That was very hard to upvote, I can't stand George Stromopopopopolous.

I find him hard to take as well. He is just so impressed with himself, and something about his body language really puts me off. He's pretty pro as far as TV interviewing goes, if a bit annoying.

This guy is full of shit. But everyone should hear this side of the debate.

I'd say his eyes are brown and his hat does not fit.

likewise, this guy is so full of himself that i cant upvote

Of course it would take someone who's academic life is based on the study of things that don't exist, to write a book dissing a well known atheist.
Feeling threatened there?

"oh I used to be a real atheist when I was young!" SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! I am SOOOOO fucking tired of these liars....

Think we should add the comedy tag since this quite obviously is a comedy act. Just look at how Alister McGrath is behaving, how he's trying so hard to make as little sense as possible, repeating himself over and over, contradicting himself and using extremely sweeping comments at the most inappropriate times.
Take for instance the very start of that interview, when McGrath makes the comment that he started thinking for himself when he went to college. This has to be a spoof of the very standard atheist comment that one becomes an atheist when starting to think for one's self, hasn't it?
I must say, I very much enjoyed the humour in this video.

Occam's razor destroys every argument he made at least the ones i heard.

Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem - entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

The famous Oxford philosopher of religion - Richard Swinburne - employed the principal of Occam's razor to argue that God is the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe - far simpler than any explanation offered by science.

Crap, wrong vote.

Touché Gwaan haha

But I think the use of a creator to explain the beginnings of all things is actually the over-complication of the arguement. Just because the scientific explanation is complex for us to describe, does not make it less so than trying to determine how God can be 'transcendent', or indeed without its own creator. That's gotta be some heavy science there.

>> ^gwaan:

The famous Oxford philosopher of religion - Richard Swinburne - employed the principal of Occam's razor to argue that God is the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe - far simpler than any explanation offered by science.

Swinburne can only argue Occam's razor by assuming, without basis, that "God did it" falls under "all things being equal" clause, but it is not at all evident that that is the case, if somebody wants to posit HOW "God did it", then we could apply Occam's razor.

This is just bullshit on bullshit.

"Reflect on the beauty of nature and in some way it makes you reflect on the beauty of God."

.. what? "Some" way? What way?

Occam's Razor does work against god, because to say that "God did it" you must assume that God does and can exist. Like dgandhi says, we have to hear how he did it, and really, how he exists as well. You can't just assume that.