I've watched them. Hitchens isn't the best equipped to take on those kinds of debates because he was not a scientist. He was a journalist. In every debate where the debate is about religion, Hitchens wins.
Hitchens can't even provide evidences to prove that people should believe in atheism. Did you know by asserting "there is no god" is pretty much asserting your own truth? The belief in atheism requires evidence as well. And to argue the absence of evidence as evidence for absence, isn't a strong enough argument.
You seem to make a lot of these blanket statements but I've never seen you give a single piece of concrete information backing up your claims. Care to bring some of this skeptics and scholars to light?
I'm at home right now and can't get the quotes, but essentially they embrace the argument that I present. They don't refute or rebut the claims that I have made. They see it as evidence, but feel it is not enough evidence to prove God. It's sad really, the position that scholarly skeptics sit. To embrace the evidence, but choosing to say it isn't enough weight.
The morality evidence and the cosmological evidence. They don't refute it because they cannot.
I'l sum up the two arguments right here:
1. The existence of observable matter and existence right now is indicative of an eternal and all-powerful source. The big bang just cannot have been created from ex nihilo
. Physics also show that nothing is eternal. Everything will eventually approach max entropy, which points to a beginning of all creation. How is that you can refute this simple scientific truth but then believe every other scientific claim, ie evolution? By choosing to reject this notion of science, aren't you picking and choosing what part of science you believe in?
2. No matter how you spin it, humanity acknowledges a moral foundation. We have this feeling inside of us that feels for the next person. It is a very sound argument that altruism exists. We have this thing called genuine love that we share with our family and friends. We also have the moral mandate to protect others from being hurt, and to the extreme, we have the responsibility of preventing genocides and massacres. We act this way because there is sacredness in human life. The sanctity and value of human life exists.
What makes life sacred? What gives life value? What gives the moral mandate to protect life? Only the existence of a transcendent being can do this. Not random chance. If God does not exist, then there would be no moral mandate or moral foundation to prevent 6 million Jews from dying.
And.... what's your point?
I think you meant to say one does not need to understand how a computer works to know that someone made it?
I surely can see that the world works, that much is clear. That doesn't mean I need to believe there is a celestial supervisor watching me at every turn.
Let me ask you this, since you brought up William Lane Craig. Which of the two ideas do you think is more fanciful:
1) Out of nothing, a bunch of random gases and elements and compounds started swirling around, and after millions upon millions of years and random events, thing crashed into one another and things were formed.
2) Out of nothing, a supreme being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, something clearly extremely ordered and advanced and sophisticated, sprang forth?
Those who believe in god say that nothing can come of nothing. It must be created, right? Well, that would mean that god also could not come from nothing, and thus would have had to have been made. Then by whom? See how that argument gets you nowhere? William Lane Craig's argument that the universe is finite and thus must have been created is subject to the same problems as the big bang theory.
Neither.. because you worded even the second one incorrectly.
The first one is wrong because you can't get something out of nothing. For example, even if our universe was a cosmological accident that may have been instigated by a multiverse (no shred of evidence but whatever), then what caused the multiverse to exist? Given infinite regression, what was the absolute first thing to exist? It undermines the laws of physics to have something from nothing. It also undermines physics for something to be eternal. All the observable science shows that. It's empirical evidence at this point. To ignore this fact is almost like being yourself what you claim most Christians to be.. ignorant!
The second one.. No, a God did not just sprang forth. He does not spring forth. He is there. Eternal. With him, there is no time. I would instead use these words. God exist. Eternally. When no time exist. By his command, he created time, and everything observable.
Oh, that's convenient.
No need explaining it, as long as you just blindly believe in it, right?
Which statement is more logical?
1. God exists but we can't fully explain him
2. God doesn't exist because we can't fully explain him