Dawkins sees God as a purely scientific rather than a philosophical issue. As far as he is concerned if there is no scientific evidence for specific claim then you don't believe in it until there is evidence for it.
@drcraigvideos A specific supernatural claim that is. You certainly could attain scientific evidence of the supernatural if it existed. He is open minded towards Deism though he doesn't really see much of a point to it.
@drcraigvideos If God never interacted with the universe in any way that science could measure, like say through prayer, then you would end up with a deistic God again. Dawkins is open minded toward deistic God who sits back and lets the universe do its thing so he thinks a "rational debate" can be had regarding that, even if he doesn't believe it himself. But he has also said that he doesn't think that anyone who believes that Jesus turned water into wine is particularly intelligent.
@Enzo012 You haven't even dealt with anything I said except to say, "Uh, desitic God." You can't have a deistic God given Craig's contention. For one, you can't have uniformity of nature without God. That obliterates the idea of a deistic God. And you don't end up with a deistic God if He answers your prayers. That's silly. That means He's acting on your behalf in the universe, genius.
@drcraigvideos The laws of physics seem perfectly suited to life but that doesn't prove there was any intelligent design was involved. Stephen Hawkings suggests that there are an infinite number of universes most of which aren't suitable for life. So it would just seem like our universe is perfectly designed for life because we happen to be here and couldn't be living in a universe not suited for life. And I meant if prayer isn't scientifically demonstrated to work and so far it hasn't been.
@Enzo012 I think you can be intelligent and believe in god but you may have a cognitive dissonance in there but that doesn't mean that the person can't have intelligence.
If you want to be sufficient to a level where you can be taken on good authority that you know correctly what you're talking about, then you do need formal education in philosophy. Even more important for someone like Dawkins because of his capability of reaching so many people around the world who will believe what he says without question.
This is fallacy of appealing to authority. There are many philosopher who don't believe in God, what would you say to them then? Is Dan Dennet good enough for you?
@Parsayan Dennet's arguments aren't good enough, but as a philosophy student I completely agree with Craig here. Dawkins is very bad with philosophy and theology.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
GuillemotWatcher: Your criticism is based on the assumption that evolution and theism are incompatible. That idea itself is based on philosophical reasoning, and primitive philosophical reasoning at that.
@hastyvictories You can deduce that God is immaterial due to the first cause of the universe, genius: watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI. And there are other immaterial things that effects soceity. For instance, the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics. I cannot believe how far back in logical thought you are. This is kindergarten stuff, man.
@hastyvictories Science does NOT deal with God, since God is an immaterial being. You cannot prove everything with science: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY. Have you ever heard of self-refutations? Occam's razor should let you know that.
@CMO999 Dr. Craig is not a creationist. Although he is agnostic about the creation of the universe, he believes the universe is billions of years old. And he believes that evolution is compatible with theism.
This video is simply childish. Dawkins doesn't have a PhD in philosophy; therefore he is unable to philosophize? There are so many things wrong with this. Just one example; no university holds a monopoly on knowledge. Anything you can learn in a university you can learn in a book. I suppose WLC argues that Einstein's views on war were invalid because he was a physicist, and Da Vinci's inventions are simply the musings of a painter.Total tripe- I can't believe his keepers let him spew this crap.
@DanOC1991 " Dawkins doesn't have a PhD in philosophy; therefore he is unable to philosophize?" Please attempt to watch this video without putting words in it. There was no mention of not having a PhD AT ALL. In fact, the words "PHd" aren't even in the video. So, I don't know what you're driving at at all. Dawkins tried to deal with the philosophical arguments against God philosophically in The God Delusion and he quite simply sucked at it.
@DanOC1991 face it, your hero is a coward with his chickenshit "I will only debate a bishop" line. he sucks at philosophy and knows Craig would kick his ass in a debate- straight up. He saw what happened to harris and Hitchens and is hiding under his oxford desk. he is a joke
How bout watching the video. He clearly says dawkins doesn't have the expertise regarding philosophy and discussion of it, as much as he may have about evolutionary biology. He's not saying that everything Dawkins says is false because of that, but you can't expect to be a philosopher and that's what happens when people go out of their field. Einstein's views on war, would you take them as seriously as someone who is an expert in that field? Would you prefer a world without experts?
However, you can trust Einstein more on physics than say someone who strictly is a philosopher and does not study science. Da Vinci's profession wasn't painter. Da Vinci was a polymath, meaning he was skilled at many things. But think of another example and I can respond to that, because that example isn't valid. Please learn philosophy before trying to defend the guy who is such a philosopher but can't debate someone who is willing to debate him.
@DanOC1991 No(: He first dismisses his arguments on the philosophical basis and then simply explains why he thinks they are so elementary...Dawkins simply isn't a philosopher.
Dr.Craig is supposed to be an educated person, but he finishes his video with a childish misrepresentation of one of the greatest scientist of this generation.
Philosophy was a part of science when we hade nothing else to use except our brains. We can’t use our conmen scenes to explain the world we live in. Common sense tells us that time can’t be slowed down, but like every modern experiment done show the opposite. What is more likely, that all the experiments under a 50yr period are wrong or that the brain is to poorly evolved that it cannot apprehend it?
@TheRobinL Sure, Dawkins is a scientist but would it kill him to get up with the current science. He's still babbling about the same stuff since the 80s. There are better biologist than him. Philosophy still works with science, genius. You need to know what induction is in order to apply science. Throw the junk science away, please.
As far as I know, the user "drcraigvideos" isn't Dr. Craig, but someone else who has been collecting videos of Dr. Craig and posting them here for us to view. It's most likely that the final segment was added after the fact.
Must we forget the first great philosophers. They were not as educated as Dawkins is. Why do so many people still listen to them.lol Besides... A philosophy degree is a joke. Anyone can get one. That's why a lot of collage student chose it. Its easy to get a good grade.lol
@SuperMrAtheist ''A philosophy degree is a joke. Anyone can get one. ''
It is just about as hard as any other degree, post grade work is required for graduate degrees. Not a lot of college students get them, have you taken a class on informal and formal logic? Those classes alone are difficult. It deals with the structure of logic.
@07Aristotle You must have taken philosophy.lol I'm sorry but it is a joke. I have 8 friends who took it because it was easy. If its not easy for you then... well you can figure it out.lol
@drcraigvideos ... William Lane Craig is not a cosmologist, or a theoretical physicist, yet he talks about the beginning of the Cosmos constantly. Hypocrite.
@drcraigvideos Really? How many degrees in cosmology does he have? Because all the information I found on him says zero. If you're going to make the argument that he "specializes" in Cosmology, then I can make the argument Dawkins "specializes" in philosophy. Both of them practice these crafts profusely, but aren't truly educated in it. Hell, his wikipedia page doesn't even have any of his physics credentials. Pretty sure you're still a hypocrite. Cool story, though.
@NikTheJew Oh, boy, you got me there! Even though Dr. Craig is an analytical philosopher who did his doctoral work in cosmology for the kalam cosmological argument, you know, I guess that really doesn't mean anything since you did a wikipedia check. And we all know wiki is, uh, very unbiased. *SIGH* People... Craig knows more about science and physics than Dawkins.
