UBC Lecture Dawkins Delusion Part 1

[Moulie415]

Craig should try and take down Hume, a proper atheist!!!!

[Treadlightlyful]

its known that 75% of the 1000's of professionals in the Life Sciences , Astronomy, Physics realm across the highest ranking world University network , do not believe in a Creator or a personal God & Savior . These are some of the brightest minds on the planet but the reason they do not get involved with arguing with this boring junior level Christian apologist , is they have real work to do in their respective fields .

[soth3d]

after 7:30 dr craig fails badly. why to use examples if u can just debate the POINT made by Dawkins???

[citizenghosttown]

"Surely Dawkins has heard Craig's response to his central argument? If Dawkins is so sure of himself, why doesnt he debate Craig and prove him wrong?"

1. What reason is there to think Dawkins has heard Craig's response? I doubt hesits around watching YouTube or follows each and every screed written against him by religious apologists.

2. Plenty of other inviduals have pointed out the flaws in Craig's response - not the least of which, he completely mischaracterizes Dawkins argument.

[MrItchyElbow]

@citizenghosttown You're kidding, right? Even his fellow "atheists" are calling Dawkins out.

[JonathanHassall]

Dawkin's biggest mistake was actually acknowledging theism as a reasonable argument or position to hold. He effectively tries to disprove something which has never been proven, instead of playing the "burden of proof" card, he is immediately on the offensive. Also, it annoys me when people confuse "philsophers" with good "debaters". Dr. Craig is nothing more than the Pardoner in Chaucer's work, using rhetoric to dance around truth and reason. His Philosophy is terrible.

[MrItchyElbow]

@JonathanHassall You should debate Dr Craig. You would win for sure.  You're so smart, the Craigman wouldn't be able to stand up to your wit and excellent assessment of the situation. Amazing that you haven't been invited to debate him. I know Dr Craig is afraid of you. He's such a coward.

[sugarcrash56]

this man is absolute trash why are ubc students exposed to this crap

[Keeban3]

Of course, since you are religious you hate free-speech. Damn comment filters.

[Keeban3]

The conclusion isn't off by much. The conclusion should be, therefore the teleological claim is straight bullshit. And since the rest of the arguments for God are laughably weak, there is no good reason to believe in God. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

[qwistrod]

It seems to me that you cannot use fine tuning as a reason to believe in God. Rather one must use another reason such as the kalam cosmological argument to deduce the existence of God and then once you know that God exists you can deduce that it was God who fine tuned the Universe for life.

[qwistrod]

This is my argument that Earth is supported by an elephant: Disbelievers ask well what supports the elephant? To which I respond that just because I can't explain what supports the elephant doesn't mean that my hypothesis is false. Therefore the fact that Earth is not falling down through space adds weight to my case that Earth is supported by an elephant.

[espakor]

he still avoids the question that ask for evidence for such deity.

[jeanpaulfelix]

Thumbs up for pseudo-science and mysticism / Sarcasm........

Dawkins for life!!!

[Battery9876]

Craig is so dumb

[gallantentry]

@Battery9876 lol...great point...NOT!

[AEVautomatic]

lmao great show.

[princessAyleen]

arrogant ad hominem attacks versus dawkins, that's what he calls debating ?

oh no. lights out, doors closed, christianity gone very soon fffthhhhhhhhhhhh

[princessAyleen]

Dr Craig is a total Donk, but well educated. who thf is he to judge dawkins.

dawkins might be not a philosopher in comparison to aristoteles or sokrates.

but he doesn't lie . Who say's you must be a philosopher to tell the truth.

Any child will tell you the truth if you just ask for it. Does the child need to be

a philosopher ? Dr Craig loves to be called The Philosopher , but he is not.

He just uses philosohphie to sugar he christianity bs. that's not what any philosopher would do. never ever

[Mooiplaats]

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[Mooiplaats]

“Darwin on trial” (Johnson) - 5 conclusions:

1.Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact but on philosophical belief called naturalism.

2.The belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion.

3.Evolution itself is a religion.

4.If evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on a rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.

5.Since atheism is a basic supposition in the evolutionary process, it cannot be drawn as a conclusion from it.

