Why would you quote someone like Richard Dawkins in saying that simple life is too complicated to come about from natural laws. Dawkins has said several times how this is possible. I'm sure it was in the exact same book he was quoting. Why would you just quote a single line from it, without even mentioning the explanations by the same person? Don't you at least have to address it?

Wow.

Way on Frank to keep the pressure on. Both men have good points to gather on their arguments, but it appears to me Christopher was much more on the defensive, giving me a strong impression that he is not as familiar with Christianity as he thinks he is.

Anyway, good sift.

I've only watched the first hour of it so far. I like Hitchens and he makes a lot of good points, but he doesn't seem to be directly replying to the arguments that Turek makes. To me, all that really needs to be said is:

Anthropic principle!
Evolution!
DONE!

Half of what Turek was saying was how specially designed for life the Universe and the Earth are. It's so weird that I haven't heard the anthropic principle even be mentioned yet.

>> ^brain:
I've only watched the first hour of it so far. I like Hitchens and he makes a lot of good points, but he doesn't seem to be directly replying to the arguments that Turek makes.

That is what I noticed as well. It may be a matter of Christopher's method of humor, but I did find that he often did not directly answer questions, and often snuck in side-jabs in a seeming effort to get support from the audience for weak assertions.

That disappointed me. I was hoping for a spirited debate that stayed to the subject, but often times found it being derailed by emotional tirades instead of logical arguments.

This was no better shown when confronted with the question of how to measure morality and Hitchens makes the comment that some people will clap for everything. Would it really of hurt to just stick to the debate at hand?

Half of what Turek was saying was how specially designed for life the Universe and the Earth are. It's so weird that I haven't heard the anthropic principle even be mentioned yet.

Hitchens , while perhaps not naming it, does use it, he explains how the universe is most dead, empty space and its moving apart at accelerating speeds, and how we well soon crash with Andromeda, "some Design" As he puts it. This easily lay in ruins any suggestion that the universe is "finely tuned". Anyone who suggests this is either ignorant or unable to see things in perspective. The universe, if designed, seems to be designed to be as hostile and unsuitable for life as physically possible. So far, we've only found one tiny suitable speck able to support life, and the only reason we found that one, is that we are standing on it.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Half of what Turek was saying was how specially designed for life the Universe and the Earth are. It's so weird that I haven't heard the anthropic principle even be mentioned yet.
Hitchens , while perhaps not naming it, does use it, he explains how the universe is most dead, empty space and its moving apart at accelerating speeds, and how we well soon crash with Andromeda, "some Design" As he puts it. This easily lay in ruins any suggestion that the universe is "finely tuned". Anyone who suggests this is either ignorant or unable to see things in perspective. The universe, if designed, seems to be designed to be as hostile and unsuitable for life as physically possible. So far, we've only found one tiny suitable speck able to support life, and the only reason we found that one, is that we are standing on it.


The problem is, when Turek mentions arguments like:
Earth needs to be at exactly the right distance from the sun.
Earth needs to complete a spin near 24 hours.
Earth needs to have the right tilt.
Earth needs to be next to a Jupiter-like planet.

He's fully realizing that the vast majority of the rest of the planets in the universe cannot support life. That's his argument. Earth is so much more special than all those other planets! For some reason he actually thinks this is evidence FOR Earth being specially designed for us. It seems like he really needs a basic lesson on what the anthropic principle is.

It seems like he really needs a basic lesson on what the anthropic principle is.

Yeah, I agree. There are several other things I'd like him to understand as well, but its only a debate.. one can only hope the audience gets it.

I was disappointed with Hitchens' performance in this debate. It was almost as though he's bored with debating the same arguments over and over and just couldn't be bothered any more.

Whilst its true that Turek's arguments could all be refuted, Hitchens generally did not refute them. His rambling style, while on another occasion may be diverting to listen to, far too often took him away from the points that were being debated. This left me feeling unsatisfied and did a disservice to the audience.

