Re: Craig vs Dawkins

I criticize Dechha1981 criticizing William Lane Craig criticizing Richard Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt8mL7ioEaU

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dechha1981
• Dawkins
• delusion
• William
• Lane
• Craig

[demandevidence]

This video made an excellent point with regard to clarification of Craig's idea that explanations of intelligent design are not contingent on explanations of those explanations.

However, this video also fallaciously claims that intelligent design has just as much evidence to support it as evolution.

This video also does not address the baseless assumption that the infinite regress is unsound.

Likely because the critique is biased toward a belief that God exists.

[StutteringDave]

"However, this video also fallaciously claims that intelligent design has just as much evidence to support it as evolution."

When did I claim that?

[aliasbrush]

Do you not understand your own logic?!

You're argument is we have 'B', but don't know where it came from. So we need an 'A' and a process 'x'. Then when someone asks, 'but don't you then need an explanation for A?' you just shrug your shoulders and say it doesn't need an explanation... it's magic!

[StutteringDave]

All I am saying is that whether or not A has an explanation is irrelevant as to whether or not A is an explanation of B. I refer back to my evolution/abiogenesis analogy. Do we need an explanation for the origins of life in order to account for the origin of species?

[aliasbrush]

But this is the main argument Christians use to presume there *must* be a God. Just because we don't understand how the universe exists, doesn't mean there has to be a creator. Why can't we just accept that we don't have an understanding yet?

[StutteringDave]

I never condoned that line of reasoning. I'm just saying that God as an explanation of origins is not deficient on the basis that God himself cannot be explained.

[NatalieAtUW]

One minute in..WLC is attempting an epistemology discussion therefore, YES, A needs the same scutiny as B or anything else after it...otherwise the ONLY thing you need to know about YOUR existence is you came from your parents; who cares where they came from...etc,etc,etc

This WLC defense demonstrates a complete lack of critical thought or understanding of epistemology discussion, which is NOT the same as scientific discovery which you incorrectly used as an analogy.

[MSALLADLACIENCIA]

Good job. All the other guy needed to do was a little thinking....

[drcraigvideos]

Thank you for defending William Lane Craig.

[nanoduckling]

Finally I'd mention Craigs analogy deliberately invited misunderstanding of his point. If I find something in the ground which looks like an arrow my first reaction might be to conclude that a person made it. This conclusion would be invalid unless I first confirmed that humans had previously made arrows like this, confirmed no natural process could make the 'arrow' and so on. Intelligent design proponents are not doing this when it comes to 'design' in biological systems.

[nanoduckling]

It's also worth mentioning that you cant really obtain evidence for Intelligent Design as currently formulated. To show design you would need to find statistically significant evidence for it. Neither specified complexity nor any other notion of complexity proposed by the design proponents comes close to be rigourous enough to be testable. With that in mind I have no idea where you have this notion that there is evidence for design in nature or in the literature.

[nanoduckling]

I strongly agree with you. The problem with Craigs argument isn't that is fallacious, it is that he has miscatagorised god as an explanation. The problem with positing a god is that the problem "who created god" is totally isomorphic to the problem "who created the universe". It isn't that you need an explanation of the explanation, it's that the 'explanation' needs to actually explain something, not merely change the language of the problem.

[MonkeyBallZ214]

I believe you miss the whole point which is, where did everything begin? So, in y > A > x > B, it should end with = Z. Z is the answer to the formula for the question of where it all began. Therefore, not only does A need an explanation, so does y and so on.

[demandevidence]

StutteringDave,

You are right to pull this statement from my comment. I wrote this comment after listening to the whole video and should have verified your statement at 5:00. You did not make a comparison to evolution at all. However, there is a fallacious statement with regard to intelligent design having available evidence for its claim: While it is true that living things appear designed, this can in no scientific way be mistaken for evidence.