1. Comment #23892 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

If this is the William Lane Craig that made such an impression on John Humphrys, then my opinion of John has just taken a dive.

Craig is just another example of "Philosphus Idiotocus" who seems to be unaware of the logical maxim that the onus of proof lies with those making the claim! Wolpert, I'm certain, would admit the slight possibility of being wrong, but Craig would not; just another example of the utter uselessness of trying to debate with sufferers of the god disease. Why do apparently intelligent people keep making these pointless attempts? When one has heard all the arguments before, its mind-numbingly boring to hear them trotted out again and again. Personally, I will not bother about these silly "Does god exist?" debates involving supremely arrogant religites, anymore.

Other Comments by Yorker

2. Comment #23897 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 12:52 pm

You probably don't like this website much then.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

3. Comment #23900 by Quine on March 3, 2007 at 1:13 pm

So, because nothing can be proved to be real, we should all get together and agree on the nature of a mutual invisible friend who will make us feel better. I, for one, would rather go stub my toe on that rock in the road that I can't prove exists, either.

Other Comments by Quine

4. Comment #23904 by PaulJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Craig seems to be justifying his 'belief without evidence' by saying there are other things we believe without evidence. If he takes that line, it seems to me he can justify any belief whatsoever.

...there's no way you could prove that the universe was not created, say, five minutes ago....

That way lies madness.

...the origin of the universe at a point in the finite past points to a transcendent cause beyond the universe, which brought it into being....

But of course, that transcendent cause does not itself, for some reason, point to anything other than...God.

If astronauts were to find machinery on the backside of the Moon, it would be easy to recognise that this is the result of some extra-terrestrial agency, even if you couldn't explain the origin of those extra-terrestrials.

Naturally we wouldn't dream of asking where those extra-terrestrials came from, what they were like, what was their purpose. No, we'd just say, "God put them there." Right.

Other Comments by PaulJ

5. Comment #23905 by skippip on March 3, 2007 at 1:36 pm

What is always more amazing than religious commentators trying to dissapear down the cracks of logic is those interviewers who let them do it. As Dawkins has rightly stated, such logic would not get you far in a court of law so it certainly should not be permissable in a so-called logical argument.

Other Comments by skippip

6. Comment #23908 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 1:46 pm

I was simply commenting on the sport people get from not believing. The first fellow - Yorker was complaining about the idiocy of these debates.

"Personally, I will not bother about these silly "Does god exist?" debates." he says when thats mostly what this website is taken up with. I would bet that a lot of people get much joy in the form of righteously indignant anger from people like craig. It satisfies a basic need in people. I think Craig is entertaining, maybe not right. No reason to hate him. You don't think a man stupid for simply being wrong.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

7. Comment #23928 by bruno_burned on March 3, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Craig claims that you cannot prove the foundations of Realism, therefore scientists believe in Realism without evidence.

My Christian friends have occasionally pulled this Solipsist argument against Realism on me ("Brain in a Vat", "five-minute hypothesis", "Evil Daemon", "The Matrix").

My response is that both the Realist and the Solipsist still have to make a decision on how they're going to understand their world. Whether I live in a real, material world (the Realist) or I live in a subconscious illusion (the Solipsist), I still have to decide how I will think.

I have to decide if I will base my explanations on the evidence presented to me (by either the reality or the illusion), or on what other people tell me (be they flesh-and-blood or just mere phantoms), or on whatever I dream-up (my dreams reflecting specialized evolved mechanisms or a soul).

So until Morpheus comes to unplug me from the Matrix*, I might as well pick the most productive epistemology - empiricism - to understand my reality/illusion.

* sarcastic tone.

Other Comments by bruno_burned

8. Comment #23938 by HappyPrimate on March 3, 2007 at 4:38 pm

I was having such a good laugh at the silly propositions being made in support of the existence of a god (just as well could be multiple gods and why not?) and it ended too quickly. No time for some good rebuttals. Craig seemed to hog all the allotted time.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

9. Comment #23940 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 4:51 pm

2. Comment #23897 by cheshirecat

"You probably don't like this website much then."