Having done "doctoral work in cosmology for the kalam cosmological argument" make him no more qualified in actual cosmology than having done "doctoral work in medicine for a paper on the philosophy of medicine" would make him an actual qualified medical doctor.
Craig does not know more about science than Dawkins, who is actually a scientist.
@StealthDonkey007 It's interesting that you would make that exception with Dawkins who is a Biologist and NOT a physicist. So, I guess you think if someone studied mathematics he would then be qualified to speak on Biology? Why are you so obtuse? Craig knows physics. The KCA specifically says the "universe had a cause". Doing doctoral work on that makes you more knowledgeable about it than the typical laymen, genius. Craig knows more about scientific models of the universe than Dawkins.
@drcraigvideos Dawkins is a scientist. He understands the use of the scientific method better than Craig.
If someone studied maths, they would be qualified to speak on the parts of biology that were related maths.
What evidence do you have that Craig know's physics? Especially give that he's making arguments apparently based on physics, that plenty of physicists would not agree with.
@StealthDonkey007 Dawkins is not a good scientist. If he was he wouldn't say that science can determine morality. Craig's arguments for physicists ARE in a agreement with physicists! You'd know that if you actually know Craig's argument. Last I saw Craig and Stephen Hawking both agree the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
@nordhorny Dawkins DOES categorically "state that". He left a blurb on Harris' Moral Landscape. And he's even been public about it. Dawkins uses science to try to brainwash people into atheism. He has an agenda with it! A true scientists doesn't do that. I'm sure you'll say the same thing about creationists. There are tons of scientists way better than Dawkins. Something to think about: watch?v=daRqWpcchn4
@TibiCogitate Uh, yeah, genius, he's not a scientist, all he is is a philosopher of science who specializes in cosmology. Nothing gets passed you, TibiGogitateypoo.
I would love to discuss with those guys. Seriously, there is no need of formal education to be a philosopher, neither Dawkins nor anyone needs it to think about the nature of reality, existence of metaphysical beings or anything of the kind. I think that to be a philosopher you just need to be sincere with yourself when thinking about those subjects and not being afraid of being wrong, wich, I think, is the reason why theists come upon Dawkins the way they do in this video. sry about bad english
@drcraigvideos although I disagree on Dawkins approach here and there, I don't think he is not a good thinker, and would like to you to show why you think that way. Maybe I could change my opinion after that (or not), it would be good anyway to see it from another perspective to me. thanks
@walkis He has no real grasp of philosophy, his central argument quite frankly stink, he does not understand the cosmological, ontological, teleological, or moral argument. He does not understand modern day physics. I can go on and on.
@drcraigvideos Hahahaha xD are you kidding me? There's absolutely no need for him to understand any of the following arguments, he's just discussing things from his point of view. And surely he doesn't understand modern day physics, cause he's a freaking biologist. Central argument stinks? Really? And what would be his central argument? That people should get rational? Speaking about morals, he has a pretty good image on that tough..
Not a good thinker, seriously ? He's only make a major contribution in the field fo genetic evolution. Whether or not other biologists & philosophers agree with his theory, no one implicate in sciences can deny that Dawkins knows how to think.
As for Lane Craig & cosmologies. He simply hasn't the conceptual & mathematical tools to understand modern physics (like M-theory for ex), for that you need to be in the field of those studies, so on this he's as pretentious as Dawkins.
@frenchatheiste Uh, yeah, Craig knows nothing about M-Theory even though he's written scholarly articles on it. Dawkins is bad for science. He doesn't even get the philosophy of science. At least Craig specializes in cosmology and philosophy.
@walkis You don't need a formal education to be a philosopher? Excuse me whilst I stop laughing at your utter ignorance. I can think about planet formation, does this make me a cosmologist? It must do by your reasoning!
You further clearly do not understand what philosophy is, and your little supporters clearly do not either!
@MPaulHolmes That would be rather to his disadvantage, as the formal study of philosophy seems to generally require one to adopt set ways of thinking, harking after what long dead people wrote based on flawed premises. Whilst philosophy is generally interesting, it seems ill advised to take it too seriously.
@walkis There is no need of formal education to be a philosopher? I beg your pardon? You obviously haven't read many books. You basically assert that being a philosopher means having an opinion. That is so funny. You made me laugh tonight
Just because traditionally philosophers have discussed these topics doesn't mean in the modern age of readily available information one MUST be a philosopher to have a relevant view.
Dawkins has a clinically rational mind and accepts, as do the overwhelming majority of scientists, the theory of evolution. That acceptance gives one a choice to believe god was the origin of life or not. He argues that to reject accepted scientific theories because of a belief that cannot be proved is deluded thinking.
That's not a philosophy, it's a rational conclusion. Dawkins doesn't want people not to believe in god, he wants their faith not to delude them into rejecting science.
@GuillemotWatcher Science doesn't prove everything: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY. You cannot do science without philosophy. There's a reason why the word "philosophy" is in a PhD, genius.
@drcraigvideos again, really? Are you freaking kidding me? Science and philosophy have parted ways since the middle ages, I think... It is true that philosophers have started what we call "science", but in the modern time, philosophy has no place in science. And off course science can't prove everything, that's why we have so called "theories". But then again, that's just my view on things.
That's a false dichotomy to say that the theory of evolution presents you with a choice to either choose evolution or God. I don't see why God couldn't have brought life about through evolution...
Evolution as a theory cannot logically be a theory of ultimate origins, precisely because its operation presupposes a text of design within a context of facilitating that actualization.
@GuillemotWatcher if you think Dawkins books and arguments are logical, you are one ignorant person. He is a good scientist, outside of that...he is not much
@GuillemotWatcher why does his book say then that in an ideal outcome, religious leaders would read the book and by the time thery're finished, become atheists?
@mehico33 i dont fully understand your comments, i watched, read, and pistened to dawkins books and debates, and undeniably he is a very poor philosopher. now Rechwrd Dwwkins admits there is a possibility of God recently. dont make uninteligeble comment here mehico33, because it makes you look retarded. fyi, I'm high on intelligence and info gathering. You however go back ought to educate yourself and stop being dogmatic ignoramous. .
@Voltar143 You are a fool. Dawkins references the "God of the physicists" a theoretical entity that could have set up the laws of the universe, in no way the human god of the bible. You dont understand my comments because you are lacking.
Lane Craigs field is philosophical trickery, he essentially hunts for technicality, instances in which a person who deals in practicality/the real world will trip on words. Debates are a good forum for his ilk because they are timed.
I like the part where some idiot who thinks 3 clips edited together is so funny he can barely speak. I think you are trying a little too hard to hate Richard Dawkins or too proud of your work which can barely be spoken of.
what Dr. craig ment is Dawkin is not a good philosopher let alone an expert. Dawkins is worse than an average layman who has basic philosophy because richards arguments basically collapse on its own by incoherence.
@drcraigvideos Ah I see. So he's having a crack at Dawkins as a bad thinker without actually referring to any specific examples. Thanks for the unhelpful opinion Craig the Wise
"So Craig is saying that only an authority in philosophy can make a valid point...?"
Well the point is that a non-philosopher attempting to act as an authority in a philosophical topic is remarkably unreliable at making "valid points" compared to someone who has at least an arbitrary understanding of philosophy.
Well, no. He's an evolutionary biologist. He is also devoted to reason, not blind faith. He's a scientist, and has seen there is NO LOGICAL REASON to believe in god.
