RE: Carl Sagan vs William Lane Craig (a response to thunderf00t)

A response to thunderf00t and his low-view of philosophy and common sense thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reMjgNeYsOE

Woudl it kill atheists to understand the Kalam Cosmological argument properly?

Helpful links:

William Lane Craig is not a creationist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7WNzoiUAe8

How Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin out of context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aemfYmusSY

10 Really Bad Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSluNqGxRA

Answerking more objections to KCA:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=916E17EE70E98A68

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Carl
• Sagan
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Richard
• Dawkins
• atheism
• atheist
• Darwin
• Kent
• beginning
• of
• the
• universe
• astronomy
• cosmos
• Debate
• Creationism
• why
• do
• people
• laugh
• at
• creationists
• thunderf00t
• WDPLAC
• thunderfoot

[robcallowfof]

gibberish. Where is your evidence for this convoluted description?

[CrimsonDragonStar]

@bbryant0620 My comment regarding "unsophistication" was a reference to WLC's constant belittling of Dawkins' works as being weak and feeble. I will agree that a god is neither provable or improvable, but God is an unreasonable concept, given what we understand of the universe and nature. Which is why gods are continually referred to as supernatural. As in, beyond what is natural. And there is no reason to accept anything that is beyond nature as existing with any validity.

[CrimsonDragonStar]

@bbryant0620 No, I do not agree, at all. You have simply made a list of characteristics your god possesses and applied them to your conclusion. All of which are pure assertion with no relevance beyond your personal faith in a god. It is not deductive logic, it is reverse engineering a concept into something you hope resembles a valid argument. There is absolutely no reason to accept that a timeless, immaterial, non-spacial, all powerful being is even possible, much less probable.

[CrimsonDragonStar]

@bbryant0620 And why would a being be, at all, the absolute conclusion to the universe being caused? In a universe so driven by forces and energy, why isn't the cause being no different from them plausible? Again, more proof of building the premises on your preconceived notions. A foot in the door. If you can get someone to accept that the cause is A being, then it is all too easy to hop to that being is YOUR god.

[CrimsonDragonStar]

@bbryant0620 The Kalam Cosmological Argument tries to impose a god from the start and works toward that end by twisting what little we have learned of the universe and its probable origins until their god fits into the equation, then they act like it is so very obvious that you would have to be an idiot to not accept it. That is why I call it a ploy. It is a last ditch effort to make the concept of God more than what it is, a faith-based belief with no actual support.

[CrimsonDragonStar]

@bbryant0620 "Everything that we have observed in the natural universe points towards this being accurate." And is human observation so advanced as to make a credible assertion about such an event? We have "educated" guesses, nothing more. If your conclusion hinders upon a "perhaps" then it is very weak, at best. As far as my comment on your building the premises around a conclusion, that is easily apparent from you clinging to an argument that is obviously just that.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@bbryant0620

"if the 2 premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily"

But the premises can't shown to be true. "All elephants are pink. Tim is an elephant, therefore Tim is Pink" is a valid argument, but it's not sound, since all elephants are not pink.

"philosophy does not require demonstrations or proof"

Then why does Craig dare to make claims about the nature of the universe using philosophical reasoning?

"reason based on facts."

Craig doesn't use facts.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@bbryant0620

"The only conclusion we come to? absolutely from this argument is that a being of certain qualities exists that resembles our God quite a bit."

No, that's by far not the only conclusion. You're presenting a false dichotomy ("either it's a natural cause, or it's a personal god") combined with the God of the Gaps ("we have no explanation for the natural cause , so ...."). Anybody with a bit of imagination can come up with many more possible explanations.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@bbryant0620

"It must be personal, as it chose to create this universe."

You're begging the question, since you haven't shown that a universe needs to be "willed" into existence.

"Timeless, immaterial, spaceless, immensely powerful, personal, and it must have a consciousness."

These are all baseless assertions, and mostly a result of theistic wishful thinking.