Now why would you say such a foolish thing I wonder?

There is much more going on here than simple god/no god pointless argument; but since registering here shortly after the site was launched, I have heard the same arguments used repeatedly, after a while it becomes boring and certainly non-productive. Perhaps you're new here and haven't noticed, or you are one of those people who don't take the trouble to read or study what has taken place here historically.

In another apparently disconnected post you said:

"You don't think a man stupid for simply being wrong."

I didn't say the man was stupid, I said he was making idiotic philosophical arguments, others apparently agree. However, anyone who makes silly statements AND is not prepared to admit the possibility of error; IS stupid. If that applies to Craig – and I think it does - then stupid I label him. If you consider him entertaining then I think you have a weird sense of humour my feline friend. Just to clarify a little more: I said I won't bother with pointless debates anymore but I read everything and will always take the opportunity to praise what I see as good posts, I shall also defend my position with gusto.

Other Comments by Yorker

10. Comment #23942 by MIND_REBEL on March 3, 2007 at 4:57 pm

William Lane Craig is dumb, and needs to learn some basic logic. If god created us, then who created god?. Thats the question. He's invoking the fallacy of endless regress. It's like the ultimate 756 from Prof Dawkins TGD. Great to see true atheists standing up for their rights.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

11. Comment #23947 by Pieter on March 3, 2007 at 5:44 pm

wait, did this guy actually say "the notion that we should only believe that which can be established by evidence ultimately leads to an unreasonable scepticism."?!?!?!?!?!?!

i beleive this guy's a child molester. let's lock him up in a supermax prison, and don't ask for evidence of his guilt. that would be unreasonalbly sceptical of us.

Other Comments by Pieter

12. Comment #23971 by J Steven on March 3, 2007 at 8:43 pm

This is in response to some of Yorker's comments, from #9 above.

"...I have heard the same arguments used repeatedly, after a while it becomes boring and certainly non-productive"

This is exactly the problem in engaging with most religiously-afflicted individuals. The arguments themselves don't take on too many differing forms, so after awhile each "side" knows what the other will say and all parties talk past one another.

What we (Brights of all stripes) need to do is devise a program to counteract, and hopefully head off this tendency. I happen to think that (compulsory?) education in ALL "faiths" is one very good idea that has been espoused on this and other sites, especially since that immediately dilutes the effect of any one faith meme while simultaneously strenghtening the rational meme.

A terrifying (to me) article appeared in the Wall Street Journal today (Saturday, 03 Mar) about children that adopt religiosity to a much greater degree than their parents. A secular humanist couple had a child, only 15, that somehow picked up the religious gene and was apparently calmly detailing to the correspondent how his parents were going to burn in hell. This is a terrific problem in my opinion. If we cannot even protect our OWN children, then something must be done.

I would love to discuss with anyone interested ideas on programs that could be developed to combat this issue. Incidentally, I would imagine this is the exact thing that the RDF would support.

Thoughts, people?

Other Comments by J Steven

13. Comment #23975 by Bremas on March 3, 2007 at 9:50 pm

I think this might be the same article that J Steven refers to above:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21317_1.html

Other Comments by Bremas

14. Comment #23981 by Logicel on March 4, 2007 at 1:51 am

Bremas, thanks for the link. The interviewed parents agree that their children's embracing of religion, though it can be inconvenient at times, is preferred to the taking of drugs. Is the implication that not only do the religious young are somehow immune to taking drugs, but also if they did not embrace religion, that they would have a much higher chance of taking drugs? Seems pretty wonky logic to me.

Understandably, some of the interviewed parents are happy that their children are happier religious than when they were not religious.