If you can't articulate yourself better than "He sucks as a thinker", then obviously you are no great thinker yourself.
@Greatkingrat88 If he's committed to reason then he has to be committed to philosophy. Philosophy deals with the laws of logic. Science presupposes it. You cannot do science without a philosophical presupposition (be it verificationism, falsificationism, etc.). And not all faith is fideistic (or blind). Richard Dawkins sucks big time as a thinker because he consistently does NOT apply logic to his thinking. Any philosopher can see that. Just read the God Delusion and its filled with fallacies.
@Greatkingrat88 Well, Dawkins doesn't have to be a proffessional philosopher, but can he at least be good at it. Craig proves that Dawkins is a complete failure at logic: view_play_list?p=E104D9B7DFE9B7F6
@drcraigvideos Now, saying that Dr. Dawkins is a "complete failure" at philosophy would be fallacious if anything was. I seriously doubt he got to where he is today without at least some knowledge of philosophy.
@Greatkingrat88 But he's not a good philosopher. He stinks at it. He's only where he is today because he's good at one-liners and calling religion stupid. That's all.
@drcraigvideos I have watched quite a few debates with Dr. Dawkins, on creationism and evolution, and almost every single time he has been superior in logic, reasoning, and manners. Perhaps he is not some great philosopher- although I would certainly say he is no amateur- but even if he was, in fact, an incompetent at phiolosphy, why should this make any difference? What he says is at all times valid, backed by science, and he expresses no wild theories unprovable by anyone.
@drcraigvideos I need no link to know he is not a "child" in logic. *I* am a child in that respect, a mere amateur. Dr Dawkins is a professional evolutionary biologist. I don't think they hand out Ph.Ds to somebody who is a "child" at logic.
@Greatkingrat88 Well, I don't expect you to recognize somethiing as philosophical. I mean, if you think Dawkins is philosophical that speaks wonders about you. Honestly, it's just sad that people think Dawkins does philosophy justice. He doesn't.
"I have watched quite a few debates with Dr. Dawkins, on creationism and evolution, and almost every single time he has been superior in logic, reasoning, and manners."
No doubt he's a proliferative, albeit rather stolid and uninspired, evolutionary biologist. His philosophical knowledge, however, is virtually non-existent. No wonder he has been avoiding a debate with Craig - the man can barely grasp the concept of the dichotomy of absolutism and relativism.
Technically he is, although not in the common sense. He earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984 (that was a copy/paste). The "D" standing for Doctorate indicates that anyone who earns one can be professionally called a "doctor."
I didn't actually know this stuff until just a few years ago, so there you go. Have a good one.
GOD does EXIST. just like we might have came to being why couldn't GOD just come into being? if GOD wants to torture us well HE can HE is GOD. GOD can do all things. GOD jump started the universe into existance then just sat back and let everything come together. HE has all the time HE is in no hurry to get everything done at once HE has everything he wants at his fingure tips. now whether or not you accept what GOD does as humane is up to you. GOD can do anything HE wishes to do.
It's sad that all the Atheist comes on here and votes a thumbs down because Criag is talking about Dawkins. It's not like Craig is insulting him unlike Dawkins who has really no respect for people of faith though he himself has faith in Atheism. Silly people and their logic....
@evi3lynni3 Uh, no he does not. In the interview you are referring to (Expelled) you can hear him say "if you find evidence for aliens that might be true", which clearly doesn't mean that he thinks aliens did it.
But even if he did, Christians believe that there is an invisible man living in the sky who knows magical spells. Do you honestly think that explanation for the origins of life is less far fetched than that aliens seeded some simple lifeforms on earth?
@evi3lynni3 "Dawkins has admitted to the possibility of intelligent design, but Dawkins believes the designers were aliens. And he calls Christians crazy? LOL!"
@nordhorny Gee, nice name "nordhorny", and I'm the moron? LMAO! As I keep saying to you poor souls, disbelieve at your own peril, but when you bite the big one you WILL believe, unfortunately it will be too late. Have a nice day.
@evi3lynni3 "Gee, nice name "nordhorny", and I'm the moron? LMAO! As I keep saying to you poor souls, disbelieve at your own peril, but when you bite the big one you WILL believe, unfortunately it will be too late. Have a nice day."
- when one strips away the irrelevance in your reply, what is left ?
I'll be happy when Craig actually counters Dawkins' points rather than just insult him and elude to a lack of reasoning and understanding. I'd go as far to say that the real non-philosopher here is Craig, who is more a rhetorician than anything, who relies on saying the same thing over and over again rather than use and develop his own reasoning skills and dialectic. Dawkins understands this, and thats why he wont't debate him.
And the last seven seconds of out of context clips is SOO mature...
@niriop There's nothing insulting by stating the obvious fact that Dawkins is not a philosopher. He isn't. He sucks as a thinker. Dr. Craig tore Dawkins apart here: watch?v=_EP4JsaLH6Q. Happy, now? As for the last 7n seconds, blame Dawkins for that. The man is silly. So why not record it then?
Dawkins must religiously believe the claims he made in his best seller "The God Delusion". You'd think he'd be happy to debate Meyer on the claims he made in his best seller "Signature in the Cell...". But no, Dawkins won't go so low as to debate a "Creationist", a term Meyer doesn't go by. What an opportunity for Dawkins to take on one who is best equipped to challenge him. It only makes sense that Dawkins is afraid of going up against another heavy weight. It's safer to take on easier fish.
Dawkins must religiously believe the claims he made in his best seller "The God Delusion". You'd think he'd be happy to debate Meyer on the claims he made in his best seller "Signature in the Cell...". But no, Dawkins won't go so low as to debate a "Creationist", a term Meyer doesn't go by. What an opportunity for Dawkins to take on one who is best equipped to challengs him. It only makes sense that Dawkins is afraid of going up against another heavy weight. It's safer to take on easier fish.
Jesus was historical person unless your skepticism even weights to the writings. Like I said, it's a punch to the moon to merely say that it was interpolated.
All these things goes down to the 5th evidence for God that craig presented.
1 COSMOLOGICAL
2 TELEOLOGICAL
3 ONTOLOGICAL
4 OBJECTIVISM/arguments for value and purpose
5 would be like I said, the historicity of the empty tomb and Jesus.
@dapsz666 yes. miracles would be evidences but on the context is Jesus a historical person? I think was base on the concrete historicity that cannot validly refuted. All oppositions that were there were pure groundless weightless skepticism.
And this was that 5th piece of evidence Craig presented.
I would add that incarnation, perpetual virginity, eternity, divinity and trinity, dual nature and so forth were REAL valuable knowledge of concepts that increases and pushes reason an rationality.
@fourtywpm LOL! Uhm, yeah, Dawkins the coward is known for being masculine. Tell Dicky to grow a pair (no pun intended) and to debate Dr. Craig on a one-on-one format.
@drcraigvideos If you read his book you will see his reasoning behind not debating theists on the existence. To put some perspective on it...Me and you lets debate. I KNOW that that behind Pluto rests Thor and he controls the spirits of those who die. Obviously you being a respectable person in your field would not even entertain the notion. It is ridiculous....
