It's not lazy thinking, nor is it hopeful thinking. I would be completely content with dying and not existing. It would be just like it was for me before I was born. I'm simply not going to negate something when I have no evidence for negating it.
Hold on a second... we aren't talking about whether or not god is worth arguing for right now. We are talking about absolutely whether or not a god exists. Clearly, given the current evidence (lack of it, actually) for god, it would be absurd to argue for the existence of god right now. But for some reason, you have a hard time tolerating the answer "I don't know".
It's not gullibility. If I was gullible, I would believe in it. I don't. I also didn't assign equal levels of validity for both sides. I haven't assigned levels of validity at all. I have no evidence to do so rationally. I, very simply put, just don't know at the given time. The origin of the universe has not yet been discovered, and I accept that.

I forgot one. Other than how Craig's arguments are tired and get shot down handily by pretty much everybody, there's this: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra...onable%20Faith

Expected response.

What makes his claim unfounded? What makes Hume's claim founded? If you're going to jump into the skepticist boat, then there's no sense in continuing this argument, and the fact that you lol'ed at my attempt to claim scientific evidence in support of a creator is just laughably ironic.

When you rebuttal people with that unwarranted assumption, not much will get accomplished.

I think you're misunderstanding my lack of wanting to argue for/against a god as the exact opposite.

I'm asking you why you believe god has a possibility of existing above other disregarded beliefs.

Excuse my wording then and replace hopeful with naive/oblivious if that helps.

I'm just going to borrow davo's comment since you seem to be looking past it for even your own point:

One doesn't need to qualify the dismissal of an unfounded claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The assertion being that the topic of god has enough of whatever it is that you think without doubt that existence is at all possible.

What? Dismissal of an unfounded claim? If you think he's actually respected by any community other than other apologists, then it's on you to provide proof of that.
Here's just one example of Craig treading water while someone much more intelligent picks him apart.


I don't expect a response for a couple hours. I expect you'll extend the same courtesy as I did and watch the whole debate before responding. Yes, it's supposed to be ironic that I posted the first part of the debate you posted. Because you didn't watch the whole thing.

Here's another:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigBradleyHellDebate.mp3
And another:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigParsonsDebate.mp3

He gets trounced. This is ignoring the fact that live debates are largely irrelevant. This would serve to better support my point, but I don't expect you to actually read something. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4w3vftzbg1...nterpoint_.pdf

Here's a non-debate form takedown of Craig's terrible arguments:


Again, please watch the whole thing before responding.
The fact that he asserts it as axiomatic without actually providing any kind of reason to accept it as axiomatic?

Hey why not come back when you actually know the "claim" you're talking about, kay pumpkin?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CauIndInfNegPha

"If you're going to demand evidence when someone presents a claim, then I'm taking my ball and going home!"



Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I must have missed the scientific evidence there. I did notice a lot of ignorance and handwaving about philosophical, scientific, and mathematical concepts way above one's paygrade, though. Is that what you meant by "scientific evidence"?

Here's a somewhat thorough textual rebuttal to Craig's brand of the cosmological argument:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...al-argument/#4

Please read it.

The origin of the universe has not been scientifically explained yet. I disregard beliefs that contradict the science we have and our logic. The concept of god doesn't inherently contradict the science we have, nor does it contradict our logic. What many religious people have conceived about god does, though... so naturally those get disregarded.
How is it naive and oblivious? If a notion doesn't contradict our current information and is logically consistent, I'm not going to negate it on the basis of lack of evidence. I will consider it unfounded.

The problem I have with your assumption of anything that has no current evidence should be negated is that you end up negating concepts that could be proven true in the future.

Look at the scientific concepts we have been able to prove with our current technology. 1000 years ago, they didn't have that equipment, and thus didn't have sufficient, if any, evidence to affirm those concepts at the time. By your argument, it would be rational to negate those concepts at that time period. Since it was proven true later, was it really logical to negate the concept originally in the first place?

For your argument to be true, we have to assume that our evidence, our ability to obtain evidence, and our knowledge will not grow.

And what you're getting at is a false dichotomy. If they haven't proven anything yet, that doesn't simply mean then God did it (or rather if god should even be considered in the discussion!)

You're still on this whole "for/against" schtick. What I'm talking about what precedes that discussion.

There's no reason to take it as an offense, I'm not calling you naive and oblivious, it's the thinking.

That's just a bunch of 'woo woo' nonsense. What's unfounded is your naive assumption that god has enough sufficient evidence or reason behind the mere idea that it's worth talking about/onsidering true.

That's because I'm not saying anything that does not have evidence cannot be thought of or imagined. I'm saying that the idea of a god is unfounded, scientifically.

No one's blaming them! Certainly not myself. lol

I'm stating it's a cause of sheer lack of what you're arguing they did not have. I'm not arguing against their ignorance, you're mistaking what I said for pity, apparently.

PS. Going to watch a movie, I'll come back later.

@Davo. I've watched some of that debate, but honestly it wasn't very compelling to me. I mean I will say this, Craig does repeat a lot of the same stuff in his debates, so if you've seen one you've seen them all. On the other hand, Hitchens didn't offer much of a rebuttal to Craig's claims, and the fact that he kept throwing in seemingly personal jabs at the Christian community, I just found myself getting upset.

You can dismiss Craig if you want, that's fine. I won't dismiss Hitchens or Dawkins or anyone else's argument, even your own had you chosen to present one (from what I can tell all you do is pick apart other's conclusions instead of presenting you're own opinions). I think you and I both realize neither of us is going to convince the other, which is why I'm not going to waste a lot of time in this thread. I like the discussion though, and more interestingly enough the different positions held by everyone here.

I did not mean to post the Hitchens debate. I dislike Hitchens.


I pick apart others' claims about religion and don't tend to make my own because I don't have any. I don't need to provide an alternative because atheism is the default stance.