The high resulting from taking addictive drugs becomes harder and harder to sustain as time goes on. The expense of feeding the addiction can be financially ruining, and the toll on the physical, mental, and emotional health can be pronounced. With such knowledge, it makes more sense to educate children as to the dangers of drug taking, and to focus on preventing that danger becoming a reality for your child. I know this is easier said than done.

In a way, it is like letting kids watch TV, play video games, and surf the net, because the parents are too occupied with other stuff to pay attention to their kids. So why not add religion to the mix of non-parental baby sitters?

A study linked the biochemical changes in the brain that happens when one is in passionate love with the biochemical state when one is insane. While non-religious passion ebbs after a reasonable time, so the committment to a long term relationship has a chance to develop, the passion that religious believers have, is able to be sustained for all their lives. No wonder this religious 'drug' is so enticing. It is better than cocaine.

Other Comments by Logicel

15. Comment #23987 by Roedy on March 4, 2007 at 2:45 am

The religious debater said that we cannot trust reality since we might actually be living in vats in an environment simulated by a mad scientist.

Yes, you can trust, because for example, Newton's law is valid both in the ordinary reality view, and by the computations of the mad scientist's computer. You can trust any theories that accurately predict. They don't depend on knowing everything about the environment.

Mathematicians would say the real world and the vat are isomorphous.

As soon as you let God into it, you are throwing up your hands at any attempt at prediction since God has free will to do whatever the heck he pleases.

“I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose — which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me.”
~ Richard Feynman

Other Comments by Roedy

16. Comment #23992 by Sean Mc on March 4, 2007 at 3:42 am

I went to see William Lane Craig speak in Oxford's Town Hall as part of his UCCF Tour. He seems a pretty weak thinker.

Other Comments by Sean Mc

17. Comment #23993 by Will S on March 4, 2007 at 3:42 am

Where on earth does Craig see his argument leading?

He argues for extreme scepticism: there's absolutely nothing which we can be sure of (for I might just be a brain in a vat etc etc)

I was waiting for his 'Therefore.....' - which never arrived.

How does he hope to get from extreme scepticism to an elaborate and detailed theology?

As far I can see, the best he can do is to say that, since there's no rational foundation for any set of beliefs whatsoever, then - yah, boo, sucks - his beliefs are just as true, and deserve just as much respect, as anybody else's.

Has he really overlooked the obvious corollary? By the same token, his beliefs are just as false, and deserve just as much derision, as anybody else's.

Other Comments by Will S

18. Comment #23998 by Sean Mc on March 4, 2007 at 4:38 am

Will S, what Craig actually says is that faith stems from the "witness of the holy spirit", which transcends the "shifting sands" of actual evidence.

Other Comments by Sean Mc

19. Comment #24002 by the great teapot on March 4, 2007 at 5:12 am

The female presenter then wrapped up the item by saying something along the lines of " so the debate is still unresolved then"
I wasn't sure which conversation she had been listening to, could it really have been the one we just heard.

Other Comments by the great teapot

20. Comment #24003 by the great teapot on March 4, 2007 at 5:21 am

I used to think there was a tiny tiny smidgen of a chance that there might be a god (out of politeness to others), but this final trace of doubt is being washed away by the fact that the only argument thinking believers have is that you can't prove anything to be right or wrong.
Belachelijk.

Other Comments by the great teapot

21. Comment #24012 by Ian on March 4, 2007 at 6:50 am

...there's no way you could prove that the universe was not created, say, five minutes ago....

I am currently reading Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion and so would like to repeat Hume's answer to anyone who would entertain such extreme scepticism: that William Lane Craig is welcome to leave all rooms he finds himself in by the window and not the door...

...should be good from 13 floors up.

Actually, I have no problem with this man's extreme scepticism. After all there is a thing called the many clocks problem, which postulates that what appears to be cause and effect is an illusion.

