Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[F1fan]

He cannot fathom half of it. He doesnt respond to most of it.

One thing creationists have evolved in their argument style is to hit atheists with loads of claims, just one bogus claim after another like a hurricane, and the atheist can't possibly go through each one in the time they have. Creationists have declared victory as a result. It illustrates the bad faith of some theists, and how they know they ant present a coherent and true argument to succeed at debate. Theists have the burden of proof typically and that puts them at an immediate disadvantage.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One thing creationists have evolved in their argument style is to hit atheists with loads of claims, just one bogus claim after another like a hurricane, and the atheist can't possibly go through each one in the time they have. Creationists have declared victory as a result. It illustrates the bad faith of some theists, and how they know they ant present a coherent and true argument to succeed at debate. Theists have the burden of proof typically and that puts them at an immediate disadvantage.

The good old "Gish Gallop."

 

[firedragon]

Nonsense. He was an extremely well read man.
Try reading some of his works sometime.

I meant in debate. So read my post.

He is definitely well read, but not on the subject matter. Absolutely not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I meant in debate. So read my post.

Yes, I'm aware.
Being well read doesn't just apply to things written on paper.

He is definitely well read, but not on the subject matter. Absolutely not.

I couldn't disagree more.

It's WLC who needs to work harder in understanding the science he reads so that he doesn't distort it so much.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I'm aware.
Being well read doesn't just apply to things written on paper.



I couldn't disagree more.

It's WLC who needs to work harder in understanding the science he reads so that he doesn't distort it so much.

Hitchens did not answer anything properly, he is unable to, and is script driven. He makes most absurd statements that sound good to the cognitive biases.

It does not work with those who do a bit of objective research.

 

[George-ananda]

You realize that two thirds of the theists on Earth believe in that "conservative Abrahamic God," right?

No, the overwhelming number of those in western society do not pay much attention to those Old Testament things Hitchens liked to harp on about. I only consider a minority of westerners 'conservative Biblical' believers at this time.

 

[Link]

Craig's best argument in about the necessary being and possible worlds whence he borrows from Plantiga, he explains well in one video I've seem. He seems to think though by his tone this is the weakest argument he has, but, in fact, it's the strongest one. It's just that it's mathematical, spiritual, and logical, and combines it all, and so it seems too good to be true. He doesn't say it's weak but he doesn't emphasize on this one too much.

His most well known one is his argument from morality that God exists. Basically without God there is no objective morality. And there is objective morality hence God exists.

He does well with it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Craig's best argument in about the necessary being and possible worlds whence he borrows from Plantiga, he explains well in one video I've seem. He seems to think though by his tone this is the weakest argument he has, but, in fact, it's the strongest one. It's just that it's mathematical, spiritual, and logical, and combines it all, and so it seems too good to be true. He doesn't say it's weak but he doesn't emphasize on this one too much.

His most well known one is his argument from morality that God exists. Basically without God there is no objective morality. And there is objective morality hence God exists.

He does well with it.

I talked to Plantinga about his ontological argument. He considers it the weakest as well. In his own words, “this is because the conclusion is too close to the premises.”

 

[Link]

I talked to Plantinga about his ontological argument. He considers it the weakest as well. In his own words, “this is because the conclusion is too close to the premises.”

It's the strongest in my view, because it shows how God is a proof for himself. This is the main reason people don't like it and so have to resort to predicate non-sense in universities and what not, and it's that when you remember God in this greatness/highness/bigness mathematically, there is no room for doubt after, and it's magical the remembrance of God and his proof of existing - by sheer bigness - it just seems to good, but it's mathematically correct. Then it's impossible God is an idea, by definition, he can't be imagined but only seen to exist. I think Plantiga and Craig both don't realize how strong this argument is and hence feel it's too good to be true.

That said I use to throw this moral argument and wondering what you think of it:

If God can create morality from nothing, he can make it whatever he wants.
If he can make whatever he wants, it can be arbitrary.
If it can be arbitrary, it can be deemed moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.
It cannot be in any possible world that it's moral to forever torture babies for no crime they done in severe torture/pain with no end to it.
Therefore morality can't be abitrary.
Therefore God can't make it whatever he wants.
Therefore God can't create morality from nothing.

If God can't bring in morality so can't evolution since God can create everything evolution can (structure wise).
Therefore morality exists eternally.

If morality exists eternally, it includes all levels of moral greatness and possible goodness.
The only being that can see ultimate morality is God
Therefore God exists eternally.

This is a longer argument, a little hard to wrap head around, but to me is a sound argument.

