We believe that there is no plausible evidence to believe that such a being should exist.
If such an entity existed, it wouldn't prove that it proves such a being cares about us. You cannot get from deism to theism without assumptions.
Dr. Craig must prove to a certainty that God exists. I take the role of a skeptic and can simply claim that I doubt such a being exists. The claims such as the resurrection is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. I don't believe Dr. Craig offers such evidence in is statement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
unbelievable... Hume? wow... softballs for Craig...
ReplyDeleteTo a certainty? hardly, one can believe something due to the weight of evidence providing enough support to make the decision to believe. Hyper skepticism is not an argument, it's an a priori willfully chosen state of mind and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteHitchens, too, makes a truth claim. Why should he not be required to prove it?
ReplyDeleteYup... Ignoring the arguments. Craig gave him a goldmine of evidence and Hitchens is just going to sit back. He's got to be sweating though. Someone please describe his behavior if you're watching the live feed!
ReplyDeleteJesus rose from the dead...an extraordinary claim.
ReplyDeleteA guy recorded the event in writing...ordinary evidence.
Where is the problem?
oh the humeanity!
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should keep in mind these are opening statements? Or is it normal for the 2nd person to directly respond to the other's opening points?
ReplyDeletelol Hitchens can't prove anything in science with a "certainty", it's the nature of the subject itself. What a dolt lol
ReplyDeleteThat "prove to a certainty" shot is cheap; frankly, it's probably an indication that Hitchens knows he's not up for the job of doing any real argumentative work. Anyone can say "I doubt that" with response to any argument Craig might advance. What does this show? Why is it worth having Hitchens even stand up and do that? Embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteK-mad, I think the sense of that maxim is that the evidence should be extraordinarily strong. (And I have no problem with that. It is.)
ReplyDelete"Yup... Ignoring the arguments. Craig gave him a goldmine of evidence and Hitchens is just going to sit back. He's got to be sweating though. Someone please describe his behavior if you're watching the live feed!"
ReplyDeleteWhat goldmine?
So Lenny, how skeptical are you of your own skepticism?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding, right? Craig just laid out versions of the cosmological, teleological, historical, and moral arguments. If Hitchens were prepared, he should be as happy as a mosquito in a nudist colony. Instead, he's just sweeping it all away backhanded. That's pathetic.
The claim "God does not exist" is just as much a claim to know something as saying "God does exist." Sorry, Hitch, you can't win by default.
ReplyDeleteWe believe that there is no plausible evidence to believe that such a being should exist.
ReplyDeleteIf this is even approximately correct, Hitchens does have a responsibility with respect to the arguments Craig has just laid out. Prima facie, there's evidence. Hitchens denies that there is any. Well, fella, get to work.
Right, or when someone says the evidence is not sufficient. It doesn't end there, you have to now defend your assertion that evidence is not convincing.
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeletethey aren't historical at all. He uses New Testament scholars as source, but fails to question the validity of the source at all. His other claims are based of the assumption God is inherently existent.