Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Dude. That's one of the best parody arguments I've ever seen. You deserve a cookie.This is actually pretty hilarious.
Argument Against the Existence of God from William Lane Craig (AKA Argument from Craig)
1. Per mainstream Christian theology*, WLC will go to Heaven (he has fulfilled the requirement of believing in and accepting Jesus).
2. Heaven is a perpetual state of doing what you love to do.
3. WLC loves to debate atheists.
4. There are no atheists in Heaven (they do not fulfill the requirement in 1).
5. WLC will not be able to do something he loves to do in Heaven (per 3 and 4), which derives a contradiction (with 2).
6. Therefore, either Heaven can't exist, or WLC cannot go to to Heaven. But he will go to Heaven (per 1), so Heaven can't exist.
7. If Heaven can't exist, then mainstream Christian theology is false, and the God of Christianity doesn't exist.
by GRWelsh
Oh my god I just burst out laughing in tech class. DAMMIT! xD That was hilarious, although I think that premise 3 is flawed, because what he loves is not so much debating atheists as being a ****whistle.This is actually pretty hilarious.
Argument Against the Existence of God from William Lane Craig (AKA Argument from Craig)
1. Per mainstream Christian theology*, WLC will go to Heaven (he has fulfilled the requirement of believing in and accepting Jesus).
2. Heaven is a perpetual state of doing what you love to do.
3. WLC loves to debate atheists.
4. There are no atheists in Heaven (they do not fulfill the requirement in 1).
5. WLC will not be able to do something he loves to do in Heaven (per 3 and 4), which derives a contradiction (with 2).
6. Therefore, either Heaven can't exist, or WLC cannot go to to Heaven. But he will go to Heaven (per 1), so Heaven can't exist.
7. If Heaven can't exist, then mainstream Christian theology is false, and the God of Christianity doesn't exist.
by GRWelsh
I would disagree, with the exception of Bill O'Reilly; he's in a separate league competing with the other Fox News associates.Granted, he does use some sneaky tactics, but he isn't on the same level of rudeness and disingenuous behavior as the likes of Dawkins and Krauss, and Bill O' Reily if you want to include non-academics.
Craig essentially said outright that even if he was presented with a personal view of Jesus's tomb, and was able to view him rotting and, you know, not coming back to life, he would still believe in the resurrection. That's got to be worth mocking, and I think that qualifies him for "simple-minded person with blind faith".It's as if certain atheists will hate any Christian that doesn't fit their romantic idea of a simple minded person who thinks blind faith is all you need for religion.
Granted, he does use some sneaky tactics, but he isn't on the same level of rudeness and disngenious behaviour as the likes of Dawkins and Krauss, and Bill O' Reily if you want to include non-academics.
Yeah, I know some people don't care for the guy, but there's no reason to go insulting O'Reilly like that.Also, you're comparing the disingenuous behavior of Richard Dawkins with that of Bill O'Reilly?! Seriously? Ouch, dude.
I don't know what you're sources are, but Craig explicitly says the opposite.Craig essentially said outright that even if he was presented with a personal view of Jesus's tomb, and was able to view him rotting and, you know, not coming back to life, he would still believe in the resurrection. That's got to be worth mocking, and I think that qualifies him for "simple-minded person with blind faith".
I meant to say that there is little reason for someone to hate Craig other than that person being an anti-theist.O'Reilly is in the separate league, not Craig.
Edit: And how does being an anti-theist qualify as being disingenuous or rude for that matter?
How so?Dawkins is far more disingenious than Craig, but O'Reily is in a leage of his own.
Just curious, have you ever read the Q&A (He answers weekly e-mail questions, it's not some generic template) from his website?So apart from the ressurrection comment, why do people hate him so much?
Dawkins isn't getting death threats from rational theists though, he's gettin them from the idiots, and there are idiots in every belief.I think "hate him so much" is an overstatement. No atheist is sending Craig death threats over what he says. Which you can't say the same about any well known atheist. Dawkins gets a regular and large stream of death threats every day. You have to take them seriously. So consider that before you talk about hate
But mostly it's:
a) Saddening to see religion poison what appears to be an otherwise intelligent mind. He'll put together one sound argument, then another sound argument, then BOOM complete nonsensical christian dogma.
b) Tries to dishonestly obscure his leaps in logic from deism to theism. I can follow where he comes from when he talks about god as if it's some "first cause". Some creator figure. And then somehow then comes to the conclusion that all of it must have come about by way of talking snakes, burning bushes, and ritualistic torture and murder. And talks of the historicity of the bible... as if that's even a subject worth mentioning... it's eye-roll-worthy.