Dr. Craig only deserves respect for his defence of a god's existence. When it comes to defending the existence of the Christian or Abrahamic god, his "arguments" are laughable at best. They only prove he has an a priori belief about the existence of his specific god which he attempts to prove through phil. reasoning. The debates he has won are all on the question of whether a god exists. If he were to debate whether the Christian god exists he would get his ass kicked 20 diff ways thr. Sunday.
@xcapote Uh, yeah, Dr. Craig gives no evidence specifically for the Christian God, that's why he argues for Christ's resurrection. You're too fast for us, xcapote.
@xcapote Stating an argument is laughable is not a rebuttal.Craig Lennox and others give compelling evidence from science particularly modern cosmology for the eternal Biblical God who "existed before the beginning of time" who created the universe out of chaos a finite time ago. Maybe u believe the universe eternal or oscillating as per Hindus or created within time Islam?
You only have 2 choices: an immaterial, non-contingent, all powerful reality we call God designed our rationally intelligible universe, or u have to believe it was built by numbers. Relativity, quantum mechanics & all scientific laws are defined by universal immutable complex & abstract math’ formulae. The Atheist then must explain how such immaterial, absurdly complex realities like maths EXIST AT ALL in a world consisting only of matter & energy. I wait a response with infinite patience.
@rolingpingu Ideologues and fanatics are always bad philosophers. Dawkins is utterly certain about the rightness of his position and therefore pesky little things like reason and logic are not terribly important.
There is a reason that God has never been proved...the only arguments in theism's favor are philosophical, and philosophy doesn't go anywhere. Why doesn't Dr. Craig get outside of his field and learn biology?
@keith101guitar You can't do biology (or science) without philosophy, genius. If you think philosophy is useless then suit yourself. At least atheists like Daniel Dennett would call himself a philosopher.
@TheAxis456 Common sense. You cannot do experiments without philosophical presuppositions. For instance, you must presuppose the uniformity of nature (aka induction) to do anything in science. Anything!
@drcraigvideos Someone who works at Walmart must presuppose that people will come in and buy stuff. That doesn't mean the person at Walmart is a philosopher.
@TheAxis456 Consumerism is different than science, genius. And now that you mention it, you cannot do shopping without presupposing economics. Just like how you can't do science without presupposing philosophy. Without philosophy, science is dead. And you haven't even begun to touch on anything I said.
@TheAxis456 The concept of induction is a key concept in the philosophy of science. And while I am not much a fan of this video makers comments to others, he is correct in asserting the importance of philosophy of science.
I have always wondered this, Richard Dawkins ain't a philosopher so what's his business pretending like he is one?
wazpoppin9 1 month ago
haha this is great, i love craig, he is a brilliant man who preaches the truth. Dawkins is afraid to debate him, how sad. proves how much he knows..
zachariahm10 2 months ago
@zachariahm10 I think any intelligent person avoids debates with people who are extremely stubborn because it makes the argument pointless.
kwoffy 1 month ago
Dawkins sees God as a purely scientific rather than a philosophical issue. As far as he is concerned if there is no scientific evidence for specific claim then you don't believe in it until there is evidence for it.
Enzo012 3 months ago 4
@Enzo012 You can't prove everything with science: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos A specific supernatural claim that is. You certainly could attain scientific evidence of the supernatural if it existed. He is open minded towards Deism though he doesn't really see much of a point to it.
Enzo012 3 months ago 3
@Enzo012 "You certainly could attain scientific evidence of the supernatural if it existed. " Not necessarily. You can't put God in a test tube.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos If God never interacted with the universe in any way that science could measure, like say through prayer, then you would end up with a deistic God again. Dawkins is open minded toward deistic God who sits back and lets the universe do its thing so he thinks a "rational debate" can be had regarding that, even if he doesn't believe it himself. But he has also said that he doesn't think that anyone who believes that Jesus turned water into wine is particularly intelligent.
Enzo012 3 months ago
@Enzo012 You haven't even dealt with anything I said except to say, "Uh, desitic God." You can't have a deistic God given Craig's contention. For one, you can't have uniformity of nature without God. That obliterates the idea of a deistic God. And you don't end up with a deistic God if He answers your prayers. That's silly. That means He's acting on your behalf in the universe, genius.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos The laws of physics seem perfectly suited to life but that doesn't prove there was any intelligent design was involved. Stephen Hawkings suggests that there are an infinite number of universes most of which aren't suitable for life. So it would just seem like our universe is perfectly designed for life because we happen to be here and couldn't be living in a universe not suited for life. And I meant if prayer isn't scientifically demonstrated to work and so far it hasn't been.
Enzo012 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos "For one, you can't have uniformity of nature without God."
*Cue Creepy Wonka Face*
That's so cute.
101Pilgrim 1 month ago
@Enzo012 I think you can be intelligent and believe in god but you may have a cognitive dissonance in there but that doesn't mean that the person can't have intelligence.
Ryosuke1208 3 weeks ago
If you want to be sufficient to a level where you can be taken on good authority that you know correctly what you're talking about, then you do need formal education in philosophy. Even more important for someone like Dawkins because of his capability of reaching so many people around the world who will believe what he says without question.
Redington931 4 months ago
@Redington931 A fact that would probably horrify him.
gextvedde 4 months ago
love the end i craked up
wmcmaster1 4 months ago
This is fallacy of appealing to authority. There are many philosopher who don't believe in God, what would you say to them then? Is Dan Dennet good enough for you?
Parsayan 5 months ago
@Parsayan Uhm, okay, Dennett is a philosopher, but Dawkins still isn't a philosopher.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago 2
@Parsayan Dennet's arguments aren't good enough, but as a philosophy student I completely agree with Craig here. Dawkins is very bad with philosophy and theology.
geoffrobinson 4 months ago
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
Does Prof Dawk sound like a person with a lisp? Or is that just he Brit accent
Harlecen94 5 months ago
Dang look at all these Athiest haters... 318, eh?
samuellis 6 months ago
GuillemotWatcher: Your criticism is based on the assumption that evolution and theism are incompatible. That idea itself is based on philosophical reasoning, and primitive philosophical reasoning at that.
davidacarnes 6 months ago
LOL. I like the end of the video. That was hilarious.
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
@hastyvictories ... okay. Apparently, I'm not the one with that problem, because I don't think that science can prove everything.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@hastyvictories You can deduce that God is immaterial due to the first cause of the universe, genius: watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI. And there are other immaterial things that effects soceity. For instance, the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics. I cannot believe how far back in logical thought you are. This is kindergarten stuff, man.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@hastyvictories Science does NOT deal with God, since God is an immaterial being. You cannot prove everything with science: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY. Have you ever heard of self-refutations? Occam's razor should let you know that.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
Did you get that bit at the end off of Richard Dawkins 'about me' page on Oxford university's official website?
scar504 6 months ago
I thought Dr Craig was not a creationist? That he accepts the evidence and scientific consensus about evolution??
CMO999 6 months ago
@CMO999 Dr. Craig is not a creationist. Although he is agnostic about the creation of the universe, he believes the universe is billions of years old. And he believes that evolution is compatible with theism.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
This video is simply childish. Dawkins doesn't have a PhD in philosophy; therefore he is unable to philosophize? There are so many things wrong with this. Just one example; no university holds a monopoly on knowledge. Anything you can learn in a university you can learn in a book. I suppose WLC argues that Einstein's views on war were invalid because he was a physicist, and Da Vinci's inventions are simply the musings of a painter.Total tripe- I can't believe his keepers let him spew this crap.
