Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig

[Won2blv]

He does it in his famous what if you're wrong response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf3d_e9amPs

[Won2blv]

In TGD pages 157,158 he uses fallacious reasoning that we attribute a designer to what we think is a design. But that would raise the question, who designed the designer. That is not a refutation of a designer at all. And then he points to evolution as a more field tested scientific theory. But it certainly doesn't prove that there is no god. And then he say that there isn't a similar theory for physics but there will be. And in conclusion, there certainly is not a god. I am not even saying that he is wrong and WLC is right, he is just clearly responsible for skewed arguments that are tinted in a way that makes people feel stupid if they do believe in god.

[Longhorn]

Dawkins doesn't say 'there certainly is no god'. Hell, the chapter is titled 'why there ALMOST CERTAINLY is no god'

[Mr.wizard]

In TGD pages 157,158 he uses fallacious reasoning that we attribute a designer to what we think is a design. But that would raise the question, who designed the designer. That is not a refutation of a designer at all. And then he points to evolution as a more field tested scientific theory. But it certainly doesn't prove that there is no god. And then he say that there isn't a similar theory for physics but there will be. And in conclusion, there certainly is not a god. I am not even saying that he is wrong and WLC is right, he is just clearly responsible for skewed arguments that are tinted in a way that makes people feel stupid if they do believe in god.

Its not meant to refute a designer and he doesn't say that it does. What he is saying is that if someone is using complexity as the hallmark of design then they must apply the same logic to the designer who would be considered even more complex than his design. This raises a problem for intelligent design because they are asserting an uncreated creator. He also does not say we will have a theory in physics for it, he says we should not give up hope for one. He also says "God almost certainly does not exist" which is different from "there certainly is not a god". So I guess I can see how you think his arguments are skewed when you either didn't understand or misquoted everything he said.

[Justtristo]

You son of a bitch......your necro made me think Tristo was back......

Die in a fire.

I am back now, I do have a life outside this forum you know

Anyway the cornerstone of William Lane Craig's apologetics is that the Gospels are historically reliable. However they are not in any sense historically reliable, therefore Craig's apologetic's aren't particularly good.

[robvalue]

I'd say the cornerstone of his apologetics is being a massive douche and flooding the issue with irrelevancy to hide his fallacious reasoning.