[espakor]

@Mooiplaats

1. There are over-mounting physical tangible evidence that evolution occurred.

2. How is physical evidence an illusion? are you also implying that anything written on a book long time ago is a form of illusion?

3. no it's not a religion. people don't worship the idea of evolution or have a sacred book about it which cannot be questioned by unbelievers. in fact, scientists want to find out a better explanation.

4. it is still continuing.

5. atheism means lack of belief in deity.

[asiankevind]

William Craig shames himself by betraying our species with his nasally delivered sanctimonious disinformation. Rhetorical obfuscation. Great... just what we needed. Some reckless mouthpiece who uses scientific truths to suit his agenda of sustaining vacuous Bronze Age superstition. Wasting his talent as a debater, defending such untenable nonsense, and drawing others into a place of complacency with their willful ignorance. For shame!

[420dudemeister]

Dawkins argument seems to center around the fact that for millenia after millenia man has believed in so many different gods because we had no other way to explain the world we live in, so it's therefore far more probable that all religious groups have been wrong instead of one specific group being right - There almost certainly is no god, only mental gymnastics. Craig calls Dawkins argument a non sequitir while doing nothing more than softening mans oldest non sequitir- maybe god did it

[espakor]

@420dudemeister Which one is the absolute truth: Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, other sacred texts written? And what is the control that makes the basis of which one is the correct one?

[MrHeltaskelta]

dawkins is a scientist.. not a philosopher.. why should he defend his corner when he has empirical evidence, where as NO current religion has any more evidence then the greeks did for zeus..? surely the burden of proof lies with those who believe in a single faith and not every single one that ever existed..? why do you, for example, believe in "god" and not Allah..? he might just concede the point if you can find a rabbit in the pre-cambrian. but.. you dont.

[AfterFauve001]

All elephants are pink, Nelly is an elephant, there for Nelly is pink. Logical.

[lagerbaer]

Just read both books. The God Delusion is clear, whereas The Atheist Delusion is poor, with logical fallacies.

The non-existence of God does not have to be proven. It's the other way round.

[wachnathan]

There isn't new atheistism people have always been atheist we just needed a wake up call such as 9-11 so what. William is a christian hero that fails to convince me of anything he still can't prove a dam thing.

[Bkkhngr81]

"in order to recognize an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation..."

This is so stupid; you don't necessarily need to know what the explanation (of the explanation) is, but you do know there is one. Isn't that simple and true?

He seems to think that if we don't immediately know what the explanation for god is, that there is none, or that we don't need/want to know it.

Is this guy really the best apologetics has? Who could accept such stupidity?

[Freethinker12341]

@UnitedFan16 he wont debate craig because he knows that craig will make him look bad and people will be further led astray. and i dont blame him for not debating craig, i'd lose too. this isn't to say that craig is right. his arguments are no more ridiculous than frank turek's, in fact they're the same arguments yet hitchens destroys turek in a debate. craig is an exceptional debater and an adept speaker with added charisma. nothing more than that. his misplaced arrogance also gives him an edge

[LegionaryXXVIII]

Notice the pleading in his voice and contrast that with the sort of cool delivery of people like Hitchens or Harris. Nuff Said

[jouc12]

@LegionaryXXVIII Not enough said. In the Hitchens debate with Craig, Hitchens forfeited his final statement because of the spanking Craig had given him. A persons demeanor means nothing, its the argument they present that matters. Hitchens usually seems assertive but that's just a part of the act, pretend you're right no matter how much your opponent has proven you wrong and gullible people will think you're right.

[KaonNeutre]

If Craig would learn a bit on biology and electronics, he would learn a very basic thing : When something is "designed" by an "intelligent" being, the machine or device IS intelligently designed...

Biologic being a FULL of flaws and errors that come from a long evolution of mistakes and success. If it is designed, the designer was NOT intelligent (would say quit stupid and clumsy actually)...

I wonder if there is biologist in the assistance. They should be laughing it up...

[KaonNeutre]

Iol

You findThoma Hawk and arrow head and potery and you conclude that human did this.

You find a pill of machinery on the back of the moon, you conclude that ET did them.

"You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation"

lol !!

Yes you need it !!!! First you've LEARNED that indian were making those potery and weapon, but you don't know why they put it there.

