Richard Dawkins Made The Worst Argument Against God In The History of Western Thought

http://reasonablefaith.org - Richard Dawkins Made The Worst Argument Against God In The History of Western Thought. I'm sure we've heard worse but in the academy (which is filled with intellectuals) you will not find a more shallow atheistic argument against the existence of God by none other than atheist Richard Dawkins. William Lane Craig shows how incredibly bad, inept, and incompetent Dawkins' "central argument" is in the book The God Delusion.

Links to more videos on William Lane Craig:

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E104D9B7DFE9B7F6

William Lane Craig and his arguments and evidence for God:

Contingency Argument for God (the Leibnizian Argument):

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A7CE655E55212940

Kalam Cosmological Argument for God:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=54765A57944CEDDB

Teleological Argument for God:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9A91B68D2FB071C1

Ontological Argument for God:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=48F0C019551ADD08

Moral Argument for God:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EB04E423535F5D7C

Belief in God as Properly Basic:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PLEDED3EA10698ACE2

Category:

Education

Tags:

• God
• Delusion
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Worst
• Argument
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Intelligent
• Design
• Darwinism
• Evolution
• Central
• multiverse
• atheism
• atheist
• apologetics
• religion
• philosophy

[drcraigvideos]

@residentatheist It's NEVER amazing to me an atheist won't bother listening to this video at all. Craig is open to evolution and doesn't think it is incompatible with theism. Furthermore, Craig was speaking on Dawkins' "central argument" in The God Delusion. If you think the incredibly bad thinking Dawkins has a great argument in his central argument, then eat your heart out. I know of no reputable philosopher (atheist or theist) whoh thinks his argument is a good one.

[drcraigvideos]

@dpaanlka Of course God doesn't physically exist. So do a lot of other things. The laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, absolute, and necessary, yet it exists immaterially. You speak of something existing physically and scientifically yet you don't even know what a science tube is?

[Gorzakk]

Dawkins is a great evolutionary biologist and is superb at explaining complex scientific principles of evolution to the layman, but he is totally inept with any form of theology or philosophy. I don't understand why many of my fellow think his unquestionable expertise in his own field makes him qualified on matters far outside it.

His arguments against religion are shockingly bad, and there aren't more reasonable atheists making much better arguments. I sense this is more about celebrity

[TarriCJx19]

@MacabreManifesto LOL!!

[drcraigvideos]

@therorysnake Why would you say it's not dead or alive? Either something is alive or not. I mean duh.

[therorysnake]

@drcraigvideos Why would you say it's dead?

[drcraigvideos]

@therorysnake Uh, yeah, nature is neither alive or dead. That's a very smart assessment.

[therorysnake]

@drcraigvideos I think it's incorrect to describe nature as alive or dead, mindful or oblivious, and intelligent or stupid. Nature is best described as a collection of forces and matter interacting; whether or not it has a mind behind it is another question. Clearly you disagree, and I'd like you to explain if you will :)

[drcraigvideos]

@therorysnake Oh, I'm sorry, uh, yeah, nature is alive and mindful and intelligent. You're too fast for me!

[drcraigvideos]

@baldurus1 Uh, yeah, Dawkins didn't make an argument against God that's why he decided to give justification for the probability that God doesn't exist in The God Delusion.

You are a very smart person.

[therorysnake]

@drcraigvideos Stop describing nature like a human... 'blind and mindless and stupid and unintelligent and dead' are all things you can describe living things as, but 'nature' was never alive or dead to begin with, and calling nature stupid implies that nature could be smarter, which misunderstands the nature of nature.

[baldurus1]

Dawkins has never made any argument against a god.

So this "refutation" is pointless and dishonest.

9th commandment: thou shalt not lie!