The Theist Challenge It's been 1000s of years, and 1000s of gods have been invented or believed in. Never has anyone managed to provide decent evidence or reasoning for there being a god. Can anyone? This is the challenge. Do you have the faith to take it up? I certainly don't

this guy is fail

@TooManyTights Unfortunately, that's not how it works. I'm not trying to disprove God, I'm just responding to Craig's attempts to prove him. The burden of proof is on he who is making the claim.

@chebob2009 Better, much better. You are right. And if it could be demonstrated that minds always and only function collaboratively with physical brains, then you would have a proof against God.

@TooManyTights Alternatively, (playing devils advocate) you can't evaluate the complexity of a non-existent entity. But if that entity is dependent on an existent entity (the brain), we at least know that we need account for that complexity. To assume otherwise, you need to demonstrate that a mind can exist without a brain.

@chebob2009 I need to get a cushion for my palm. My face hurts.

@TooManyTights I'm not interested in exchanging childish attacks. Only arguments. Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher, he's an evolutionary biologist. The FACT is, that while we give the name 'mind' to something that we imagine is non-physical, there's no evidence that any such thing exists. It's entirely possible that what you call a 'mind' is just the workings of your physical brain. Until you can demonstrate otherwise, the argument is invalid.

@chebob2009 You're kidding... you think evaluating the complexity of a non existent entity actually makes sense? So sad. Where have the intelligent atheists gone? Seriously, I can't believe there are people who think Richard Dawkins is a actually real philosopher :( Come back, Nietzsche, all is forgiven.

@utopiaopera A huge difference between Dawkins and a religious extremist! Whatever you feel about his arguments, he doesn't force his belief on children, he doesn't try and force his beliefs on others by taking away their freedoms (e.g gay marriage) and he doesn't use violence. 3 very important differences

@TooManyTights Well no that doesn't make his argument weak, no-one has ever demonstrated that a mind can exist without a body. You've pointed out the problem there yourself- (assuming milk only comes from cows) milk cannot exist without the cow so it doesn't matter how simple milk is, the complexity of the cow needs to be explained. Until you have some proof that milk can exist without a cow, you're lost.

@chebob2009 FACT: A mind is a non-physical entity. Even if it did wholly depend on a brain...so what? Milk depends on cows. You are right that Dawkins doesn't believe that a mind could exist separate from a body .. which is of course why his argument is so weak. He is making judgments about the complexity of an entity he doesn't believe is possible. Dawkins is just logically impaired.

@TooManyTights Well you're welcome to say a mind is a non-physical entity. There's no reason to think it doesn't depend on physical complexity though. I don't think your (or my) mind could exist without a brain. That's something you'd need to demonstrate. I imagine this is Dawkins' thinking as I know it is with many other biologists.

@chebob2009 I said "no working physical parts" which is obviously true (a mind is a non physical entity). If no one has a clue what a mind is... then Dawkins has no right to postulate that the complexity of a mind must be greater than the things that mind produces. So, you're telling me that Dawkins is talking about stuff he doesn't understand. And we are in agreement on that.

@TooManyTights You can't say that a mind has no working parts because no-one on the planet has a clue as to what a mind really is. A lot of biologists think your mind is a product of the millions of neurones in your brain. In which case it would be complex.

@28daveslater I'd say it's a fair enough statement. Take evolution, you don't need an explanation of how evolution started for evolution to be the best explanation of life on earth. I don't think there's a problem in that logic. The problem is that Craig is completely misinterpreting Dawkins' argument, as always. Dawkins is saying that since there is no evidence for God, it's unscientific to seek such a complex solution to a problem that may have a simple one. A form of Occam's razor.

@DarrinRT This is a perfect example of why WLC Craig wins all his debates. Atheists can't even understand the arguments let alone refute them.

@Hufflewaffle According to Dawkins definition complexity is a function of working physical parts ... thus a mind, having no physical parts would, by Dawkins definition be simple. I think WLC's advanced secret research is called 'logic'.

oh this guy really just needs to stfu. All his points are completely weak and easily torn down with the slightest moment of thinking.

Craig is not logical listen why. This is so easy. 1)He uses a false analogy of loking at ancient artifacts because there is in fact an explanation of where ancient people came from. 2)Dawkins point, which is logically correct (that's an objective fact), is that the premise that "something can't come from nothing" begs the question of who designed the designer because as stated, "something can't come from nothing". Therefore, if god can exist without being designed, so too can the universe.

Craig is not logical listen why. This is so easy. 1)He uses a false analogy of loking at ancient artifacts because there is in fact an explanation of where ancient people came from. 2)Dawkins point, which is logically correct (that's an objective fact), is that the premise that "something can't come from nothing" begs the question of who designed the designer because as stated, "something can't come from nothing". Therefore, if god can exist without being designed, so too can the universe.

@TooManyTights Not my logic Dr. William Lane Craig's I think you'll find.

What the Average Youtube Atheist - perhaps no such being exists, but the hypothetical AYA represents certain features of Youtube Atheism that do exist - seems to have in mind in answering that question, doesn't match what Mainstream Christian Theism (an equally approximate category) has in mind. The question assumes as understood on both sides in the same sense things that may not be understood in the same sense So we end up talking past one other, instead of learning from one another :(

So God is remarkably simple for being immaterial, for having no parts or composition? Even granting that, the omnipotence seems quite complex to me however. The ability to shape energy and craft planets and lifeforms at will really is quite complex.

@28daveslater Wow - that was a truly bizarre attempt at logic.

@GaryLyons "The only explanation for the universe's existence is for something that is uncaused, timeless and immaterial to have created it" Thats an assertion. Any evidence for this? No? Didnt think so.... Silly christians and their word games, they hate science and have no idea how difficult and counter intuitive it is. But they sure come running back once their kids get sick, when the chips are down, no amount of faith can keep reality from slapping them in the face.