Who Designed the Designer? - A Fallacious Response to Richard Dawkins by William Lane Craig

In this response of Dr. Craig to Dawkins, he misses the point, because Dawkins' argument---admittetly ill formulated---is not about an explanation of the explanation. It's about the explanatory power and the implications of the explanation. An explanation has to answer questions and advance knowledge instead of just iterating and therefore preserving the problem.

The designer argument explains nothing at all but raises additional questions. (What is God? Who is God? How does God work? Why is there God instead of something else? How can a God conduct a tempral concept (acting) and be timeless at the same moment, etc)

An explanation has to be an explanation, that is to say, it has to explain anything. But saying, that there must be a timelesse personal bodyless being, even if we don't know what that means, or how that being acts, is to say "I don't know"

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Richard
• Dawkins
• god
• designer
• designed
• design
• creationism
• creationist
• bullshit
• explanation
• fallacious
• stupidity
• stupid
• wrong
• universe
• big
• bang
• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• evolution
• philosophy

[31Uriel]

Craig didn't make the watchmaker-argument at the end, that's a misrepresentation. He just gave an example, that in order to be a good explanation one doesn't need an explanantion of the explanation.

[capoman1]

I sincerely hope that Dawkins didn't phrase the question "WHO" designed the designer. I don't think he would ask exactly that question. Perhaps unless he is phrasing the question in creationist lingo for creationists.

[Tronoslycer]

@aaoppe any need for explanation falls before an EVIDENCE!!

[aaoppe]

Nice video. Craig also claims that you would never have an explanation for anything if you needed an explanation of the explanation, which is simply very bad philosophy. Just because you haven't got an explanation for everything, doesn't mean you have no eplanation for anything. That's the purpose of science - its goal is to fill in the gaps, modifying and updating existing theories as it goes along. So from a scientific perspective, and Dawkins is a scientist; the question is perfectly valid.

[lilrat489]

craig answers this objection. in another video: watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw

[Erdnussspass]

The "additional questions" raised by the designer hypothesis are all answered in Richard Swinburnes "The Existence of God". My recommendation: read it and then remove the video inconspicuously.

[AegeanKing]

@MewCat100  You never said I was a troll because I wasn't trolling. You are the one who takes the time to come onto these videos just to bother people and to demand from them that they defend their beliefs to you as if they owed you some kind of explanation. You're a pathetic and brazen troglodyte who is obsessed with his own unbelief. Its not possible to have civilized discourse with such a person.

[MewCat100]

@AegeanKing I never said you were a troll. You must be projecting your own feelings about yourself onto others. Like I said, if you don't have anything to say or you don't obtain value from the conversation, you are free to go about your merry way. It seems, however, that the conversation has degraded from at least a semblance of trying to reason to you just calling names and hurling insults. As such, I will be no longer be talking to you if you cannot return to a civilized discourse.

[AegeanKing]

@MewCat100 No, im not the troll, you are. Its you that should stop responding. Go and get a hobbie or a job. Stop bothering people with your nonsensical outbursts demanding that people defend their beliefs to you as if you were somebody important that they owed an answer to. You are just some pathetic troll who probably lives in his mothers basement and is so obsessed with his own unbelief that he can not help but bother people. You're just an annoying pest. Nothing more. Like a cockroach.