Dawkins has made it clear that he doesn't care about the philosopher's ivory tower version of God. He is certainly more concerned about the plumber's opinion. Also, so when Dawkins engages theologians such as Alister McGrath, Father George Coyne, John Lennox, is he not attempting to be informed?Dre. said:Rv- Because Dawkins is guilty of using his reputation in one profession to talk with a false sense of authority in a profession he has no qualification in. Craig at least makes an attempt to be scientifically informed, or references other scientists, regardless of whether his science is right or wrong. His opinion on God is the equivalent of a plumber's opinion.
Has Dawkins claimed that Craig is specifically a YEC? In the video of Dawkins being asked about a possible debate with Craig, he says that he doesn't debate creationists and people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. Craig's views are borderline creationist. When asked, he said he hasn't taken a firm position and that he would be somewhere between progressive creationism and theistic evolution. So while he may not be a died in the wool creationist, he still exhibits some of their most notable behaviors, such as misrepresenting evolution in public settings. I think Craig would fairly fall in the latter category as well. While he can cite some academic work, that's not what he's most known for.He's also quite disingenuous in that he labels Craig a young Earth creationist, when Craig has publicly stated that the world is 13.7 billion years old, and will continue to criticise him yet refuse to debate him.
Since I would cite some of the responses if I were to write a paper concerning the worse examples of employing the principle of charity.And I have read some of his Q and As, I'm actually using some of them in my paper (I basically just use them as criticism bait to up my word count). Why do you ask?
If this is the case, then he is talking with a false sense of authority when it comes to probability theory. The mistakes he makes are laughable. For example, he thinks a good argument is one in which the premises are more likely to be true than not. This leads to accepting arguments that have conclusions that are nearly certainly false. However, when called on this, he resorts back to the deductive phrasing asking which premise is false or likely false. However, in probability, you can have an argument where every premise is likely to be true, yet you are rationally obligated to reject the conclusion. He is either incompetent of what he is doing or being disingenuous. The design argument displays ignorance with regards to probability. Are you prepared to say that Craig is "guilty of using his reputation in one profession to talk with a false sense of authority in a profession he has no qualification in"?Because he uses the probabilistic approach, and doesn't justify the positive mp assumptions he makes, the atheist isn't required to justify the positive mp assumptions they themselves make.
Perhaps we should have a debate-off for it. Would get some interest going around here.It seems that people don't want to vote here first. We might as well just all vote in secrecy, it's not as if it's that big of a deal if the right person doesn't win.
Is there even a prize for it?
Can I get a reference?Dre. said:The problem with Dawkins not caring about sophisticated theism is that he portrays his work as attacking sophisticated theism.
Well firstly, his books is titled The 'God' Delusion, not The 'Religion Delusion'.Can I get a reference?
Have you read the God Delusion? He defines the God Hypothesis on page 52, and it is more in line of what a lay person would believe than what a theologian would believe. For one, all he would have to show is that humans were not the product of a deliberate process and he would have made his case, which you already conceded would be relevant to his field of expertise. Considering this is what the majority of the U.S. believes (78% as of December '10), it seems reasonable to write a book making that the target. Focusing on the title of the book is akin to the critics who thought that the Selfish Gene meant that we had a gene that made us selfish. You have to actually read the book.Well firstly, his books is titled The 'God' Delusion, not The 'Religion Delusion'.
Secondly, he debates academics who study religion.
That and the fact he doesn't mention the distinction in his works, or at least I haven't seem him mention it.
So when he said in the video I linked before that the theologian's faith is completely different than the layman version, he is not conveying a distinction? He has done the exact opposite of what you accuse him of doing.The point is that he conveys to the public that that is all there is God and religion. This why he's been criticises by so many academics.
So when creationists think that Darwin thought the eye is irreducibly complex and is a major problem for the theory of evolution, is that a failure on the part of the author or reader? He may have not made it clear, but simply because someone misinterprets something, it does not automatically mean that the fault is on the author.Yeah I saw that, and I was glad he said that, but it's not made clear in his works.
For example, I've had people reference Dawkins to me, because they think he actually refutes God.
Here it is:I can't judge the Darwin situation because I'm not sure how clear he made it.
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.