And therefore, God does not exist!

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Rowboat
rowboat wrote:One of the brightest Christian Apologists is named William Lane Craig. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, many others, all have lost debates with Craig. Richard Dawkins once issued a challenge but then quickly thought better of it. In response to Dawkins, Craig decided to challenge Dawkins himself by inviting him to debate "The God Delusion" at Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre. Dawkins decided not to attend so WLC addressed an empty chair in his place.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... lane-craig
Dawkins has never issued a challenge, rather he has refused to deal with him for reasons he has given.

Anyone who argues from ignorance and claims it is valid by claiming verificationism collapsed really didn't win anything.

p.s. I got through about 1/4 page before wondering why any magazine claiming to be about philosophy (philosophynow) would publish him. it was painful to see 1+1=340934.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by rowboat »

Actually Dawkins issued an open challenge to debate with anyone and then WLC stepped forward. Then Dawkins backpedaled and clarified, saying he would "only debate a Bishop or a Cardinal," which of course is laughable.

And now Dawkins is claiming the reason he won't debate William Lane Craig is because WLC "advocates genocide." Strange.

Isn't Richard Dawkins personal friends with Sam Harris? Harris is an advocate of torture while Chris Hedges accuses Harris of having genocidal thoughts of his own, in the form of a future nuclear first strike against a Muslim nation.
Sam Harris: I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage (p198)

Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary. (p199)


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... on-atheism
Hedges: I write in the book that not believing in God is not dangerous. Not believing in sin is very dangerous. I think both the Christian right and the New Atheists in essence don’t believe in their own sin, because they externalize evil. Evil is always something out there that can be eradicated. For the New Atheists, it’s the irrational religious hordes. I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. Both Hitchens and Harris defend the use of torture. Of course, they’re great supporters of preemptive war, and I don’t think this is accidental that their political agendas coalesce completely with the Christian right.
http://www.salon.com/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by DNS »

I watched about 30 minutes into that video so far. I have not read Dawkins' work The God Delusion, but if it is as Craig states, then perhaps Dawkins did a poor job. But this does not diminish the message, due to a poor messenger.

Craig himself admits that he was shocked that Dawkins accepted his premises. Craig's premises are completely without basis and fact. Like most theistic arguments they contain the conclusion in the premises, classic petitio principii (fallacy).
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by rowboat »

David Snyder: Craig's premises are completely without basis and fact. Like most theistic arguments they contain the conclusion in the premises, classic petitio principii (fallacy).
Oh my goodness. Isn't that quite the embarrassment for every one of those peer reviewed philosophy journals that published William Lane Craig. Over one hundred papers! But seriously, you should write to him and see if you can engage him in a discussion, David.

Here is his contact info where he takes questions from the public: http://rf.convio.net/site/Survey?SURVEY ... R_REQUESTS

Incidentally I just watched the last third of this debate with Lawrence Krauss and I have to admit it is almost interesting. They seem to despise one another. (At one point Krauss literally screams at WLC.)

Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by Cittasanto »

rowboat wrote:Actually Dawkins issued an open challenge to debate with anyone and then WLC stepped forward. Then Dawkins backpedaled and clarified, saying he would "only debate a Bishop or a Cardinal," which of course is laughable.

And now Dawkins is claiming the reason he won't debate William Lane Craig is because WLC "advocates genocide." Strange.
that would be true if the refusal hadn't already happened previously.

I do not know who Dawkins is or is not friends with, not that that actually matters as it would be the underpinning reasons for such action being advocated that would show hipocracy on Dawkins part.
But just to note I have never seen wlc actually counter a scientific theory, nor win an argument because he counters with wordplay and fallacious points. Debates are, however, rarely won on the merits of the argument, and more often on the charisma of the participants.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by rowboat »

that would be true if the refusal hadn't already happened previously.
That is an invention. It simply isn't true. I was closely following the whole back and forth between Dawkins and WLC while it was ongoing, largely because of my animosity for Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.

