DrWilliamCraigVideos
Evidence For Gods Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath)
Similar Posts
Daniel Dennett: All time best arguments against religion/faith #1
Humans or Artificial Intelligence: Who's in Charge? – with Karen Kilroy
Public Risk Management for AI:. The Path Forward | Matt Scherer
One thought on “Evidence For Gods Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath)”
Comments are closed.
Why is it every time an anti-theist can't refute William Lane Craig's arguments he goes on a rant about WLC's style of debate, general demeanor, etc.? Why can't they just stick to the topic and stop with all the BS? In this speech, Dennett doesn't bother to explain why if the premises are true and the logic is sound, the conclusion is still somehow implausible. He just asserts that some vague something must be wrong. David Lewis said "I cannot refute an incredulous stare". Well this is mighty close to being exactly that!
When Dennett finally does try to focus on the argument, he still ignores Craig's reasoning in getting from a "cause of the universe" to a god. He foolishly questions the statement "abstract objects (like numbers) can't cause anything", letting the world know he's willing to dig in his heels at just about every logical step WLC outlines. Hell, Dennett, you might as well go all the way back to "But is the universe real?" if that's the game you're gonna play.
And is he serious? A physical object that can be attached to a house is not an abstract object.
Also, I love how he just asserts that Vilenkin wouldn't agree with what WLC is saying about the theorem, completely oblivious to the fact that Vilenkin has already confirmed that Craig represented the theorem quite well! Oops! And Dennett admits he doesn't understand what the fuck Craig and Vilenkin are even talking about but feels the need to say Craig's wrong anyway. What. The. Hell.
He does try to say that if god is changeless it means that he won't answer prayers. But that's demonstrating a lack of understanding of a god existing outside of time, clearly. And he closes with suggesting that theists not educate themselves on matters of cosmology. Could that be because when they do, they become a force to be reckoned with in debate like WLC? 😛