Finer points on the existence of god is more Dawkins' strong suit, not Hitchens'. Hitchens is more the anti-religion guy. This should have been a debate with Dawkins.

I commented elsewhere that watching this video was akin to watching a pair of blind people trying to duel with pistols at twenty paces.

I really do like Hitchens. He's opposed to almost everything I stand for, but there's something about his brash eloquence that makes it a real pleasure to listen to him talk. I wanted to see him do well, but he didn't.

Even so, he still won the debate, and I think even Turek recognizes this. Turek acknowledges Hitchens' victory in a very subtle way--he starts out the debate saying that the evidence leans toward the existence of God as the most probable case, but abandons this toward the end. Rather, he closes by saying that even though there are a number of reasons that seem to indicate God's improbability, he could exist anyway.

Even so, every argument Turek makes has a relatively simple response.

For instance, in response to Turek's claim that "one cannot derive an ought from an is," Hitchens should have put the smack down on Turek. He should have said, "Okay, in that case, the existence of God cannot be the source of morality. The question of whether God exists is an "is." The existence of morality is an "ought." If you cannot derive an ought from an is, you cannot derive morality from the existence of God."

>> ^shuac:
Finer points on the existence of god is more Dawkins' strong suit, not Hitchens'. Hitchens is more the anti-religion guy. This should have been a debate with Dawkins.


You'd want Daniel Dennett. The apologist is the natural prey of the philosopher. It would be child's play for a philosopher of Dennett's caliber to unmask Turek's arguments for the sophistical illusions they are.

Nah. Dawkins really isn't all that good at that kind of thing, even though he makes it out to be a specialty of his.

His main argument against the existence of God, as found in the God Delusion, boils down to the claim that God cannot be the explanation for complexity in the world because then his complexity, too, would require an explanation beyond him.

This fails for two reasons.

First, there is no reason to think that God is complex. A number of theologians, in fact, have provided arguments for the claim that God is absolutely simple and without parts. This does not contradict the claim that God is the designer or creator. Examples abound of complex things coming out of simple things. To be a proponent of evolution is to assert that, indeed, complexity can arise from simplicity. Dawkins' argument simply does not follow logically.

Second, even if the argument did work, its consequence could be evaded by positing a maximally (perhaps infinitely) complex God. A maximally complex God cannot have been designed even under Dawkins' rules. To say that a maximally complex God had to have been designed by something more complex is to say that there is something more complex than something there can't be anything more complex than. Which is a flat out impossibility.

This does not contradict the claim that God is the designer or creator. Examples abound of complex things coming out of simple things. To be a proponent of evolution is to assert that, indeed, complexity can arise from simplicity.

The point about evolution, is that it works its way up by a natural mechanism, simple things do not "create" or "design" complex things, rather, under certain conditions, mechanisms can arise that again leads to complexity. We, as well as every living animal and plants have shared ancestor's in the form of early proto-cells, but to call those cells "creators" or "designers" is absurd, before biologial life, the earth was a barren, chemical wasteland, and before that it was debris, and before that gas clouds, and before that just materials waiting to explode in some supernova or similar. To call any of these increasingly simple, hot things "creators" is even more absurd.

If you want to call any of these things "God" then very well, but in reality, that argument is as weak as the "more complex than complexity" argument, which is just another unfalsifiable argument.. ie "The universe is 5 minutes old, and all your memories are planted."

I think you missed my point. Dawkins says that God must be complex because he otherwise could not have created a complex world. I was calling that assumption into question; there is little reason to think it would be true of God, and numerous reasons (as many theologians have argued) to think that it's false. I was not attempting to redefine "God," but merely using the word as it was understood by, e.g., the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas.

I think you get close to the heart of the theist vs. atheist debate when you point out that a particular notion of God is empirically unfalsifiable. Indeed, I think this is true of many notions of God. It is not the case that we can, by any empirical test, disprove the existence of God under many different conceptions. Those who attempt to prove the existence of such a God through empirical research, as the Intelligent Design crowd does, are making just as big a mistake in their thinking as the atheists who try to use empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God.