When a billiard ball strikes another, the second ball does not move because there has been a transfer of momentum, but because it was always going to move at that moment; just as all clocks in a house will strike the hour simlutaneously. Clocks are independent mechanisms, no one believes that clocks exchange particles to maintain their synchronicity; so why should billiard balls have to swap momentum? Have any of you ever seen a momentum?

You cannot prove the Many Clocks Problem wrong, but that is no reason to believe it, because it does not explain why the ball moved. On the other hand, the transfer of momentum idea explains why the ball moved then and not before, and also accounts for the ball's speed and direction.

Similarly, you cannot prove that the universe was not created by a god, but the god hypothesis cannot explain why the universe is as it is. If the world were nothing but clouds hanging in a blue sky, the god hypothesis would be just as valid.

The Big Bang hypothesis on the other hand explains why all the other galaxies in the sky are receeding from us at a rate proportional to their distance. It would not work in a world of nothing but blue sky. That is why it is more rational to favour the Big Bang hypothesis, because it tells us more about the world as we find it.

You do not have to disprove the God hypothesis to discount it, because it explains nothing and so is not worth the runtime.

Other Comments by Ian

22. Comment #24017 by Will S on March 4, 2007 at 8:31 am

Re. Comment #23998 by Sean Mc on March 4, 2007 at 4:38 am

Will S, what Craig actually says is that faith stems from the "witness of the holy spirit", which transcends the "shifting sands" of actual evidence.

I don't think that's what Craig actually said in the recording, but if that's what he means, why doesn't he just say so? Why pretend he's presenting rational arguments when, really, he's relying on what he believes to be a direct revelation from God?

If he tells Wolpert and the rest of us that he's had a revelation, then we can decide whether or not to believe him. Why confuse the issue?

Other Comments by Will S

23. Comment #24199 by socinius on March 5, 2007 at 8:24 am

If you want to get a real flavor of Craig's position read the transcript of his debate with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman on the historicity of the resurrection. I warn you however, it is 38 pages in length.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

Click on the first debate link: Debate with Bart Ehrman.

Other Comments by socinius

24. Comment #24212 by Clappers on March 5, 2007 at 10:11 am

I was at the debate at Central Hall amongst the 5% of atheists. Lewis Wolpert asked what miracles there have been in the last 2,000 years. William Lane Craig replied that he had found God, not much of a miracle.

Other Comments by Clappers

25. Comment #24369 by John W. Loftus on March 6, 2007 at 8:27 am

This exchange between the two of them reveals the differences between philosophers and scientists. I understand Craig's arguments, having used them before myself.

The question in Craig's mind is why he needs scientific evidence for God when we believe things that have no scientific evidence either way. For instance,I might be dreaming right now. And Craig is quite right to point these things out.

Wolpert responds as a scientist who speaks about evidence and probability, and I think he's correct to do so.

But here's the rub. While Craig is correct that it's possible that God exists even if there is no evidence, Wolpert is right to ask to see the evidence. While Craig is right about what is possible, Wolpert is right to talk about what's probable. No matter how long Craig wants to talk about what's possible, he still has to present the evidence...the scientific evidence. No matter how long he wants to speak as a philosopher he must eventually speak as a scientist. He still must talk to the scientist about the evidence in the only terms he will accept, and that's the probability of something existing based upon the evidence.

In Craig's defense, if there is no evidence for something either way, then we simply have no way to assess whether or not it exists. He would therefore be arguing that we just cannot say either way. The probability factor is equalized.

But come on. Does Craig really think it's probable that his brains are in a mad scientists vat somewhere? To prove something is possible doesn't get us very far, since there are a great many things that are possible that have no plausibilty. How can he assess the claim that green gremilins stabilize the smallest particles of the universe? Possible? Yes. But if he has to resort to what is possible so many times in his arguments, something is indeed lacking when it comes to the evidence for his beliefs. For if the evidence was overwhelming, he would no longer have to talk about what is possible so often. Think about this, and you'll know exactly what I mean.