DanOC1991 6 months ago 18
@DanOC1991 " Dawkins doesn't have a PhD in philosophy; therefore he is unable to philosophize?" Please attempt to watch this video without putting words in it. There was no mention of not having a PhD AT ALL. In fact, the words "PHd" aren't even in the video. So, I don't know what you're driving at at all. Dawkins tried to deal with the philosophical arguments against God philosophically in The God Delusion and he quite simply sucked at it.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@DanOC1991 face it, your hero is a coward with his chickenshit "I will only debate a bishop" line. he sucks at philosophy and knows Craig would kick his ass in a debate- straight up. He saw what happened to harris and Hitchens and is hiding under his oxford desk. he is a joke
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@DanOC1991
How bout watching the video. He clearly says dawkins doesn't have the expertise regarding philosophy and discussion of it, as much as he may have about evolutionary biology. He's not saying that everything Dawkins says is false because of that, but you can't expect to be a philosopher and that's what happens when people go out of their field. Einstein's views on war, would you take them as seriously as someone who is an expert in that field? Would you prefer a world without experts?
soccerdanny4 3 months ago
@DanOC1991
However, you can trust Einstein more on physics than say someone who strictly is a philosopher and does not study science. Da Vinci's profession wasn't painter. Da Vinci was a polymath, meaning he was skilled at many things. But think of another example and I can respond to that, because that example isn't valid. Please learn philosophy before trying to defend the guy who is such a philosopher but can't debate someone who is willing to debate him.
soccerdanny4 3 months ago
@DanOC1991 No(: He first dismisses his arguments on the philosophical basis and then simply explains why he thinks they are so elementary...Dawkins simply isn't a philosopher.
ihroch 2 months ago
Stupid Dawkins, all he has are some stupid Phds from Oxford or something. What does he know about science and stuff
yodellikeyoumeanit09 6 months ago
@yodellikeyoumeanit09 Well, he doesn't know much about philosophy. Is it so hard to at least TRY to be a good thinker?
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
Dr.Craig is supposed to be an educated person, but he finishes his video with a childish misrepresentation of one of the greatest scientist of this generation.
Reasonwillwin 6 months ago
@Reasonwillwin LOL! Dawkins a great scientist? Anyway, where's the misrepresentation? Dawkins isn't a philosopher. He sucks at it.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@drcraigvideos
Well at least Dawkins is real scientist. =)
Philosophy was a part of science when we hade nothing else to use except our brains. We can’t use our conmen scenes to explain the world we live in. Common sense tells us that time can’t be slowed down, but like every modern experiment done show the opposite. What is more likely, that all the experiments under a 50yr period are wrong or that the brain is to poorly evolved that it cannot apprehend it?
TheRobinL 6 months ago
@TheRobinL Sure, Dawkins is a scientist but would it kill him to get up with the current science. He's still babbling about the same stuff since the 80s. There are better biologist than him. Philosophy still works with science, genius. You need to know what induction is in order to apply science. Throw the junk science away, please.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@Reasonwillwin
As far as I know, the user "drcraigvideos" isn't Dr. Craig, but someone else who has been collecting videos of Dr. Craig and posting them here for us to view. It's most likely that the final segment was added after the fact.
lazydonovan 6 months ago
@Reasonwillwin Most popular celebrity atheist scientists but not necessarily a great scientist. Borlaug was a great scientist, for example.
GeoffMezzanine 4 months ago
John 3:12
" I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? "
ikawpipa 6 months ago
Must we forget the first great philosophers. They were not as educated as Dawkins is. Why do so many people still listen to them.lol Besides... A philosophy degree is a joke. Anyone can get one. That's why a lot of collage student chose it. Its easy to get a good grade.lol
SuperMrAtheist 7 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist ''A philosophy degree is a joke. Anyone can get one. ''
It is just about as hard as any other degree, post grade work is required for graduate degrees. Not a lot of college students get them, have you taken a class on informal and formal logic? Those classes alone are difficult. It deals with the structure of logic.
07Aristotle 7 months ago
@07Aristotle You must have taken philosophy.lol I'm sorry but it is a joke. I have 8 friends who took it because it was easy. If its not easy for you then... well you can figure it out.lol
SuperMrAtheist 7 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist Well, I guess you think that Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell and Satre are jokes then. ... okay.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist ''I have 8 friends who took it because it was easy.'' Yeah, and 8 of those same friends told me that you lied.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
What a stupid ad hominem attack. I do not need to be an astrologer or alchemist to dismiss their claims with logic and evidence...
prossihalty 7 months ago
@prossihalty Where's the ad hominem? Dawkins is really not a philosopher.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago 9
@drcraigvideos ... William Lane Craig is not a cosmologist, or a theoretical physicist, yet he talks about the beginning of the Cosmos constantly. Hypocrite.
NikTheJew 6 months ago
@NikTheJew Dr. Craig specialized in cosmology, genius. Ignorant!
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@drcraigvideos Really? How many degrees in cosmology does he have? Because all the information I found on him says zero. If you're going to make the argument that he "specializes" in Cosmology, then I can make the argument Dawkins "specializes" in philosophy. Both of them practice these crafts profusely, but aren't truly educated in it. Hell, his wikipedia page doesn't even have any of his physics credentials. Pretty sure you're still a hypocrite. Cool story, though.
NikTheJew 6 months ago
@NikTheJew Oh, boy, you got me there! Even though Dr. Craig is an analytical philosopher who did his doctoral work in cosmology for the kalam cosmological argument, you know, I guess that really doesn't mean anything since you did a wikipedia check. And we all know wiki is, uh, very unbiased. *SIGH* People... Craig knows more about science and physics than Dawkins.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@drcraigvideos
Having done "doctoral work in cosmology for the kalam cosmological argument" make him no more qualified in actual cosmology than having done "doctoral work in medicine for a paper on the philosophy of medicine" would make him an actual qualified medical doctor.
Craig does not know more about science than Dawkins, who is actually a scientist.
StealthDonkey007 6 months ago
@StealthDonkey007 It's interesting that you would make that exception with Dawkins who is a Biologist and NOT a physicist. So, I guess you think if someone studied mathematics he would then be qualified to speak on Biology? Why are you so obtuse? Craig knows physics. The KCA specifically says the "universe had a cause". Doing doctoral work on that makes you more knowledgeable about it than the typical laymen, genius. Craig knows more about scientific models of the universe than Dawkins.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@drcraigvideos Dawkins is a scientist. He understands the use of the scientific method better than Craig.
If someone studied maths, they would be qualified to speak on the parts of biology that were related maths.
What evidence do you have that Craig know's physics? Especially give that he's making arguments apparently based on physics, that plenty of physicists would not agree with.