You can see the proper timeline and chain of events in the 7 minute video below:

Oxford atheist professor calls Richard Dawkins "a coward" for refusing to debate William Lane Craig


I do not know who Dawkins is or is not friends with, not that that actually matters as it would be the underpinning reasons for such action being advocated that would show hipocracy on Dawkins part.
I disagree. It certainly does matter. There is quite a difference between William Lane Craig's rhetorical reference to the biblical god of Abraham and his destruction of cities and cultures, in order to make a philosophical point, accusing WLC of advocacy for genocide on these grounds, and Sam Harris, when he talks about the real-world eventuality of a nuclear first strike against the Arab world. And I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say in the second part of your statement.
But just to note I have never seen wlc actually counter a scientific theory, nor win an argument because he counters with wordplay and fallacious points. Debates are, however, rarely won on the merits of the argument, and more often on the charisma of the participants.
Sam Harris has debated WLC more than once. Probably you should write to Harris and give him your advice directly in case the two should meet again.
"Well, first let me say that it's an honour to be here at Notre Dame. And I'm very happy to be debating Dr. Craig - the one Christian Apologist who seems to have put the fear of god into many of my fellow atheists. I've actually gotten more than a few emails this week, that more or less read, 'brother, please don't blow this.'" - Sam Harris
Fine work. Over a hundred peer reviewed papers in respected philosophy journals, and thirty books, and nobody has exposed him until you today. But you claim to be very familiar with the work of William Lane Craig and yet you also state that you have no idea who Richard Dawkins is.
Last edited by rowboat on Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by binocular »

cooran wrote:"Buddhism and the God Idea" by Nyanaponika Thera
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... didea.html
What exactly does this mean?
If one doesn't subsscribe to the ideas in this essay, then one is not fit to be a Buddhist?

tiltbillings wrote:And not touching, of course, those arguments that are not "lame."
I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.

Sam Vara wrote:It might be worth considering that winning or losing debates has little to do with whether one's beliefs in a God or no God are truly justified.
Justified to whom? For what purpose?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by chownah »

binocular wrote: I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.
Here's one: I have never experienced anything that indicates that god exists.
chownah
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by DNS »

rowboat wrote:
Over one hundred papers! But seriously, you should write to him and see if you can engage him in a discussion, David.
There are plenty of other scholars who are published just as much as Craig, if not more and have polar opposite views. Just because he is published does not make him right or does not even necessarily mean that he follows basic logic. I have been to some academia conventions and some papers get ripped apart in the response and discussion periods, literally right after the scholar presents the material (some respondents have access to the written paper several days before the meeting).
rowboat wrote:
Here is his contact info
No, I won't be contacting him. He is a religious zealot and nothing I say nor anyone else will change that. It is interesting to have this discussion here but no need to be disruptive over on another religionist's website just as I wouldn't go to a Christian forum and be disruptive there.
binocular wrote: I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.
Here are some good quotes and points in this thread:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11082
Babadhari
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:23 pm
Location: lalita ghat

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by Babadhari »

binocular wrote:
cooran wrote:"Buddhism and the God Idea" by Nyanaponika Thera
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... didea.html
What exactly does this mean?
If one doesn't subsscribe to the ideas in this essay, then one is not fit to be a Buddhist?

it means that one will never be liberated from dukkha while the clinging to a belief in a creator God exists. the author explains
the Buddha's teachings on this quite clearly. it is not a matter of being fit to be a Buddhist or belonging to Buddhism- its a matter of following what the Fully Awakened One realised to be free of samsara
Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion.
Aflame, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs ......

Seeing thus, the disciple of the Noble One grows disenchanted. SN 35.28
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by rowboat »

No, I won't be contacting him.
Of course not. It wasn't a serious suggestion.

:anjali:
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
Feathers
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:14 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by Feathers »

Binocular I'm slightly confused, sorry - you are looking for arguments FOR the existence of god? But what you linked in the OP is intended as a way of arguing AGAINST the existence of god by spoofing common arguments of the for camp . . .
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by culaavuso »

SN 12.15
SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta wrote: Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle...
MN 95
MN 95: Canki Sutta wrote: If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
Bertrand Russell wrote: Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
Bertrand Russell wrote: The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Rowboat.
As you seem to of focused on timelines so hard, I will take your word for it being as you said.
rowboat wrote:
I do not know who Dawkins is or is not friends with, not that that actually matters as it would be the underpinning reasons for such action being advocated that would show hipocracy on Dawkins part.
I disagree. It certainly does matter. There is quite a difference between William Lane Craig's rhetorical reference to the biblical god of Abraham and his destruction of cities and cultures, in order to make a philosophical point, accusing WLC of advocacy for genocide on these grounds, and Sam Harris, when he talks about the real-world eventuality of a nuclear first strike against the Arab world. And I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say in the second part of your statement.
Haris was looking at a potential threat, and even cautioned Muslim countries to be aware of particular regimes (rising to power). he was, in fact, looking at a potential danger and what a first strike would potentially cause. not advocating a first strike should 100% happen,rather it is taken as a very real possibility as the jihadist mindset is immune to the "mutually assured destruction" understanding that kept the cold war cold. he also notes that it would be a war crime to kill indiscriminately.
WLC just needs to view it is gods will for him to believe an entire populace (militant and civilian of any age) should be wiped out and it would still be ethical (in his view).