I've Blogged about this http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/lewis-wolpert-and-william-lane-craig-on.html">here.

Other Comments by John W. Loftus

26. Comment #24509 by LB on March 7, 2007 at 1:58 am

Is this mp3 still hosted on this site?

when trying to play it I get a quicktime logo with a question mark over it (i have 7.1.5 installed).

When I right click and 'save target as' on the link below, I get an error saying that it can't be downloaded because the site can't be found?

Other Comments by LB

27. Comment #24718 by Skeptic Jim on March 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

Hi LB. I get the same problem. There's all this funny stuff in the URL. I just remove the funny stuff. Try this...

http://richarddawkins.net/audio/Wolpert_lanecraig.mp3

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

28. Comment #24720 by Skeptic Jim on March 8, 2007 at 7:40 am

I'm beginning to find interviews such as this highly annoying. Because of time contraints there is never any opportunity for the two sides to explain their arguments properly, the interviewer controls the interview in such a way that they don't get to address each other's points properly and just when the thing is beginning to get interesting they're cut off in mid sentence and the interview ends.

Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

29. Comment #33527 by entity on April 20, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Craig totaly destroyed this guy, as he does most athiest. That's why Dawkins is afraid to debate him.

You know what's funny to me? MIND_REBEL made the comment that:

"William Lane Craig is dumb, and needs to learn some basic logic. If god created us, then who created god?. Thats the question. He's invoking the fallacy of endless regress. It's like the ultimate 756 from Prof Dawkins TGD. Great to see true atheists standing up for their rights."

Its funny b/c MIND_REBEL speaks of basic logic then commits one of the most basic logical fallacies by asking who created god? hahaha

Everyone (whether you believe in God or not) knows that by very nature of being God, God (if he exist) is eternal. Existing before time. That which has always existed cannot have had a beggining, therefore need no creator.

Other Comments by entity

30. Comment #35577 by Mr. KCA on April 27, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Dr. Craig would have intellectually ripped this guy to shreads. :)

Other Comments by Mr. KCA

31. Comment #36154 by silent_brook on April 30, 2007 at 10:23 am

His whole argument is right out of a first year philosophy student's intro class. How can he seriously be advancing the 'Brain in a Vat' argument as proof (or even the reasonable suggestion) that God(s) exist?

His argument for God presupposes that our ability to see reality is fundamentally flawed, and so nothing that we see or hear can have any meaning... why is this a good thing? Proof positive, a little learning (especially at little philosophic learning) is a dangerous thing.

Other Comments by silent_brook

32. Comment #41696 by Dean Booth on May 16, 2007 at 3:39 pm

It occurred to me today that God is in the same position we are: God can't know whether he's a brain in a vat, either. Oops, I guess that means he isn't omniscient.

Other Comments by Dean Booth

33. Comment #78531 by thowes26 on October 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

I wish an atheist with half a brain would come in to settle this ridicliousness. I suppose if you're an atheist with half a brain, you wouldn't be on Richard Dawkins' site, as the good atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said, "The God Delusion made me feel ashamed to be an atheist." The "Brain in Vat" argument is not being used as a proof, its being used to show the necessity for faith. All of modern foundationalism comes about because of a need for "faith," though since the enlightenment it hasn't really been called that in secular circles. Dr. Craig doesn't believe he's a brain in a vat, but he admits that he holds to that truth with faith. He isn't trying to argue that you don't need evidence, he's arguing you can know things by other means than science. If you hold to scientism, you hold to it in "faith," because scientism itself is self-refuting, because you can't use science to show that things can only be known by science. Don't be misled to say all philosophical arguments for God's existence have been formerly refuted, because the jury is still out. I don't know how many times I've heard bad atheists say things like "Hume refuted that," well no Hume didn't refute that, but his argument may have been persuasive. The teleological argument in its inductive form has not been refuted, but with all probabalistic arguments, it needs to be weighed with other evidence. The argument from contingency is a strong argument, but it cannot wrestle you into a belief of God. I'm not trying to argue you out of atheism, but simply into rational discussion. Its really difficult to have rational discussions with fundamentalists, wither they be atheist or theist fundamentalists.

