change happens) or showing that there is something wrong with the logic and/or the underlying metaphysics of the proofs.
Dawkins also misses this point and constantly frames the problem as some sort of empirical hypothesis aka "The God Hypothesis".
kx000
Valued Senior Member
If the mindless idiots thought all the other mindless idiots were watching debates, and other non-retard programing those mindless idiots would also watch debates so they can be like the other mindless idiots.
I doubt it. They're not much fun for people with short attention spans, no matter how you sell them.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I have ADD. People are sheep.
And I think he will reply "no thanks, got better things to do."
Writing? Discussing physics with other physicists? Eating ice cream? Lots of things I would think.
I know there are a lot of people around here that I won't even bother discussing some kinds of science with because it will be a waste of time. I won't bother arguing much with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, for example, since for them it's a religion; it has nothing to do with science.