UBC Lecture Dawkins Delusion Part 2

[TCupUK]

Very intresting arguments but it would have been nice if he went a lot further. Imho science today is a minefield waiting for evoultion to be destroyed for good.

[qwistrod]

I believe that God does not exist because Dawkins says so. Some object and say what is your reason for believing that Dawkins speaks the truth. But in fact requiring that you have to have a reason for the reason obviously immediately leads to an infinite regress because then you would need a reason for the reason for the reason and so on to infinity so that nothing could ever be supported and rationality would be destroyed. 

[qwistrod]

I found it totally baffling why the ground does not fall downwards under gravity. Then I realised that probably an elephant is supporting the ground underneath. So now I don't have any more headaches.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@qwistrod

"Then I realised that probably an elephant is supporting the ground underneath."

Heretic! It's turtles all the way down!

[qwistrod]

God is non-existent whether you want God to exist or not. 

Much like affirming the existence of dragons, Santa Claus, tooth fairies, ghosts which you can't touch but can hallucinate or affirming there is a demon reading what you type on your keyboard.

[TCupUK]

@qwistrod Non of those things you seek affimation of are non-existent. Thoughts exist, well at least I thought they did?

Thoughts also have the power to manifest in the material world.

[colombiaparadise]

Another pertinent question is, if you had the choice, would you want god to exist?

Well, God exists weather you want God to exist or not.

Much like denying the existence of the ocean, of gravity, something we can feel but can't see, or denying the existence of the keyboard you are wrtting on.

[guyvermandarkhero]

atheist professor howard storm anyone?

[Bkkhngr81]

man, I totally have my head around this and I'm just blown away by how stupid it is! If A caused B, the cause of A may be irrelevant - or unknown - but you know A has a cause; everything does. If A is god, we don't know the cause, but we know there is one and that it must be more complex than the cause of our universe.

"an infinite regress"? He's stating that everything has a cause, right back to the beginning of time - we know this and it doesn't destroy science!!!

[TCupUK]

@Bkkhngr81 Cause itself does not need a cause, only efffetcs need a cause. Consider cause as an intention and the effect as the physical manifestation of that intention. So my reply is first concived with my intention to reply, this ineffect causes me to think what to say, me thinking what to say is the effect. This effect inturn passes on the intention with the added information of what I am going to say and causes the effect of me writing this reply. That effect may cause you to reply.

[TCupUK]

@Bkkhngr81 If you do reply then my inital intention has manifested a cause and an effect of a conversation, and even if you do not it will still cause another effect in some way or the other. Once the intention is there cause and effect can not be stopped. It must run to its conclusion regardless because the laws of physics dictate this. All of this manifestation that has occured was created in a extremley small area of my mind.

[Freethinker12341]

this man is a comedy act

[scusemelittleoldlady]

I like how he defines a mind as being immaterial, what the hell does he think brain matter and neurons do? We have no evidence of any "minds" existing without brains to go with them.

[TCupUK]

@scusemelittleoldlady Your brain continues to send out electrical wave signals approximately 37 hours after death. Intresting little fact that I thought you might like to know.

[martin2088]

The problem with a very smart guy like William Lane Craig is that he likes to be right and will defend ideas to the death rather than admit he is wrong.Worse, if he got away with it when he was young (say, because he was smarter than his parents and his friends.) he probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend his perfect record of invented righteousness to the death.William.L.C often falls into the trap of preferring to be right even if it’s based in delusion.

[DarkfalzReturns]

@martin2088 our post implies Craig's wrong about something. What's he wrong about, in your opinion?

[deirhese66]

@martin2088 How is this true, what if he is just plain right? Attacking his personality doesn't validate flaws in his explanations, thats just hate because you might not be as smart as he is for example.

[toobsucker]

Dawkins stopped debating creationists because the arguments FOR Darwinian evolution (gradual morphology in the fossil record) are non-existent . And the mounting questions being unveiled in biology and cosmology can not be logically answered. So he knows better.

[Alexdurrant7]

@toobsucker The fossil record is entirely unnecessary; a nice added bonus. The most compelling evidence is in the cell. Please, don't tell me you're one of those saps who demands at every opportunity a complete fossil record as the only possible evidence?

[Fenixx117]

what a farce

[Entertainmentwf]

This guy just fails at his own points. He asserts a lot of things. Just a speaker... nothing more.

[Freethinker12341]

@Entertainmentwf i couldn't agree more

[rafikgl]

Dawkin is a fool. I can't believe that any person with half a brain could take what he says seriously.

[saintpine]

Craig says "A mind is a no physical entity !!!!!"

All the qualities of a mind needs some form of elements to produce work, a complex idea cannot come from a simple mind.

you need a complex structure and some form of organisation of the elements, and means to interact with matter of some type.

Is he proposing a Darwinian evolution to explain how some form of atoms got together to form and incredible invisible mind ?

[dimic]

@saintpine; what he meant, was that the mind is a simple entity. Not, that the mind itself is simple.

[vaprex]

@dimic *What*?? How is a 'mind' a simple entity? How is a mind that could possibly perform such an astounding feat such as creation of the universe be "a simple entity" (3:45 in the video) Let's assume God's mind is only slightly more advanced than our own - even if you are talking about the physical mass of cells and neurons (a.k.a. the brain) that would make up this "mind", that in itself is atoundingly complex as any neurologist will attest to. ... *Please* elaborate.

[Nyarl3]

The Cosmological Argument gives very good philosophical evidence that 'a' god created all of the mass and energy existing in the universe, though it says nothing and needs to say nothing about the Christian God, which you seem to think it should.

I'm a little confused about your use of the word "independent" as well. Of what is the mass and energy in the universe independent of?

:)

[pobanmanu]

A christian god did it would be the best explanation if only it is proven that he created all the independant mass and energy existing in the universe.

[gunmogu]

God bless WLC !

[thoughtsurfer1]

The most complicated thing that ever existed and you don't need to explain it!