conversationpc wrote:Have you ever studied how the various strands of DNA are specifically ordered and numbered? Ever see how "machines" do the work within cells in such a fashion that it almost looks like a factory that someone could have built? Then you've got protein folding, addressing, etc. It's mind-blowing stuff and, to me, strong evidence of an intelligent designer. I find it requires much more faith to believe it somehow came about by accident.
Even Hitch admits that the "Fine Tuning" concept is the toughest one to tackle in debates. I steer pretty clear from that, because I think it's distracting from my points. If the topic is the existence of God or an Intelligent Designer, it's a great point. If the topic is whether Christianity is true or not, that's really a completely different subject.
I just watched this excellent debate yesterday - Christopher Hitchens vs. 4 Christians - William Craig Lane, Lee Stroebel, Douglas Wilson, James Denison - (plus the moderator at times to make 5, lol). This was in Dallas at a Christian Book Fair hosted by Christianity Today in 2009.
Part 1 of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0aoH5QJO0s
Talk about the deck being stacked, and I thought Hitch came out on top (Part 4 is a real highlight). I always listen as openly as possible, trying to give credit where due, and I didn't feel the Christians made one valid point in favor of the validity of Christianity, and definitely no refutations of any of Hitch's points, especially on the nature of the god of the Bible. I believe a response to one of Hitch's strongest arguments about the indifference of God during suffering was something like, "But Christianity gives hope to millions of people..." I think the Santa Claus comparison gets overused, so I'll just say that's like saying the Easter Bunny gives millions of kids hope -- it's not an argument at all, but just wishful thinking, and I'm sure millions of Muslims feel the same way about their faith.
Craig also made some silly references to logical arguments for the existence of God, something along the lines of "If it's possible for God to exist, then it follows God does exist." WTH? And especially irksome was the notion that without God, Hitchens had no foundation or anchor for his morality, as if morality that didn't originate from an outside source wasn't possible. Why must a basic sense of right and wrong stem from something else other than ourselves or each other? They also postulate that the Atheist's universe without God doesn't care what happens, therefore nobody could care about anything - it's just all cause and effect or something like that. How are these even realistic arguments? Of course people care, just like animals instinctively care for each other.
Again, I found not once single point on the Christian side that was even relevant or convincing to a rational thought process -- they seemed deflective to me. So I was amazed (but not surprised) when Craig closed his argument saying that the Christians had made 10 very valid points that Hitch couldn't counter, not even one -- then he sort of jabbed him by saying he needed to come better prepared for their upcoming debate a few days later.
Afterwards. I ran across this clip of Craig on his own website commenting on Hitchens' performance at the Book Fair and thought it was extremely cheap-shottish... he says that Hitch doesn't have the "intellectual substance to respond to these arguments". Also called him "weasely" in his arguments. Nice photo to use as a background for the entire vid, too - very manipulative. I have a sneaking suspicion Craig might possibly be a fraud.
Wish I could say that Hitch mopped the floor with Craig during their next debate, but I was pretty disappointed - I figure Hitch was either hungover or had too many scotches at lunch (I believe he did mention being in the bar during lunch), because Craig was extremely deflective and kept Hitch on the offense, and Hitchens just let him do it for some reason.
BTW, Hitchens and Douglas Wilson wrote a book together and went on a debate tour to promote it, and it was captured in the documentary "Collision" which I just finished watching today. It pretty much gives equal time to both perspectives and aside from the extremely overly-rough "jittercam" effect, it was excellent. WTF is up with the overuse of jittercam these days? It's great when, used properly, but it appeared they were trying to get the look as if it was shot by people who had absolutely no idea how to use a camcorder, focus a shot, or hold it still for longer than a few seconds.