You compare machinery to what you KNOW being build by human but you don't know why they put it there...

[KaonNeutre]

"The new atheist seems to not eliminate religion from public sphere but entirely"

What the hell?! Craig is confuse between laicism and atheism? Atheism is having no god. The only difference between now and 1000 years ago is that many things of the holy books have been proven wrong.

He is a demagog! He's always saying that what other says is not logic and not let the listener to come naturally to the conclusion. Plus, he isn't agree for some Dawkins's point... is he agree with other points?

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@namasteywhat wow, is that how Lame Craig's fans refute objections to his stupidity and lame-ness? if you're impressed with Craig's "refutation" of Dawkins' argument either you've never actually read the God Delusion or you're the same kind of ignoramus Craig is

[DarkfalzReturns]

@AgeOfReasonXXI Hey there,

Craig's earned multiple degress including two doctorates, written over 40 books, been requested for countless debates (and won nearly all of them, even as admitted by many atheists), and has demonstrable intelligence.

It becomes really easy to filter out angry individuals like yourself in favor of honest intellectual opposition to Craig when I see such ridiculous argumentative fodder like 'ignoramus Craig' (misspelled, I might add).

[tyeedillon]

genius!

[MeetYourMeaker]

The fact that the since can't prove everything doesn't mean giant sky daddy created it.In other words burden of proof people.

Now if you would excuse i'm going to talk to my giant invisible talking aligator that is all around us but can't be felt.

[Absortus]

"Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to

an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need

one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with

any of the properties normally ascribed to God: [...]"

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion - pag 77

[wdgeo]

But what about E V I D E N C E, "Dr." Craig? Since you are the one who claims to be best buddies with the creator of the universe -- which the rest of us cannot see (and neither can you) -- the burden of proof is clearly with your camp and if your "explanation" is simply to say that god did it then you certainly DO have to have an "explanation of the explanation."

Once again: Where is your evidence?

[phenomballer666]

The Dr. in this video is acting as if the burden of proof is on the atheist. This is obviously not true. He also misrepresents his position, if evolution is true as a christian he must concede that either his belief is not true, or that evolution is not true. They are two statements that are incompatible. He is acting as if his position is just general theism without any belief in the christian god. He is being intellectually dishonest.

[Roper122]

This is the best the apologists can do??

[esprit1nu]

Starting with the fact that the universe exists - design is the only plausible explanation - given the extreme improbability of the initial conditions of the universe, not merely to promote life, but to sustain any type of basic cohesion, ( the formation of stars, etc.)

[chinchychilla]

1: Why do people trust William Lane Craig? He gets paid to be biased towards religion, so of course he's going to try to twist whatever he can to make the sheep follow him.

2: What's with that wall? Did that college not have to money to put up wallpaper?

[7tylerjb]

@chinchychilla He gets paid to be a philosopher not to be biased towards religion. There are many atheist philosophers also. Whether they choose to believe in God or not is their own choice.

[Defenstrator]

For a person with a doctarate I'm suprised at how weak his argument is. He's still making the basic mistake of starting with the assumption that there is a god. Instead, start with a blank slate and see if you can prove there is a god or gods. Only once you have definateive proof of the existence of a supernatural being is there any point in talking about him.

[Entertainmentwf]

@Defenstrator agreed :).

[dimic]

@Defenstrator; logical positivism; the idea that: "start with a blank slate and see if you can prove there is a god or gods", hasn't been around since the 1960's when Alvin Plantinga had shown that belief in God is innate and 'properly basic'. The idea you're creating was pressed by Antony Flew, Atheisms most prolific philosopher who had recently converted to Theism(Deism is a branch of Theism).

[farizzal]

@dimic Deism is the only plausible belief, and in the case of Deism every Atheist (if they are intellectually honest) should be Agnostic. So even though Deism is Theism technically, it is barely Theism, in fact Theism refers more to religions such as Christianity. I think Deism is fine. But to try to argue the existence of the Christian God is ridiculous, and most theologians try to argue from solely the Deist perspective without realizing it.

[pillsareyummy]

@farizzal "So even though Deism is Theism technically" No, they are different.

