I kind of agree with the last closing statement. All the apologists arguments for a theistic universe are easilly refuted, but it seems like Hitchens doesn't bother refuting them.

It ended at 1:15 for me, but I see a time of 1:59. Is there a second part?

>> ^eric3579:
It ended at 1:15 for me, but I see a time of 1:59. Is there a second part?


No, I saw the whole 1:59 minutes of it here via the embed.

>> ^Haldaug:
I kind of agree with the last closing statement. All the apologists arguments for a theistic universe are easilly refuted, but it seems like Hitchens doesn't bother refuting them.


Are they easily refuted? Refute them for me here, then.
You don't know that they are easily refuted because the arguments against them have not yet been made, or at least made in full - so that they are refuted. Perhaps Hitchens didn't have enough time to do so, but that doesn't mean he can. (Although I personally believe he could, perhaps with the aid of 3 other Atheists, so it would be a more balanced debate. More talking points were made, obviously, by the Christians, and they took up more time - subtracting time from the arguments Hitchens could have made.)

This is inconclusive, and as the last person suggested, more in-depth discussion should be had.

Evolutionary Biology, Astronomy, History... there, I think I refuted everything but feel free to add more.

Try this link if your interested in following up on the History aspect. http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?pc=Professor&cid=643

I'm currently reading "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. These apologists should talk w/ this guy.



Personally for me, it started with the bible itself. Once you realize that Bible is a human book and not inspired divinely from God then the fabric of the religion begins to unravel. With these apologists, start w/ the "infallible" scriptures.

If a Christian is intellectually honest he will, after further study as Ehrman did, relent to agnosticism. If not then you are basing your entire life on fantasy, myth and your feelings.

^EndAll

OK, I'll refute the arguments:

1. Argument from Cosmology, also called the Kalam Argument:

* Everything that begins to exist has a cause
* The Universe began to exist
* Thus, the Universe had a cause

Wrong on both the premises. No one can say with certainty that everything that begins to exist has a cause because no one has ever observed anything beginning to exist. The universe is already all here with nothing beginning to exist at any place or time. Things simply go from one form to another, for example going from energy to mass in compliance with the famous E=mc².

Neither can anyone say that the universe began to exist. The Big Bang theory only says something about the universe back to a point a small fraction of time after the bang.

This argument falls because the premises are wrong.

2. The argument from Fine Tuning

Apart from the points Hitchens made and the point that we would have to live in a habitable universe in order to have this conversation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), there are some promising naturalistic explanations for the supposed fine tuning of the universe as well. One of them is the Multiverse thesis which has some promise in finding supporting evidence.

Further, the common argument that if you change only one constant only a fraction you would end up with a universe unsupportive of life is unsound. They only talk about changing one constant at a time. If you run a simulation of multiple universes where every constant is changed randomly, you'll end up with 1 in 3 universes supporting something similar to stars if I remember correctly.

>> ^swampgirl:
I'm currently reading "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. These apologists should talk w/ this guy.

The most respected of them already has!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Did-Jesus-Resurrection-Occur-Craig-vs-Ehrman-debate

Just this last weekend, Hitchens debated the man sitting next to him, William Lane Craig, at Biola University.

Atheists and Christians in attendance apparently agreed that Hitchens was spanked like a naughty child. Hitchens may be bright and eloquent, but he doesn't have the depth and range of scholarship that Craig has.

Don't get me wrong. Most of Craig's arguments don't work. But Hitchens just doesn't have the chops to take them down.

>> ^HadouKen24:
Just this last weekend, Hitchens debated the man sitting next to him, William Lane Craig, at Biola University.
Atheists and Christians in attendance apparently agreed that Hitchens was spanked like a naughty child. Hitchens may be bright and eloquent, but he doesn't have the depth and range of scholarship that Craig has.
Don't get me wrong. Most of Craig's arguments don't work. But Hitchens just doesn't have the chops to take them down.


I'm assuming it was recorded? I'd like to see that sifted. I almost don't want to, but I still do.

And Haldaug - thank you! I appreciate the breath of fresh logic.. where the discussion ends, I was left hanging, feeling a bit dismayed by how things had turned out.

^
Thanks, you're welcome! There were some more arguments supposedly made in favor of theism there as well, but strictly speaking all the arguments can at best only defend deism.

Maybe someone more mature would have handled this better? Dawkins perhaps?

Hitchens was absolutely horrible.

>> ^EndAll:

I'm assuming it was recorded? I'd like to see that sifted. I almost don't want to, but I still do.


It was recorded, but live streaming was $98, and they're going to be asking money for the DVD of the debate.

Which is BS.