 

[Link]

Here I made a thread about it, so the discussion doesn't get lost: Moral argument my version - proof for God. | Religious Forums

 

[SomeRandom]

"New Atheism" and the "Four Horsemen" are embarrassments for the most part. Mostly sophomoric stuff by mostly non-philosophers. And their followers on social media are usually the worst sort of internet atheists: nasty, misogynistic, surprisingly alt-right, "facts don't care about your feelings" (even if they do not have the facts on their side on an issue), etc.

Omg this just gave me flashbacks to my high school self watching (in real time) the fall of the so called “skeptic community” on YouTube. At first it was all pointing and jeering at fundamentalists. Even calling them out on misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic ideas.
Only for these same guys to do the same, just under the guise of protecting “free speech.”
Oddly the only ones from that “era” that didn’t pivot to the Alt Right were the very troll like Creationist Cat and the very dude bro but chill Hannah and Jake. (Probably because Hannah is trans which I think caused Jake to be more open.) Telltale, who had to “deprogram” from his own sexist beliefs. His words not mine. Oh and of course Aran Ra because I think he was just too chill to join the “New Atheists.”
It was like watching a car crash. I just couldn’t look away lol. Very odd time to be a nerd online too

 

[Rise]

I haven't seen the video in question. Which arguments did Craig present? Kalam cosmological?

You can search craig vs hitchens on youtube and it will appear.

Craig has five main arguments based on the cosmological, teleological, moral, resurrection historicity evidence, and the concept of “proper basic beliefs”.
I am not really concerned with the fourth in this particular case, as I don’t find it to be a compelling line of argumentation to begin with. I am more interested right now in the general theism arguments he makes and the fact that I haven’t seen any atheist able to provide a logical refutation or counter argument against them.

Craig has put forth positive evidence and logical argumentation that would support the conclusion that God exists. Refuting that would require either showing why his logic, presumptions, or facts are wrong. As well as offering a better counter explanation for the evidence than theism provides.

Hitchens puts forth no logical refutation or counter argument to things such as the cosmological, teleological, moral arguments, or proper basic belief. The cosmological and teleological either by themselves can stand alone in supporting Craig’s conclusion that God exists.

And the moral or proper basic belief arguments demonstrate how nothing we commonly take for granted as being true, because inwardly we just know it to be true, can be true unless God exists. So those two end up indirectly proving God exists to anyone who is unwilling to accept that we don’t live in a world of objective morals. Since most people are unwilling to accept a world without any objective moral compass, they are forced to accept our shared sense of morality as proof for the existence of God. Very very few would try to argue there is no objective morality. And if they did an argument from evidence and science could be made to demonstrate that a commonly shared objective understanding of morality does exist.

Hitchens just spends most of his time finding different ways of calling God cruel and incompetent, and then posits that it doesn’t make sense to believe in such a God. But that is not a refutation of Craigs logical arguments. Hitchens opinion of how God does thing is irrelevant to disproving or refuting the logic of Craig’s argument that God must exist because the evidence and logic demand we reach that conclusion.

Hitchens ignores the actual arguments and instead engages in a type of ad hominem or red herring fallacy trying to attack the character of God. Which is irrelevant to the debate arguments put forth about God’s existence.

At several points Hitchens declares things like “I don’t find the evidence convincing enough” or “I find the logic fallacious” but he never gives any specific arguments to logically demonstrate why anything Craig said is either logically fallacious or inadequate as evidence to support his conclusion. Just because Hitchens decides he isn’t personally convinced by the arguments or evidence means nothing and is irrelevant to actually refuting the arguments Craig has made.

 

[MikeF]

Craig has five main arguments based on the cosmological, teleological, moral, resurrection historicity evidence, and the concept of “proper basic beliefs”.

Would you say that you agree with Craig's cosmological argument? Namely, would you agree that the cosmos began some 13 billions years ago as the result of a Big Bang event?

 

[F1fan]

Hitchens did not answer anything properly, he is unable to, and is script driven. He makes most absurd statements that sound good to the cognitive biases.

It does not work with those who do a bit of objective research.

The theists Hitchens debated usually had the same old regurgitated nonsense that countless others have refuted already. Hitchens was his own man with his own style and rebuttals. He was exceptionally effective. Others went after the poor claims with specific rebuttals, Hitchens didn't;t have to. He went after the absurdities of the Bible, the hypocrisy of believers, the corruption in religion, the lack of promised morality, the negative influence of religion on education, etc. He had a very human approach, and theists could rebut his observations nor address his questions.

 

[F1fan]

His most well known one is his argument from morality that God exists. Basically without God there is no objective morality. And there is objective morality hence God exists.

He does well with it.