Other Comments by thowes26

34. Comment #78560 by Corylus on October 13, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Thowes26

Interesting comment. You start with an insult - why do I suspect that you are a christian: this tends to be an opening salvo with many on here.

I wish an atheist with half a brain would come in to settle this ridicliousness. I suppose if you're an atheist with half a brain, you wouldn't be on Richard Dawkins' site, as the good atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said, "The God Delusion made me feel ashamed to be an atheist."

I see...

You then go on to make some factual assertions. The first one I agree with:-

The "Brain in Vat" argument is not being used as a proof...

No. It is not being used as a proof, for the simple reason that it is not a proof.

however

its being used to show the necessity for faith.

No. What it is being used as is a shameless ploy to create a sense of nausea and uncertainty with those unfamiliar with philosophical arguments.

Dr. Craig doesn't believe he's a brain in a vat, but he admits that he holds to that truth with faith.

If so then he is completely misusing the term 'faith'. Justifed knowledge might be a better description for his position - not so snappy though is it?

Don't be misled to say all philosophical arguments for God's existence have been formerly refuted, because the jury is still out. I don't know how many times I've heard bad atheists say things like "Hume refuted that," well no Hume didn't refute that, but his argument may have been persuasive.

Not a problem - one does not have to refute an argument postulating God's existence, one merely has to show that they are inadequate. However, I would be interested to learn precisely what you mean by the term 'bad atheist'?

The teleological argument in its inductive form has not been refuted, but with all probabalistic arguments, it needs to be weighed with other evidence.

Maybe I am being stupid here, but I simply do not understand your reasoning. Could you please spell out precisely what you mean. Are you saying that:

a) It is impossible to refute the telelogical argument?
b) That induction is a route to knowledge / is not a route to knowledge?
c) That the telelogical argument is in some fashion 'probabalistic?

Or are you merely babbling?

I'm not trying to argue you out of atheism, but simply into rational discussion. Its really difficult to have rational discussions with fundamentalists, wither they be atheist or theist fundamentalists.

Kindly explain what you mean by the term 'atheist fundamentalist'.

In fact, scrub that - why don't you just check out the following thread:-

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

It is a little long a tedious at times, but there is lots of discussion on there on the issues that appear to interest you. I do believe that there are even examples of 'rational discussions' on there! (Believe it or not people on here are capable of this - even if they are dreadfully handicapped by only having 'half a brain')

I would be interested in your views on this thread.

Come back when you have read it and learnt some manners.

P.S. "Scientism"...please. When did you stop beating your wife?

P.P.S. "ridicliousness" is this a word?

Other Comments by Corylus

35. Comment #78628 by thowes26 on October 14, 2007 at 12:19 am

Yeah my angry rant didn't add much to rational discussion, and I apologize. Whats your definition of faith? You don't assume all faith is blind, do you? My first post was overly-simplistic, I'll admit. Dr. Craig was trying to show something very simple with the brain in vat comment, that some things we believe are held in faith, regardless of who we are. One of my biggest arguments against Dawkins is his ignorance about the nature of what faith is. I'll agree with him that blind-faith with no evidence is foolish, but thats not the sort of faith reasonable people hold to. Naked reason will take you to where Descartes got when he said, "Cogito ergo sum," but even if one wanted to stay away from faith and hold belief in only their own existence, than they would be holding that conviction as an act of faith. You can't remove yourself from faith, though you can call it whatever you want and thats all a Christian means by faith. I'll agree there's no scientific evidence for God's existence, but I don't think its a scientific question, its a philosophical question and I'm curious what the reasoning is that it has to be a scientific question... If you want me to defend the Teleological argument, it'll go way beyond the scope of this discussion board, I guess I was simply stating that its not a dead argument by any means. Though I agree that the Teleological argument as a deductive proof has been refuted. Do you think the question of God's existence is a philosophical matter, or a scientific matter? I was reading some of the posts above ours and some people felt that it had to be proved by science and I have to disagree. If you agree that it does, I'd like to hear your reasoning. I apologize for my earlier rant to everyone in this discussion board, something I read up there really got me the wrong way, but thats no excuse.