[GrotesqueKevin]

@farizzal Well a deist is one who believes in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it. Having no communication with mankind or interaction with the universe. Where a Theist is one who believes in a God who interacts with mankind & is involved in his creation. So arguing for Theism isn't "ridiculous", because all you have to do is show evidence for God being interactive within the world, through things like divine intervention, miracles, religion, relationship with mankind, etc.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@dimic "Deism is a branch of Theism" it's the other way around. Deism is a belief in a Deity. Theism is the belief this deity takes interest in human affairs, intervenes, etc. If you prove Deism, you've not proven Theism, in the same way if you prove Christianity, you've not proven Mormanism. Flew is a deist, not a theist. In fact the only difference between a deist and an atheist is that the former believes in an intelligent first cause, while the latter doesn't. everything else is the same

[sooperfukker]

@AgeOfReasonXXI

It's the historical opposite. The historic development in philosophy infact started out from theism and later developed a branch of deism.

[phenomballer666]

Actually you do need to explain the explanation.

[7tylerjb]

@phenomballer666 -sigh- Did you even pay attention to what he said?

[saintpine]

who designed the designer ?

Craig says"you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation"

OK this opens up to thousands of possibilities not excluding trillions of gods with finite power and no interaction with us, the Muslim god, God made a mistake and blew himself up in the big bang etc, we all have billions of micro gods in our body.

It takes us no where, and it still leaves the question, who designed the designer ?

Se isn't it easier to see if design is possible without a designer ?

[bgrawhot]

Dawkins love to appeal to the authority of science, which is a fallacious argument because science is constantly being reassessed and re-evaluated based on new evidence. Then once the audience is baited Dawkins love to switch and make erroneous conclusions i.e. the Equivocation Fallacy. The irony is the very science of logic and probability tends to refute Dawkins premises and conclusions.

[Defenstrator]

@bgrawhot Actually the uncertainty of science is its strength. Whenever something is proven to be wrong you change the theory so it is now, to the best of your knowledge correct. Religion on the other hand relies on dogma, so when it is proven wrong ti was nowhere to go.

[FLATTSFANATIC]

Bottom line, I've heard it said, the simplest answer is usually the right one. Even Richard Dawkins admits it's a natural desire to attribute life to a designer. These people are SOO worldly, and CLOSE minded to other dimensions and things we don't understand that they don't think for one minute there could be a God and His ways are higher than our ways and MUCH different. And most of all that He always has been. Why is that so hard to accept? To me it's simple and I'm a skeptic.

[saintpine]

@FLATTSFANATIC says Why is that so hard to accept?

Even assuming that god is made of invisible quasi atoms, it would need a way to keep together these "atoms" in an organized structure, and have a quasi computer hierarchy structure brain work, it would need means to interact with atoms (unless atoms have brains of their own). intelligence and calculation and decision is work in time.

If one could have always existed, why not a trillion trillion microscopic gods, one in every human cell.

[Thomas60]

@joey2727 If a pyramid was on the moon, we can justifiably argue an intelligence made it; because we have historical records, existing pyramids and architectural know how, reasons for why intelligence that likely made them, would have done so (ritual for kings death).

Hence we used evidence to infer it!

how can natural selection not build up, procreate, save survival enhancing qualities, arisen from steps small enough for random mutations to make. The logic natural selection follows makes code

[Thomas60]

@joey2727 If a pyramid was on the moon, we can justifiably argue an intelligence made it; because we have historical records, existing pyramids and architectural know how, reasons for why intelligence that likely made them, would have done so (ritual for kings death).

Hence we used evidence to infer it!

how can natural selection not build up, procreate, save survival enhancing qualities, arisen from steps small enough for random mutations to make. The logic natural selection follows makes code

[Thomas60]

@joey2727 If a pyramid was on the moon, we can justifiably argue an intelligence made it; because we have historical records, existing pyramids and architectural know how, reasons for why intelligence that likely made them, would have done so (ritual for kings death).