StealthDonkey007 5 months ago
@StealthDonkey007 Dawkins is not a good scientist. If he was he wouldn't say that science can determine morality. Craig's arguments for physicists ARE in a agreement with physicists! You'd know that if you actually know Craig's argument. Last I saw Craig and Stephen Hawking both agree the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos "Dawkins is not a good scientist. If he was he wouldn't say that science can determine morality"
- he does not categorically state that
- even if this was his position, one incorrect statement does not exclude a person from being good in their field
- Prof. Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL...numerous prestigious science awards to his name
Dr. Sc. - Doctor of Science, the highest degree available in science. Not a good scientist ? Rubbish.
nordhorny 5 months ago
@nordhorny Dawkins DOES categorically "state that". He left a blurb on Harris' Moral Landscape. And he's even been public about it. Dawkins uses science to try to brainwash people into atheism. He has an agenda with it! A true scientists doesn't do that. I'm sure you'll say the same thing about creationists. There are tons of scientists way better than Dawkins. Something to think about: watch?v=daRqWpcchn4
drcraigvideos 5 months ago
THE PROFESSOR HAS LEFT HIS LAB AND TALKS ABOUT THINGS HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT.
outbackcafe 7 months ago
William Lane Craig is not a scientist
TibiCogitate 7 months ago 2
@TibiCogitate Uh, yeah, genius, he's not a scientist, all he is is a philosopher of science who specializes in cosmology. Nothing gets passed you, TibiGogitateypoo.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@TibiCogitate absolutely which is why he isn't giving lectures on biology.
anonazero 7 months ago
@anonazero Oh, but you give Dawkins a pass when it comes to philosophy or astrophysics - Dawkins doesn't know either.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
Comment removed
cycophile 7 months ago
@cycophile Dawkins has a PhD in philosophy? LOL! Are you sure?
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
I would love to discuss with those guys. Seriously, there is no need of formal education to be a philosopher, neither Dawkins nor anyone needs it to think about the nature of reality, existence of metaphysical beings or anything of the kind. I think that to be a philosopher you just need to be sincere with yourself when thinking about those subjects and not being afraid of being wrong, wich, I think, is the reason why theists come upon Dawkins the way they do in this video. sry about bad english
walkis 7 months ago 11
@walkis Dawkins is not a good thinker. With or without a degree he stinks.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos although I disagree on Dawkins approach here and there, I don't think he is not a good thinker, and would like to you to show why you think that way. Maybe I could change my opinion after that (or not), it would be good anyway to see it from another perspective to me. thanks
walkis 7 months ago
@walkis He has no real grasp of philosophy, his central argument quite frankly stink, he does not understand the cosmological, ontological, teleological, or moral argument. He does not understand modern day physics. I can go on and on.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos Hahahaha xD are you kidding me? There's absolutely no need for him to understand any of the following arguments, he's just discussing things from his point of view. And surely he doesn't understand modern day physics, cause he's a freaking biologist. Central argument stinks? Really? And what would be his central argument? That people should get rational? Speaking about morals, he has a pretty good image on that tough..
kosta194 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos
Not a good thinker, seriously ? He's only make a major contribution in the field fo genetic evolution. Whether or not other biologists & philosophers agree with his theory, no one implicate in sciences can deny that Dawkins knows how to think.
As for Lane Craig & cosmologies. He simply hasn't the conceptual & mathematical tools to understand modern physics (like M-theory for ex), for that you need to be in the field of those studies, so on this he's as pretentious as Dawkins.
frenchatheiste 7 months ago
@frenchatheiste Uh, yeah, Craig knows nothing about M-Theory even though he's written scholarly articles on it. Dawkins is bad for science. He doesn't even get the philosophy of science. At least Craig specializes in cosmology and philosophy.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@walkis You don't need a formal education to be a philosopher? Excuse me whilst I stop laughing at your utter ignorance. I can think about planet formation, does this make me a cosmologist? It must do by your reasoning!
You further clearly do not understand what philosophy is, and your little supporters clearly do not either!
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@walkis You should run out and get a PhD in Philosophy then. What other fields require no special training?
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
@MPaulHolmes That would be rather to his disadvantage, as the formal study of philosophy seems to generally require one to adopt set ways of thinking, harking after what long dead people wrote based on flawed premises. Whilst philosophy is generally interesting, it seems ill advised to take it too seriously.
Janoslechner 6 months ago
@walkis There is no need of formal education to be a philosopher? I beg your pardon? You obviously haven't read many books. You basically assert that being a philosopher means having an opinion. That is so funny. You made me laugh tonight
mjacobson73 6 months ago
@walkis To be a philosopher you should know about philosophy. Dawkins doesn't, so he isn't.
Vot63 5 months ago
Just because traditionally philosophers have discussed these topics doesn't mean in the modern age of readily available information one MUST be a philosopher to have a relevant view.
Nijos254 7 months ago
Dawkins has a clinically rational mind and accepts, as do the overwhelming majority of scientists, the theory of evolution. That acceptance gives one a choice to believe god was the origin of life or not. He argues that to reject accepted scientific theories because of a belief that cannot be proved is deluded thinking.
That's not a philosophy, it's a rational conclusion. Dawkins doesn't want people not to believe in god, he wants their faith not to delude them into rejecting science.
GuillemotWatcher 7 months ago 34
@GuillemotWatcher Science doesn't prove everything: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY. You cannot do science without philosophy. There's a reason why the word "philosophy" is in a PhD, genius.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos again, really? Are you freaking kidding me? Science and philosophy have parted ways since the middle ages, I think... It is true that philosophers have started what we call "science", but in the modern time, philosophy has no place in science. And off course science can't prove everything, that's why we have so called "theories". But then again, that's just my view on things.
kosta194 7 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher thats not really true :)
im not trying to argue or anything but in the videos i've seen dawkins clearly shows he is completley against religion and belief in God
skater9123456 7 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher clinically rational? interesting.
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher
That's a false dichotomy to say that the theory of evolution presents you with a choice to either choose evolution or God. I don't see why God couldn't have brought life about through evolution...
Evolution as a theory cannot logically be a theory of ultimate origins, precisely because its operation presupposes a text of design within a context of facilitating that actualization.
OmegaTep 6 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher Wrong, dawkins has openly stated that he wants to convert the entire world into atheists.
ITTutorCanada 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher if you think Dawkins books and arguments are logical, you are one ignorant person. He is a good scientist, outside of that...he is not much
beto88keys 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher "Dawkins doesn't want people not to believe in god" - Can you try saying that out loud and tell me if you feel silly?
TooManyTights 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher why does his book say then that in an ideal outcome, religious leaders would read the book and by the time thery're finished, become atheists?
blackoutninja 5 months ago
@GuillemotWatcher
What does anything you've said have to do with the fundamental issue of the existence of God?
Keruaran 4 months ago
My fellow atheists are making themselves look silly in these comments...
baker514 7 months ago
MrKGatl, <= another very stupid comment
Voltar143 8 months ago
typo from my cell, listened instead of pistened
Voltar143 8 months ago
@mehico33 i dont fully understand your comments, i watched, read, and pistened to dawkins books and debates, and undeniably he is a very poor philosopher. now Rechwrd Dwwkins admits there is a possibility of God recently. dont make uninteligeble comment here mehico33, because it makes you look retarded. fyi, I'm high on intelligence and info gathering. You however go back ought to educate yourself and stop being dogmatic ignoramous. .
Voltar143 8 months ago
@Voltar143 You are a fool. Dawkins references the "God of the physicists" a theoretical entity that could have set up the laws of the universe, in no way the human god of the bible. You dont understand my comments because you are lacking.