There is a massive difference and as such the reasons behind advocacy or looking at possibilities/situations is completely different which makes any friendship Dawkins has with Haris besides the point and not showing any double standard.
But just to note I have never seen wlc actually counter a scientific theory, nor win an argument because he counters with wordplay and fallacious points. Debates are, however, rarely won on the merits of the argument, and more often on the charisma of the participants.
Sam Harris has debated WLC more than once. Probably you should write to Harris and give him your advice directly in case the two should meet again.
"Well, first let me say that it's an honour to be here at Notre Dame. And I'm very happy to be debating Dr. Craig - the one Christian Apologist who seems to have put the fear of god into many of my fellow atheists. I've actually gotten more than a few emails this week, that more or less read, 'brother, please don't blow this.'" - Sam Harris
I am sure Harris knows the art of rhetoric, it has been quite well looked into over the years.
The Art of Rhetoric wrote:Rhetoric is an old study developed by Aristotle in Ancient Greece and is familiar to the study of public management (Hood and Jackson 1991; Hood, 2000, Smullen, 2012, p.956). It recognizes that argumentation is a persuasive action that shapes views of the world. Rhetoric analysis tradition focuses to identify ho to incite action through talk.There are three concepts in rhetoric; pathos, ethos and logos. Ethos refers to the appeal of the speaker and the method that they develop themselves upon the audiences. It is how the speaker makes the audiences believe that they are trustworthy. Pathos refers to the way of the speaker to make audience receptive to the argument (Hood, 2000, Smullen,2012). Logos refers to the logic of the argument itself. It is the “scientific” way of argument when the speakers talk to the audiences. Logos is logical appeal. In addition,Ethos and pathos related to the way of the speaker talk to audiences. Logos, by contrast,focus in the content of argument (Smullen, 2010, p.45)
If you have a room full of scientific illiterate people and a charismatic creationist arguing against a dull scientist the charisma will win the day. Add to that the room is full of creationists then confirmation bias is also held, and if a tiny portion of the audience are Atheists they will be less likely to openly agree due to conformity bias.
Fine work. Over a hundred peer reviewed papers in respected philosophy journals, and thirty books, and nobody has exposed him until you today. But you claim to be very familiar with the work of William Lane Craig and yet you also state that you have no idea who Richard Dawkins is.
You should read what I say! I claim not to know who is friends with who, not that I do not know who Richard Dawkins is. Nor do I say Very familiar, I am familiar with some of his debates and writings.
One could say his greatest supporter in one question also notes
Eric Silverman wrote:Dr. Craig has written or edited about thirty books and over a hundred articles. He is the only theist with a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. His work on the Kalam cosmological argument and Molinism is excellent. Yet, much of his work is published by less rigorous venues and he has not published much in the top academic presses mentioned above. So, I'd say that he's generally viewed as a good philosopher, though perhaps not as good as those I've listed above.
Personally I fail to see much difference between his "excellent" cosmological argument and other forms. even if they have been shown to be flawed several times.

however the first response to that question on ask philosophers says
Peter Smith wrote:So the philosophical atheists haven't been entirely silent. But it does seem that much philosophy of religion is being written noisily by people with religious axes to grind (such indeed as William Lane Craig). When I've dipped into that stuff, I've thought it either badly argued or starting from premisses we haven't much reason to believe or both: so my impression is that, if the world of Christian philosophy has been "utterly transformed" of late, it is largely a matter of quantity rather than quality. But I am, like most of my colleagues, too unimpressed/too lazy/short of time to bother to really get to grips with it.
so I am not the first to posit anything.

(edited spelling corrections & clarifiers. Nothing removed)
Last edited by Cittasanto on Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: And therefore, God does not exist!

Post by lyndon taylor »

So this evidently highly respected Richard Dawkins bloke is some kind of defender of Buddhist thought?????
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
Post Reply