Both combatants, aware that you can’t prove a negative nor disprove the unfalsifiable, took this chance to instead advance their thoughts on religion. Despite Craig’s advantage in vetoing any but his own two points on debate, he manages to show his arguments impotent at strengthening the theist position, while of course not affecting the atheist position.
I just had a divine inspiration and wrote the following on a piece of paper:
A purple dinosaur first created everything but us and then descended through the clouds to a peach tree. The dinosaur ate a peach and threw the pit in a pool of holy water. From the water, the first woman rose. From her womb, a man was born. They had intercourse, and their children are our forefathers. There is divine proof of dinosaurs in the dust, and the holy words are right there on the paper.
Now disprove it.
An intellectual sees the inherent impossibility of proof and disproof and the equality of this newfound belief to any other. While debate is therefore fruitless, discussions on tangential and corollary subjects may still be enlightening.
The following are simply responses to the debate. Since this was just a chance for both to repeat their chief arguments for each side, and I was already familiar with Hitchens’ arguments, they are by and large responses to Craig’s.
If the idea of infinity is impossible, then the power of god is finite. If to fix this god is even outside the realm of ideas, then he is inconceivable and not a topic of contention nor debate.
Rejecting infinity and accepting the supernatural give no answers.
“Nothing comes from nothing” is a dull, insipid statement that is not falsifiable and therefore even duller when applied to something.
I find hypothetical word-play barren and dead ground since the medieval German philosophers. Other intellectuals should, too.
I dispute Craig’s scholarly insights into causality.
On christian revisionist morals:
Up until the 1970s when child abuse was banned by law, Christians had no problems with it. It’s wrong now, because we decide it’s wrong. With further scientific discoveries, christians as well us the rest of us thinking, feeling humans refine how we treat each other. An example of this is genetically inherited psychological disorders in children (such as bipolar disorder) which are now treated with medication and education, rather than electric shock therapy in asylums or beatings, “to straighten the boy out”.
The bible proposes marrying the girl you rape. Handy morals. Where or when it becomes unacceptable, simply revise the so-called absolute morals to the new, wiser morals proposed by those uncaring, blaspheming non-christians.
There’s no good argument to believe theism is true either.
The bible explains creation as a bronze-age man with more imagination than sense would. Nobody cares whether Craig believes in evolution, the point is that that creation story isn’t told in the fairytale, and that Craig believes in it only after science discovered it.
The timing of christ: Only 2.1 billion people suffered until 0 AD, oh, it’s all OK then. “A few generations after the messiah was mentioned in writing” is more like it.
Well, we all know that the christian creation story is a myth; as shown by historical evidence (see above), the purple dinosaur (eternal and all-powerful, praise his name) created the universe and first man and woman, and a whole bunch of planets just for fun. Christianity and Dinovoodoo are equally irrefutable; that’s not the problem with them. The problem is that the reasons for believing in them are equally bad.
So we don’t have to judge wrong-doers today, god will take care of that. Good, let’s all destroy the useless justice system and let killers murder until they die and get their judgment. No need to interfere with them.
Christian morality certainly is not an absolute, in fact different interpretations in the bible is what has caused the split of christianity into its many sub-religions we see today, all with moral standards of differing modernity.
Every single human’s world view consists of upbringing, social culture, experiences and faith without proof, in all kinds of things but a god. For theists, just add faith without proof, in a god. This means that all that has been said has validated everyone’s world view to a very large extent, with or without any arguments brought by Craig. This is another way of saying none of Craigs arguments has any bearing on the subject, which is unfortunate, yet poignant.
Finally, here’s an idea for a class project:
Give a student an hour to prepare. He will invent a Prime Mover + creation myth. He will then argue the case exactly as Craig, for this made up god, making miracles up as he goes along to adapt it to scientific findings and resolve contradictions where necessary.
The scary conclusion isn’t that your classmate will do just as well defending his newfound faith, but that it will be more ingenious, modern, and plausible than christianity, and that he won’t need a few millennia to get the story right.