Other Comments by thowes26

36. Comment #78645 by Corylus on October 14, 2007 at 3:33 am

Thowes26 Apology accepted :-)

I don't often get riled on here - my response to you had as much to do with my dislike and mistrust of Lane Craig than your comments.

For a start his association with the Discovery Institute demonstrates a great deal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute

I personally would not want to be associated with any organisation that took money from Howard Ahmanson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson%2C_Jr

Oddly enough Lane Craig has just been mentioned in another thread - I have been reading an article by him linked by a poster called Steven Carrwork see below

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

I have to say I find his defence of genocide frankly nauseating.

I share your dislike of christian fundamentalists, however, there are times when I appreciate their honesty. Moderates can be lovely people, but it can be frustrating trying to get them to state precisely what they mean.

Lane Craig is the worst of both worlds - he is a fundamentalist who pretends to be a moderate. I suggest you do further research on him. This man talks about 'reasonable faith' in one breath and makes unjustifiable and frankly peculiar assertions in another. He has spent money on dentistry and a shiny suit, but I feel I know what manner of man he is.

N.B I am not ignoring your questions BTW - they are interesting, but many of them are discussed in great length on the thread I mentioned - do check it out.

Also, I find myself wondering whether you are also a fan of Plantinga? His reveiw of TGD is posted on here too. (Nice that dissenting articles are put up isn't it?)

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,676,The-Dawkins-Confusion-Naturalism-ad-absurdum,Alvin-Plantinga,page1#comments

Many people commented on it. Some just expressed a dislike for philosophy - which may irritate you, however, some people took the time out to thoroughly engage with what he said. I think you might find their comments interesting.

In fact lots to read, listen too and watch in the archives of this site. There is a search function on the top left of the home page. Why don't you just read for a bit?

Best, C.

Other Comments by Corylus

37. Comment #78664 by Dr Benway on October 14, 2007 at 6:54 am

thowes26:

Dr. Craig was trying to show something very simple with the brain in vat comment, that some things we believe are held in faith, regardless of who we are. One of my biggest arguments against Dawkins is his ignorance about the nature of what faith is. I'll agree with him that blind-faith with no evidence is foolish, but thats not the sort of faith reasonable people hold to.

I might be a brain in a vat. My guess is, I'm not. Is guessing "faith"?

The "even atheists have faith" gambit is typically the set-up for the dishonest suggestion that because proposition A is accepted on faith, it's perfectly reasonable to accept propositions B, C, and D on faith as well. Games of bifurcation and tu quoque ensue, until frustration provokes a few amusing ad hominems. Rinse repeat. Is this trip necessary?

Do you think the question of God's existence is a philosophical matter, or a scientific matter?

If God is offered as an explanatory hypothesis for some natural phenomenon or historical event (e.g., He provoked the big bang singularity, He guides evolution, answers prayer, catalyzes moral development, causes subjective states of love, peace, joy, died for our sins, rose from the dead on the third day, gave Mohammad (pbuh) victory over idolators, punished heathens with natural disasters, etc.) then yes, God is a scientific hypothesis.

If God did not and does not interact with the natural world we experience, then no, He's not a scientific hypothesis.

Deism requires no evidence. An interactionist God is something else. Reasonable people ought to require evidence of God's interaction with the natural world before accepting claims about His interactions.

Other Comments by Dr Benway