Actually he gets stomped pretty badly trying to argue this. Craig's arguments are designed to appeal to the believer's weakness and bias, and that's why believers think it's good. It's terrible factually and objectively. It's easy for non-believers to recognize these cheap tricks because the emotional appeals don't work.

 

[firedragon]

You can search craig vs hitchens on youtube and it will appear.

Craig has five main arguments based on the cosmological, teleological, moral, resurrection historicity evidence, and the concept of “proper basic beliefs”.
I am not really concerned with the fourth in this particular case, as I don’t find it to be a compelling line of argumentation to begin with. I am more interested right now in the general theism arguments he makes and the fact that I haven’t seen any atheist able to provide a logical refutation or counter argument against them.

Craig has put forth positive evidence and logical argumentation that would support the conclusion that God exists. Refuting that would require either showing why his logic, presumptions, or facts are wrong. As well as offering a better counter explanation for the evidence than theism provides.

Hitchens puts forth no logical refutation or counter argument to things such as the cosmological, teleological, moral arguments, or proper basic belief. The cosmological and teleological either by themselves can stand alone in supporting Craig’s conclusion that God exists.

And the moral or proper basic belief arguments demonstrate how nothing we commonly take for granted as being true, because inwardly we just know it to be true, can be true unless God exists. So those two end up indirectly proving God exists to anyone who is unwilling to accept that we don’t live in a world of objective morals. Since most people are unwilling to accept a world without any objective moral compass, they are forced to accept our shared sense of morality as proof for the existence of God. Very very few would try to argue there is no objective morality. And if they did an argument from evidence and science could be made to demonstrate that a commonly shared objective understanding of morality does exist.

Hitchens just spends most of his time finding different ways of calling God cruel and incompetent, and then posits that it doesn’t make sense to believe in such a God. But that is not a refutation of Craigs logical arguments. Hitchens opinion of how God does thing is irrelevant to disproving or refuting the logic of Craig’s argument that God must exist because the evidence and logic demand we reach that conclusion.

Hitchens ignores the actual arguments and instead engages in a type of ad hominem or red herring fallacy trying to attack the character of God. Which is irrelevant to the debate arguments put forth about God’s existence.

At several points Hitchens declares things like “I don’t find the evidence convincing enough” or “I find the logic fallacious” but he never gives any specific arguments to logically demonstrate why anything Craig said is either logically fallacious or inadequate as evidence to support his conclusion. Just because Hitchens decides he isn’t personally convinced by the arguments or evidence means nothing and is irrelevant to actually refuting the arguments Craig has made.

Hitchens has a script, and that's all he knows. But he is clever. Because he knows the script that appeals to his audience. The audience loves the hatred, sarcasm, the pun, and the fun they love to make out of the usual small insulting jokes. I have no problem with jokes and some fun. Whats life without some levity?? But if you know the secret, you can still win that audience with no proper arguments or philosophical responses to anyone. In the midst of some rapid fire, throw in a few of these scripts that trigger the audiences "little jokes" they make elsewhere and they are happy. They will build a career for you.

Thats what Hitchens does. And people will worship him.

 

[Rise]

Would you say that you agree with Craig's cosmological argument? Namely, would you agree that the cosmos began some 13 billions years ago as the result of a Big Bang event?

His argument is sound. The evidence shows there was a singularity event that created the universe from nothing. I believe such a singularity event would be compatible with the Genesis account of creation.

The exact dating doesn’t actually matter with regards to proving God exists. The fact that the evidence points to a singular creation event is sufficient enough to prove God’s existence, regardless of the actual dating one believes should be attached to that event.

Some creation scholars and scientists dispute the common ages given for the universe. They think it’s younger. I have not studied it enough yet to have a firm conclusion on the matter. Some Bible scholars have differing ways of interpreting Genesis that would make it compatible with an old universe age but a short age for life on earth. But I am skeptical of engaging in stretches of the text to make them fit certain ideas which may later prove to be wrong. Because there are many cases where Christianity has tried to distort the Bible text to fit the conclusions of the science of the day only for later more accurate science to actually prove the original narrative of the Bible already reflected what was true all along.

So, although I am open to considering differing interpretations of Genesis 1 as a possibility, I am skeptical of any interpretation that goes too far out of bounds from the text.

 

[Meow Mix]

His argument is sound. The evidence shows there was a singularity event that created the universe from nothing. I believe such a singularity event would be compatible with the Genesis account of creation.

1) Singularities are approximations; limitations of the models. For instance the Raychaudhuri/Sach's/Newman-Penrose equations, relating to the bundling of null geodesics to the Ricci tensor (this is how we arrive to "singularities" with, say, a black hole, and ostensibly the earliest universe). It comes from the math that you get a singularity if there is a trapped surface, which is a closed, spacelike 2-surface whose ingoing and outgoing null congruences are converging. But this is only a result of the choice of metric. Physicists don't really assert there is such a thing as infinite mass and density in a point of zero dimensions, that would be absurd.

