RE: Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig
October 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm
(This post was last modified: October 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 24, 2011 at 1:23 pm)JollyForr Wrote: I've never really understood the cosmological argument for God's existence. Not because of the content, but because of the pointlessness of it.
Men of different faiths use this argument in support of their own deity. If arguments such as these prove the existence of a God, then imagine a Christian and a Muslim shaking hands in great jubilation, knowing all along that Space Daddy WAS indeed up there, and that the atheists were fools for ever doubting his/her/he-shes presence. Isn't there a glaring contradiction right there?
For all I know, that argument could support an ancient five-legged lizard as being the creator; if I believe in it, then it HAS to be the thing up there, right?
Very true.
Even if the CA was logically valid, all it could possibly do would be to is to some sort of creator deity. But there is no possible way to discern what sort of creator it would be.
But that is a moot point, since the CA contains a huge equivocation fallacy that invalidates it. I laugh at WLC's version of the CA, since all he's doing trying to polish a turd.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