Hence we used evidence to infer it!

how can natural selection not build up, procreate, save survival enhancing qualities, arisen from steps small enough for random mutations to make. The logic natural selection follows makes code

[trevsiemens]

I don't think his last argument is entirely valid. He says "We don't need an explanation for an explanation". This is true in a sense as for many things we do not, such as the spooky effect and big bang. BUT there must remain possibility for explanation. In his examples, we could find explanations for the peoples/aliens, but you cannot have an explanation for who created a god, for elsewhere Dr. Craig has described god as infinite, and nothing can be created as infinite in practice.

[obdami]

Eliminate religion. Damn straight!!!!!!!  The sooner the better.

[joey2727]

"One need not explain the designer IF we have evidence"? That's false. If we find a pyramid on the Moon, we can justifiably INFER that some kind of an intelligence made it. We don't need an explanation for who or what made them. If we demanded that, we'd get an infinte regress to infinity for any question. Random material processes (or natural selection acting upon random mutations) cannot produce the mind-boggling amounts of specified information within DNA.

[Thomas60]

@joey2727 If a pyramid was on the moon, we can justifiably argue an intelligence made it; because we have historical records, existing pyramids and architectural know how, reasons for why intelligence that likely made them, would have done so (ritual for kings death).

Hence we used evidence to infer it <_<

2. If a process can take steps, why can't it go along way?.. it did have billions of years to do so.

[Thomas60]

@joey2727

If a pyramid was on the moon, we can justifiably argue an intelligence made it; because we have historical records, existing pyramids and architectural know how, reasons for why intelligence that likely made them, would have done so (ritual for kings death).

Hence we used evidence to infer it!

If a process can take steps, why can't it go along way?.. it did have billions of years to do so.

[joey2727]

It is impossible for random material processes (or natural selection acting upon random mutations) to produce the specified information found within the genome. Natural processes do not make information, they make snowflakes or tornados, but they do not make codes. DNA uses a genetic code, look it up in a dictionary. Codes do not ever come from material processes no matter how long they go on for. Codes come minds. Sheet music, writing, the four-letter base sequence of DNA- all require Minds.

[tommyk77]

Lane Craig kinda misrepresents the "Who designed the designer?" argument. True, one need not explain how the designer came about, IF you have evidence for the designer anyway. A toy is made by humans, but we don't need to know about where those humans were born, because w already know that humans build stuff.

If we want to say 'God did this' then we must first consider if anything else that else more information could have done it, like a natural process

[0Krusnik0]

Psst, neo-atheists are just antitheists in disguise.

[KaraBear567]

What does the phrase at 0:43 mean? I recognize that it is French, but I can't even look it up because I don't know how to spell it. Help? :)

[jameshanley40]

@KaraBear567

enfant terrible

[pobanmanu]

Actually in past best explanation for cause of diseases were witches and divine interference. If we had had kept on going with that theory then we would had never progressed to find that germs were the cause of disease. I have big respect for WLC for his debating skills but sorry Craig science doesnt work that way. And sometimes you deny the existence of infinity and then suddenly you say that who creates the creator question leads to infinity. Isn't that a self contradiction??

[Nidder1]

pob. no its very basic logic. Same example: if the earth was void of people in the future and aliens came here and saw the faces on mount rushmore. It would be logical for them to infer that it was not natural and designed even though there is no evidence of those designers.

[trevsiemens]

That is because they were designed. We may deduce that certain things were created, if the natural solution is impossible. I think we can agree that a) it is more probable that M.R. was created than naturally formed, and b) they would already have the ability to deduce that it is possible, if not probable for another life form to have once inhabited the planet. No one disputes the existence of life, therefore, no one should dispute the possibility of creation by that life.

[jameshanley40]

@pobanmanu

He is saying infinity is not an actual number. The concept of infinity does exist. He is a great philosopher, and he is just using logic, not dangerous debating skills or rhetoric. When people try to get him into to and fro discussion, then you see his wit and other skills. But in his case, he just uses plain logic. Alot of the things dawkins says are obviously poor flawed arguments. Craig is pointing out the obvious here, refuting dawkins, but he does it very well.

[Chrysothemis]

Craig is actually quite correct here, right up until about 8:00. To point out the obvious, modern day theology is at its best when showing that the non-existence of God can't actually be proven with mathematical certainty.

This may be a rather pathetic straw to cling to, but Craig sure does it better than most of his colleagues.