2) The evidence does not suggest the universe was created "from nothing." This is where Craig starts throwing around Vilenkin et al (Craig does not understand Vilenkin's work). As mentioned above, Vilenkin's work makes some assumptions about the metric of early-universe spacetime, which imposes boundary conditions that are classical (read: not quantum). Guth, one of his co-authors, has pointed this out countless times, and Vilenkin himself has said so when people have specifically brought up Craig's claims about this paper.

(Edit: I should clarify this. The problem with classical physics is that they often lead to infinities where there are actually none; consider the ultraviolet catastrophe [Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia])

The most that can be said about the early universe is that its present state had a beginning, not that there was an ontological beginning.

The exact dating doesn’t actually matter with regards to proving God exists. The fact that the evidence points to a singular creation event is sufficient enough to prove God’s existence, regardless of the actual dating one believes should be attached to that event.

Some creation scholars and scientists dispute the common ages given for the universe. They think it’s younger. I have not studied it enough yet to have a firm conclusion on the matter. Some Bible scholars have differing ways of interpreting Genesis that would make it compatible with an old universe age but a short age for life on earth. But I am skeptical of engaging in stretches of the text to make them fit certain ideas which may later prove to be wrong. Because there are many cases where Christianity has tried to distort the Bible text to fit the conclusions of the science of the day only for later more accurate science to actually prove the original narrative of the Bible already reflected what was true all along.

So, although I am open to considering differing interpretations of Genesis 1 as a possibility, I am skeptical of any interpretation that goes too far out of bounds from the text.

If interested, I wrote a series titled "Understanding Cosmology" in the Science & Religion section that covers how the universe is dated and aged.

 

[SkepticThinker]

His argument is sound. The evidence shows there was a singularity event that created the universe from nothing. I believe such a singularity event would be compatible with the Genesis account of creation.

The exact dating doesn’t actually matter with regards to proving God exists. The fact that the evidence points to a singular creation event is sufficient enough to prove God’s existence, regardless of the actual dating one believes should be attached to that event.

Some creation scholars and scientists dispute the common ages given for the universe. They think it’s younger. I have not studied it enough yet to have a firm conclusion on the matter. Some Bible scholars have differing ways of interpreting Genesis that would make it compatible with an old universe age but a short age for life on earth. But I am skeptical of engaging in stretches of the text to make them fit certain ideas which may later prove to be wrong. Because there are many cases where Christianity has tried to distort the Bible text to fit the conclusions of the science of the day only for later more accurate science to actually prove the original narrative of the Bible already reflected what was true all along.

So, although I am open to considering differing interpretations of Genesis 1 as a possibility, I am skeptical of any interpretation that goes too far out of bounds from the text.

Except that the cosmological argument doesn't get us to God(s). WLC simply inserts god into his conclusion. And not just any god - the specific god he believes in. All that without any actual demonstration whatsoever. That doesn't make for a sound argument.
Not to mention all the science he gets wrong.

 

[MikeF]

His argument is sound. The evidence shows there was a singularity event that created the universe from nothing. I believe such a singularity event would be compatible with the Genesis account of creation.

The exact dating doesn’t actually matter with regards to proving God exists. The fact that the evidence points to a singular creation event is sufficient enough to prove God’s existence, regardless of the actual dating one believes should be attached to that event.

Some creation scholars and scientists dispute the common ages given for the universe. They think it’s younger. I have not studied it enough yet to have a firm conclusion on the matter. Some Bible scholars have differing ways of interpreting Genesis that would make it compatible with an old universe age but a short age for life on earth. But I am skeptical of engaging in stretches of the text to make them fit certain ideas which may later prove to be wrong. Because there are many cases where Christianity has tried to distort the Bible text to fit the conclusions of the science of the day only for later more accurate science to actually prove the original narrative of the Bible already reflected what was true all along.

So, although I am open to considering differing interpretations of Genesis 1 as a possibility, I am skeptical of any interpretation that goes too far out of bounds from the text.

I think one of the best ways to discuss this sort of topic is through a collaborative method, by establishing points of common ground and then, together, building from there.

As for exact dating on the age of the universe, certainly a literal exact date is not required, but the relative disparity between the two considered dates is quite significant. If the disparity is quite large, that difference must be reconciled. One must look at what facts support each of the conflicting dates to see where any errors or ambiguities may lie.

Craig seems to be comfortable with dating the cosmos at approximately 13 billion years, why do you think he settled on that date? How does he justify it?