William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair

Will Richard Dawkins finally engage in a scholarly one-to-one discussion with William Lane Craig when he visits Oxford? It would appear not, and even some fellow atheists seem to think he's making a big mistake. This is the story, so far, but what will come next?

Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-c...

Schedule: http://www.premier.org.uk/craig

Tour: http://www.bethinking.org/craig

User banned from RD.net for questioning Dawkins about Craig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKc54E1eMg

Prof Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org

Prof: Dawkins: http://www.richarddawkins.net

Glenn Peoples' Apologetics blog (composer of the opening music): http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/

Material in this video is incorporated either with permission or under Fair Use for independent, non-profit, educational, illustrative and documentary purposes. Happy to discuss with any parties about potential amendments or crediting. This video voices concerns - shared by both theists and non-theists alike - about impediments to the open exchange of academic thought.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Richard
• Dawkins
• debate
• God
• Jesus
• Christianity
• Delusion
• Reasonable
• Faith
• Mexico
• Refuse
• invitation
• Daniel
• Came
• atheist
• atheism
• theism
• cowardice
• coward
• tour
• October
• UK
• Grand
• Design
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Sam
• Harris
• Carrier
• Lawrence
• Krauss
• Anthony
• Flew
• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Argument
• Ultimate
• Boeing
• 747
• invalid
• logic
• bishop
• Alistair
• Mcgrath
• John
• Lennox
• David
• Quinn
• Harries
• Intelligence
• Squared
• Darwin
• spanked
• Lewis
• Wolpert
• BHA
• Cambridge
• Union
• Premier
• Radio
• Telegraph
• BBC
• Ulster
• Grayling

[citizenghosttown]

"well there are couple of properties that this cause has to have. for example it has to be immaterial and eternal"

I'm not sure it HAS to have those properties. After all, this supposes that something like "eternity" can exist and cosmologists are not at all in agreement on that.

But it's a reasonable argument. What isn't reasonable is the idea that this "cause" must be an omnipotent Being with anthropomorphic qualities such as a mind, a will, desires. This is classic God of the gaps.

[prskaloo1]

well there are couple of properties that this cause has to have. for example it has to be immaterial and eternal...

[citizenghosttown]

They already did debate and it wasn't all that interesting.

It's true that it was a very strange format - 3 on 3 with limited speaking time. But it was more than enough to understand exacty where Dawkins stands and where Craig stands. Who actually thinks that further debate will teach anybody anything?

this is all about entertainment and promotion.

I don't blame Craig for wanting to share the stage again with the famous Dawkins. I also don't blame Dawkins for not wasting his time.

[205whiteboy]

Sure would be an interesting debate. And it does seem that Dawkins is aware of the fact that this heavyweight match-up may end up being a pummeling and therefore wants no part of it.

I hope Dawkins proves me wrong and takes on this debate. Then all speculation (as far as who would win the debate) will be over.

[citizenghosttown]

On the cosmological argument, even if we accept Craig's two premises (and many cosmologists don't) the deductive argument goes no further than a conclusion that the universe has a cause.

To go from that position, to the conclusion that this cause must be an omniscient eternal "Being", with a mind and a will (curiously human-like qualities), Craig departs from deductive logic entirely and tries to rely on physics - yet not a physicist on the planet would agree with his handling of the science.

[prskaloo1]

well yes, he is a very good debater so that might be the case. if you have the wish you could explain what you think is wrong with the cosmological argument.

[kibo3232]

Fair enough.

[citizenghosttown]

"I never heard a sound objection..."

And I never heard a good argument.

It's easy enough to run through them and point out why each argument is fallacious or built on faulty premises. If you like, I'll devote one post per argument. (A fuller analysis takes more time)

What some people resent about Craig is the obvious strawman tactics (not to mention his slander of figures like Dawkins). Others are genuinely fascinated by the reverence with which he's held by fans. He's a curiosity.

[prskaloo1]

i never heard a sound objection, with one exception,and often when i asked people to give me one, often after they made accusation to wlc i was left with no answer. again i am not claiming that there is no, or that there could not be a serious objection to wlc or his arguments but what i am saying is that i never heard of them. and i am not that big of a fan, i just don't understand the resentment, hate and commotion about him .

[prskaloo1]

noted, i too wanted you to know because of that i won't consider it seriously.