[AnthonyBlunt]

William Lane Craig is a philosophical machine!!

[KennyKenMasters]

no doubt, I love it, he gets me pumped

[Dhalsim06]

Surely Dawkins has heard Craig's response to his central argument? If Dawkins is so sure of himself, why doesnt he debate Craig and prove him wrong?

Because Dawkins is a poor philosopher

[LingEntityNoobi]

he should face the fact that biology will not disprove God or Jesus.

Dawkins, in a letter response sent to WLC for a invititation to a debate, sent back that he would rather debate Craig if he was a bishop, by the premise that Craig was a philosopher/religious analyst.

[Nidder1]

So he punked out in other words... ?

[badpanda84]

@Dhalsim06 @Dhalsim06 But Dawkins dosent claim to be a philosopher. Dawkins is a scientist/biologist.

But Craig argument. "You dont need an explaination of the explaination" is a very poor argument. Which Darwins refused in a previous video. (See video entitle Darkins answers Venom X)

[tommyk77]

"Which Darwins refused in a previous video"

Darwin has a you tube account?

[saintpine]

@Dhalsim06

Dawkins is not philosopher.

I don't think Dawkins should debate this man, it would be a useless discussion, Dawkins would just be represented with the same things that he has been answering many times now and it's becoming quite tiering and difficult to answer without offending.

[Defenstrator]

@Dhalsim06 Why would he need to? Craig debated Christopher Hitchens and got owned.

[RationalTheism]

@Dhalsim06 That's because Dawkins is a biologist! The God Delusion is what you get when a scientist steps out of the lab and tries to write philosophy!

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

@Dhalsim06 why should he? Craig cares about "truth" only if it involves his God and doesn't threaten to expose him as a man who's wasted his whole life on a comforting delusion. that explains his perfectly insane and disgraceful, for a supposed intellectual, proposition that "witness of the Holy Spirit trumps any argument and evidence!" Dawkins should debate this crazy dishonest hack, who claims genocide and infanticide is your moral duty if God command you to do it?!! shite

[simw7]

@Dhalsim06 Dawkins isn't a philosopher,..and WLC isn't a scientist either,..but it's really annoying when he starts making claims about science,..it's really mind boggling

[Freethinker12341]

@Dhalsim06 because dawkins is a lousy debater. you clearly haven't read the god delusion, its a brilliant read... and u clearly dont understand evolution if u think craig is making any sense at all

[TragedyZ]

I like the point you made on not needing to have an explanation of an explanation. So I'm throwing my who/what created god argument out the window. I agree with your conclusions, but I'm still not convinced that god exists.

[xJMPx]

You're not encouraging your students to think for themselves, you are just trying to convince them that Dawkins is wrong. They should listen to your over-simplified sales pitch and also read Dawkins' book with equal skepticism. You have misrepresented Dawkins' arguments and should have explored the arguments from different perspectives instead of just going for the preachy jugular. Hopefully your students see through your one-sided argument and think for themselves.

[gCuezy]

Are you serious?

[leidenhag]

Could you give an example of how Dr.Craig has misrepresented Dawkins main argument? I have read Dawkins book and it sounds fine by me.

[vorodin]

just listen dawkins in the speech in my videos

[Birdieupon]

You haven't given any examples of how Craig has misrepresented Dawkins. What other perspectives are there to look at anyway? Either Dawkins' argument works according to the rules of deductive logic or it doesn't.

[Guillz007]

@Birdieupon

It's amusing how you say that Dawkins' argument does not work according to the rules of deductive logic. Well, guess what? His argument was inductive. To say that "god must certainly doesn't exist" is clearly inductive. Dawkins isn't attempting to put forth a deductive argument. William L. Craig misrepresented Dawkins argument.

[IpkisStanley]

Please explain how.

[awesomewelles90]

It's still logically flawed.

[tommyk77]

It's induction, not deduction. Dawkins is basically saying that every time religious people list aspects of God, they do not exist in reality. Therefore, by induction, there is no God.

Lane Craig is explaining it a little backwards. He's trying to make it sound like Dawkins is saying "We'll wait until God is refuted by science", when really, God does not get automatic credibility over a scientific explanation.

That's my understanding