Lane Craigs field is philosophical trickery, he essentially hunts for technicality, instances in which a person who deals in practicality/the real world will trip on words. Debates are a good forum for his ilk because they are timed.
mehico33 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins is not a philosopher. I would consider that a compliment.
JohnMYX 8 months ago 2
@JohnMYX Richard Dawkins is a stupid head. I would consider that a compliment.
aaronstately 8 months ago
I like the part where some idiot who thinks 3 clips edited together is so funny he can barely speak. I think you are trying a little too hard to hate Richard Dawkins or too proud of your work which can barely be spoken of.
dotmadhack 8 months ago
@dotmadhack Those three clips show how silly Dawkins is. That's all. You're trying too hard to make it look like I hate someone when I don't.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
what Dr. craig ment is Dawkin is not a good philosopher let alone an expert. Dawkins is worse than an average layman who has basic philosophy because richards arguments basically collapse on its own by incoherence.
Voltar143 8 months ago
@Voltar143 Lol, thats straight out of the blue. What the fuck are you on?
mehico33 8 months ago
So Craig is saying that only an authority in philosophy can make a valid point...?
tobo86 8 months ago
@tobo86 No, he's saying that Dawkins sucks as a philosopher. He's simply not a good thinker.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Ah I see. So he's having a crack at Dawkins as a bad thinker without actually referring to any specific examples. Thanks for the unhelpful opinion Craig the Wise
tobo86 8 months ago
@tobo86 Well, Craig actually destroyed The God Delusion. Here's an example: watch?v=x9PjHVd_awo
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@tobo86
"So Craig is saying that only an authority in philosophy can make a valid point...?"
Well the point is that a non-philosopher attempting to act as an authority in a philosophical topic is remarkably unreliable at making "valid points" compared to someone who has at least an arbitrary understanding of philosophy.
Calenfeyn41 8 months ago
William Lane Craig is not a scientist..
Chwuzy 9 months ago
@Chwuzy LOL! Yeah, he's just a philospher of science. You're too fast for us, Cheezywiz.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
dawkins is a nut
hudfadz 9 months ago
this man is an idiot. Truly an idiot. Did you get that...he's an idiot. So, just so that there's no doubt. The man is an idiot.
Hermy1138 9 months ago 2
LOL
That's completely not true. :)
SurionE 9 months ago
@SurionE So, you think Dawkins is a philosopher?
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
Well, no. He's an evolutionary biologist. He is also devoted to reason, not blind faith. He's a scientist, and has seen there is NO LOGICAL REASON to believe in god.
If you can't articulate yourself better than "He sucks as a thinker", then obviously you are no great thinker yourself.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 If he's committed to reason then he has to be committed to philosophy. Philosophy deals with the laws of logic. Science presupposes it. You cannot do science without a philosophical presupposition (be it verificationism, falsificationism, etc.). And not all faith is fideistic (or blind). Richard Dawkins sucks big time as a thinker because he consistently does NOT apply logic to his thinking. Any philosopher can see that. Just read the God Delusion and its filled with fallacies.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos Not everyone can be expected to be a professional philosopher, although I suspect Dawkins knows his philosophy better than you or I.
I have seldom seen a man so concistently logical and reasoning in his thinking.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 Well, Dawkins doesn't have to be a proffessional philosopher, but can he at least be good at it. Craig proves that Dawkins is a complete failure at logic: view_play_list?p=E104D9B7DFE9B7F6
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos Now, saying that Dr. Dawkins is a "complete failure" at philosophy would be fallacious if anything was. I seriously doubt he got to where he is today without at least some knowledge of philosophy.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 But he's not a good philosopher. He stinks at it. He's only where he is today because he's good at one-liners and calling religion stupid. That's all.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos I have watched quite a few debates with Dr. Dawkins, on creationism and evolution, and almost every single time he has been superior in logic, reasoning, and manners. Perhaps he is not some great philosopher- although I would certainly say he is no amateur- but even if he was, in fact, an incompetent at phiolosphy, why should this make any difference? What he says is at all times valid, backed by science, and he expresses no wild theories unprovable by anyone.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 Look at the link I gave and you'll know that Dawkins is a child when it comes to logic.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos I need no link to know he is not a "child" in logic. *I* am a child in that respect, a mere amateur. Dr Dawkins is a professional evolutionary biologist. I don't think they hand out Ph.Ds to somebody who is a "child" at logic.
Greatkingrat88 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88 Well, I don't expect you to recognize somethiing as philosophical. I mean, if you think Dawkins is philosophical that speaks wonders about you. Honestly, it's just sad that people think Dawkins does philosophy justice. He doesn't.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@Greatkingrat88
"I have watched quite a few debates with Dr. Dawkins, on creationism and evolution, and almost every single time he has been superior in logic, reasoning, and manners."
No doubt he's a proliferative, albeit rather stolid and uninspired, evolutionary biologist. His philosophical knowledge, however, is virtually non-existent. No wonder he has been avoiding a debate with Craig - the man can barely grasp the concept of the dichotomy of absolutism and relativism.
JCrownwell 9 months ago
I am Atheist and i agree with craig's point. Dawkins is an excelent biologist but the god delusion wasn't so good.
Also the last 7 seconds were not needed.
abdul0333 9 months ago
Dear atheist, what is there to cry if you have not losen anything?
keksinnot 9 months ago
William Lane Craig is not a doctor
cradlecry 9 months ago
@cradlecry
Technically he is, although not in the common sense. He earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984 (that was a copy/paste). The "D" standing for Doctorate indicates that anyone who earns one can be professionally called a "doctor."
I didn't actually know this stuff until just a few years ago, so there you go. Have a good one.
Scarface1034 9 months ago
GOD does EXIST. just like we might have came to being why couldn't GOD just come into being? if GOD wants to torture us well HE can HE is GOD. GOD can do all things. GOD jump started the universe into existance then just sat back and let everything come together. HE has all the time HE is in no hurry to get everything done at once HE has everything he wants at his fingure tips. now whether or not you accept what GOD does as humane is up to you. GOD can do anything HE wishes to do.
fidefreestyle 10 months ago
It's sad that all the Atheist comes on here and votes a thumbs down because Criag is talking about Dawkins. It's not like Craig is insulting him unlike Dawkins who has really no respect for people of faith though he himself has faith in Atheism. Silly people and their logic....
samuellis 10 months ago
Dawkins has admitted to the possibility of intelligent design, but Dawkins believes the designers were aliens. And he calls Christians crazy? LOL!
evi3lynni3 10 months ago
@evi3lynni3 Uh, no he does not. In the interview you are referring to (Expelled) you can hear him say "if you find evidence for aliens that might be true", which clearly doesn't mean that he thinks aliens did it.
But even if he did, Christians believe that there is an invisible man living in the sky who knows magical spells. Do you honestly think that explanation for the origins of life is less far fetched than that aliens seeded some simple lifeforms on earth?
Wushuki 10 months ago
@evi3lynni3 "Dawkins has admitted to the possibility of intelligent design, but Dawkins believes the designers were aliens. And he calls Christians crazy? LOL!"
MORON
nordhorny 9 months ago
@nordhorny Gee, nice name "nordhorny", and I'm the moron? LMAO! As I keep saying to you poor souls, disbelieve at your own peril, but when you bite the big one you WILL believe, unfortunately it will be too late. Have a nice day.
evi3lynni3 9 months ago
@evi3lynni3 "Gee, nice name "nordhorny", and I'm the moron? LMAO! As I keep saying to you poor souls, disbelieve at your own peril, but when you bite the big one you WILL believe, unfortunately it will be too late. Have a nice day."
