Christopher Hitchens debates Jay Richards part 4

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christopher
• Hitchens
• debates
• Jay
• Richards
• Dawkins
• atheism
• religion
• Ben
• Stein

[Waltham1892]

The logical error blondy falls into is this:

If the universe proves god exists because something can not come from nothing: Then where did god come from?

In order to believe in god we have to believe in creation without a creator, because who created god, who brought god into being?

Blondy's point refutes itself...

[todomusika]

Hitchens destroyed Richards in less than a minute... awesome!

[roylandyard]

richards argument is: because the universe came into existance there must be a cause for that. there can get into existance without a cause.

BUT: the physicist lawrence krauss showed that because of the nature of gravity "nothing" is unstable and because of that it is highly probable that particle with a mass came into existance. thats state of the art quantum mechanics.

[wraith168]

Ok it make total sense listening to Richards. He said he gave Craig a call before the debate. He uses almost the exact same language with the big bang as Craig. He uses a cut down version of the Kalām cosmological argument. I felt like I was listening to Craig in just about every debate he does. Nothing new on the theist arguments there. The same stuff that has been disproved over and over.

[325982668]

@Floortjahh because they accept non-evidence for absolute fact and have no effective means of discerning between bad evidence and good evidence. It's not just that they repeat the same arguments, it's that they repeat the same TERRIBLE arguments, which are far too easy to debunk. Christopher only liked doing this because of the infinite variability of crazy new shapes their old arguments constantly morph into.

[BassKilla47]

2:26 if the universe was slightly different, then it would be a different being standing in your space asking the same exact question.

[Floortjahh]

One thing that's always baffled me. Creationists keep repeating the same arguements, that something cannot come from nothing and it must have a cause.

Why?!

[Johnf85]

The speaker lost me at his irreducible complexity argument. He must not have researched the opposition. This is why I don't trust anything ID'ers have to say. They don't research the opposition, and its an argument from ignorance. Ken Miller has demonstrated, as well as others, that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, and you can reduce it with proteins to achieve a bacteria, that acts as a syringe to inject poison such as the bubonic plague. Irreducible complexity is bull shit.

[blackpanther77777]

@blondy : i really didnt know it was possible to have a 12 minute diarrheal attack through the mouth.

[cliffworks4321]

Hitchens kicked Richard's arse from the outset, Richards blabbers on. 

[weefeatures]

@TheTroubadoursMusic exactly, to be a theist you have to believe one of two concepts. Either that something can infinitely exist, or that something can be created from nothing. Ironically they refute these concepts only when applied to a theory excluding a magical fairy being

[TheTroubadoursMusic]

If you are theist, god created the universe, and god is uncaused. Why can't an atheist equivalently claim that the big bang was uncaused?

Why can some things be 'uncaused' and some things can't? It's fundamentally inconsistent.