Dennett’s response to Craig’s paper
Here is my snarky paraphrase of Dennett’s reponse: (this is very snarky, because Dennett was just awful)
- Craig’s three arguments are bulletproof, the premises are plausible, and grounded by the best cutting edge science we know today.
- I cannot find anything wrong with his arguments right now, but maybe later when I go home it will come to me what’s wrong with them.
- But atheism is true even if all the evidence is against it today. I know it’s true by my blind faith.
- The world is so mysterious, and all the science of today will be overturned tomorrow so that atheism will be rational again. I have blind faith that this new evidence will be discovered any minute.
- Just because the cause of the beginning of time is eternal and the cause of the beginning of space is non-physical, the cause doesn’t have to be God.
- “Maybe the cause of the universe is the idea of an apple, or the square root of 7”. (HE LITERALLY SAID THAT!)
- The principle of triangulation might have brought the entire physical universe into being out of nothing.
- I don’t understand anything about non-physical causation, even though I cannot even speak meaningful sentences unless I have a non-physical mind that is causing my body to emit the meaningful sentences in a non-determined manner.
- Alexander Vilenkin is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.
- Alan Guth is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.
- This science stuff is so complicated to me – so Craig can’t be right about it even though he’s published about it and debated it all with the best atheists on the planet.
- If God is outside of time, then this is just deism, not theism. (This part is correct, but Craig believes that God enters into time at the moment of creation – so that it is not a deistic God)
- If deism is true, then I can still be an atheist, because a Creator and Designer of the universe is compatible with atheism.
- I’m pretty sure that Craig doesn’t have any good arguments that can argue for Christianity – certainly not an historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus based on minimal facts, that he’s defended against the most prominent historians on the planet in public debates and in prestigous books and research journals.
This is a very careful treatment of the arguments that Dr. Craig goes over briefly during his debates. Recommended.
Comment: Hell is eternal. Consider your options carefully. Do we need Arabic to read the Koran?