- when one strips away the irrelevance in your reply, what is left ?
Not a word...
nordhorny 9 months ago
I'll be happy when Craig actually counters Dawkins' points rather than just insult him and elude to a lack of reasoning and understanding. I'd go as far to say that the real non-philosopher here is Craig, who is more a rhetorician than anything, who relies on saying the same thing over and over again rather than use and develop his own reasoning skills and dialectic. Dawkins understands this, and thats why he wont't debate him.
And the last seven seconds of out of context clips is SOO mature...
niriop 10 months ago
@niriop There's nothing insulting by stating the obvious fact that Dawkins is not a philosopher. He isn't. He sucks as a thinker. Dr. Craig tore Dawkins apart here: watch?v=_EP4JsaLH6Q. Happy, now? As for the last 7n seconds, blame Dawkins for that. The man is silly. So why not record it then?
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
@drcraigvideos no
rpsmith014 10 months ago
@rpsmith014 What in the world are you saying "no" too? People are so darn vague.
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
Dawkins must religiously believe the claims he made in his best seller "The God Delusion". You'd think he'd be happy to debate Meyer on the claims he made in his best seller "Signature in the Cell...". But no, Dawkins won't go so low as to debate a "Creationist", a term Meyer doesn't go by. What an opportunity for Dawkins to take on one who is best equipped to challenge him. It only makes sense that Dawkins is afraid of going up against another heavy weight. It's safer to take on easier fish.
55k3v1n 10 months ago
Dawkins must religiously believe the claims he made in his best seller "The God Delusion". You'd think he'd be happy to debate Meyer on the claims he made in his best seller "Signature in the Cell...". But no, Dawkins won't go so low as to debate a "Creationist", a term Meyer doesn't go by. What an opportunity for Dawkins to take on one who is best equipped to challengs him. It only makes sense that Dawkins is afraid of going up against another heavy weight. It's safer to take on easier fish.
55k3v1n 10 months ago
I think He was base on the concrete historicity that cannot BE validly refuted by mere skeptic suggestions.
These are actual data, HISTORICAL sources of Flavius and the rest!
R2FUK 10 months ago
Jesus was historical person unless your skepticism even weights to the writings. Like I said, it's a punch to the moon to merely say that it was interpolated.
All these things goes down to the 5th evidence for God that craig presented.
1 COSMOLOGICAL
2 TELEOLOGICAL
3 ONTOLOGICAL
4 OBJECTIVISM/arguments for value and purpose
5 would be like I said, the historicity of the empty tomb and Jesus.
R2FUK 10 months ago
@dapsz666 yes. miracles would be evidences but on the context is Jesus a historical person? I think was base on the concrete historicity that cannot validly refuted. All oppositions that were there were pure groundless weightless skepticism.
And this was that 5th piece of evidence Craig presented.
I would add that incarnation, perpetual virginity, eternity, divinity and trinity, dual nature and so forth were REAL valuable knowledge of concepts that increases and pushes reason an rationality.
R2FUK 10 months ago
Wow, that bit at the end is like what women do to try and win their arguments with men by emasculating them and calling them stupid...
fourtywpm 11 months ago
@fourtywpm LOL! Uhm, yeah, Dawkins the coward is known for being masculine. Tell Dicky to grow a pair (no pun intended) and to debate Dr. Craig on a one-on-one format.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos If you read his book you will see his reasoning behind not debating theists on the existence. To put some perspective on it...Me and you lets debate. I KNOW that that behind Pluto rests Thor and he controls the spirits of those who die. Obviously you being a respectable person in your field would not even entertain the notion. It is ridiculous....
SSGWhit 10 months ago
Dr. Craig only deserves respect for his defence of a god's existence. When it comes to defending the existence of the Christian or Abrahamic god, his "arguments" are laughable at best. They only prove he has an a priori belief about the existence of his specific god which he attempts to prove through phil. reasoning. The debates he has won are all on the question of whether a god exists. If he were to debate whether the Christian god exists he would get his ass kicked 20 diff ways thr. Sunday.
xcapote 11 months ago 2
@xcapote Uh, yeah, Dr. Craig gives no evidence specifically for the Christian God, that's why he argues for Christ's resurrection. You're too fast for us, xcapote.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@xcapote Stating an argument is laughable is not a rebuttal.Craig Lennox and others give compelling evidence from science particularly modern cosmology for the eternal Biblical God who "existed before the beginning of time" who created the universe out of chaos a finite time ago. Maybe u believe the universe eternal or oscillating as per Hindus or created within time Islam?
dashan091 11 months ago
You only have 2 choices: an immaterial, non-contingent, all powerful reality we call God designed our rationally intelligible universe, or u have to believe it was built by numbers. Relativity, quantum mechanics & all scientific laws are defined by universal immutable complex & abstract math’ formulae. The Atheist then must explain how such immaterial, absurdly complex realities like maths EXIST AT ALL in a world consisting only of matter & energy. I wait a response with infinite patience.
dashan091 11 months ago
@xcapote
He argues for Christ in one of his points in every discussion. Stupid.
AceofDlamonds 11 months ago
He's a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and a Doctor of Theology (ThD).
I think atheists like Dawkins are scared :)
CarlosMarti123 11 months ago
I agree with him, I've read the God Delusion aswell and he's a bad philosopher, he's a good scientist indeed. But a terrible philosopher
rolingpingu 11 months ago
@rolingpingu Ideologues and fanatics are always bad philosophers. Dawkins is utterly certain about the rightness of his position and therefore pesky little things like reason and logic are not terribly important.
mozo73 10 months ago
There is a reason that God has never been proved...the only arguments in theism's favor are philosophical, and philosophy doesn't go anywhere. Why doesn't Dr. Craig get outside of his field and learn biology?
keith101guitar 11 months ago
@keith101guitar You can't do biology (or science) without philosophy, genius. If you think philosophy is useless then suit yourself. At least atheists like Daniel Dennett would call himself a philosopher.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago 5
@drcraigvideos Philosophy alone tried to explain the universe. And it failed miserably. Observation is needed.
LesPaul2006 10 months ago
@LesPaul2006 Philosophy can explain the universe, genius. The law of identity certainly is used. I mean, duh!
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
@drcraigvideos You can't study organisms in a lab without philosophy? Where did you hear that from...
TheAxis456 9 months ago
@TheAxis456 Common sense. You cannot do experiments without philosophical presuppositions. For instance, you must presuppose the uniformity of nature (aka induction) to do anything in science. Anything!
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos Someone who works at Walmart must presuppose that people will come in and buy stuff. That doesn't mean the person at Walmart is a philosopher.
TheAxis456 9 months ago
@TheAxis456 Consumerism is different than science, genius. And now that you mention it, you cannot do shopping without presupposing economics. Just like how you can't do science without presupposing philosophy. Without philosophy, science is dead. And you haven't even begun to touch on anything I said.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@TheAxis456 The concept of induction is a key concept in the philosophy of science. And while I am not much a fan of this video makers comments to others, he is correct in asserting the importance of philosophy of science.
Yuri92001 9 months ago