However, there are notions of God which can be disproven, or at least rendered unlikely, by empirical evidence. I think Hitchens makes such a case against Christianity--and it's a difficult one for the Christian to respond to, I think.

Dawkins says that God must be complex because he otherwise could not have created a complex world. I was calling that assumption into question;there is little reason to think it would be true of God, and numerous reasons (as many theologians have argued) to think that it's false

Thats what I tried explaining, if the word "God" is to have any meaning, he/she/it has to be in the form of some creator, unless you define god as hydrogen and helium atoms plus 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution.. Hydrogen atoms are not "creators" or Gods in any reasonable sense of the words. Therefore, on some level, anything that fit the description "god" has to be by definition, complex. To simply reply "no, no, god is SIMPLE, you see" isnt an argument, unless you can provide a convincing argument to support that, at the very LEAST. its like the kid who says he has fire-breathing dragons in his house, and when confronted comes up with all sorts of excuses. ie: "they are only visible to me", "they dont always spew fire" and "they are really, really quiet" Whats left isnt much of a fire-breathing dragon at all, and it boils down to imagination and wishful thinking.

To me, it is much more likely that the field of theology is basically the equalent of painting yourself into a corner, you start of by assuming God does exist, and thus conclusions like "there are numerous reasons(..) to think that [a complex God is] false. " ultimately pop up. Had they started with an open mind, it would be obvious that if the complex god is a mistake, its probably all a mistake. Of course, they wouldnt be theologians then..

As Carl Sagan put it: "It is far better to grasp the world as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however reassuring."

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Hydrogen atoms are not "creators" or Gods in any reasonable sense of the words. Therefore, on some level, anything that fit the description "god" has to be by definition, complex.

That does not follow.

To simply reply "no, no, god is SIMPLE, you see" isnt an argument, unless you can provide a convincing argument to support that, at the very LEAST. its like the kid who says he has fire-breathing dragons in his house, and when confronted comes up with all sorts of excuses. ie: "they are only visible to me", "they dont always spew fire" and "they are really, really quiet" Whats left isnt much of a fire-breathing dragon at all, and it boils down to imagination and wishful thinking.


You mean like the kinds advanced by Thomas Aquinas?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article7

The theological literature on divine simplicity is quite diverse, however, and the arguments for and against it are not exhausted by a single article from the Summa Theologica. One could bring up Saint Augustine's defense of the idea from the viewpoint of a Christian Platonism.

The doctrine of divine simplicity long predates Dawkins' argument (which is the only one of its kind that I am aware of, by the by). To advance it as a serious attack on theism betrays ignorance of the idea he's trying to attack. If you don't know what theologians mean by the word "God," you're going to have difficulty, as Dawkins does, raising an argument that does not involve a straw man fallacy.

You seem to characterize the theist response to Dawkins as some kind of ad hoc excuse for theistic belief. The fact is, however, that the response follows straightforwardly from the very theistic belief Dawkins attempts to criticize.



And finally, as I said earlier, even if it's true that God cannot be simple, a maximally complex God defeats Dawkins' argument just the same as a maximally simple God does. Unfortunately for Dawkins, the idea of a maximally complex God is one of the most popular alternatives to divine simplicity.

Im sorry but not many of the arguments made by Turek are convincing. Ive only watched 24 minutes so far, but he seems to make a lot of logical jumps. We are moral, therefor there must be a moral giver... and that must be God. No, that does not have to be the only explination, it doesnt have to be God. There are evolutionary point in being moral, watch Professor Hawkins Tit-for-tat to get a glimmer of the beginning to an argument against being immoral. I dont buy Tureks argument just because he says they are true, he better have evidence to back them up more than arguments that sound plausible or believable...

*talkses

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

*length=2:11:51

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:11:51 - length declared by xxovercastxx.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'turek, the hitch, hitchens, god, religion' to 'frank turek, christopher hitchens, god, religion' - edited by xxovercastxx