Comments by darwinian philosopher and new atheist Daniel Dennett on William Lane Craig's arguments for God's existence and Craig's reply

Daniel Dennett is one of the world's leading atheistic thinkers. A hard-nosed Darwinist, he's well-known among contemporary philosophers by his work on philosophy of mind or consciousness.

In the following video, you can hear what Daniel Dennett had to say about William Lane Craig's presentation of arguments for God's existence in the same conference in which Dennett participated:

Since it wasn't a debate between Craig and Dennett, Crag hadn't the chance to reply to Dennett's comments. Therefore, Craig replied to him in these videos:

Amazingly, Dennett concedes that Craig's arguments are based on "very plausible premises". Leaving aside such concession, what it is most important is if the DENIAL of such premises is more plausible than the premises themselves. If not, then the premises have to be accepted and therefore the conclusion of the argument too. Period.

Consider the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" which Craig defends. This is known as the principle of causality, which is essential in science's constant pursue of causal explanations for natural phenomena. Such principle it is essential in other fields of inquiry, like forensic science and even in our daily life.

For example, when skeptic Michael Shermer tried to debunk a vedic astrologer in Shermer's own TV show, and (for Shermer's public embarrasment), the astrologer passed positively Shermer's test, debunking the debunker in his own show, such a result must have a cause (either Shermer's scientific-technical incompetence which allowed the astrologer to fool him in his own controlled test; or the astrologer's actual paranormal-astrological powers; or sheer luck):

What is irrational would be to claim that such result came "absolutely uncaused from nothing". Only atheists would think that.

The denial of the principle of causality would be "Not all what begin to exist has a cause = something could begin to exist uncaused from nothing".

Now, leaving aside the debate between atheism vs theism, I ask you: What is more probable to be true: the causal principle, or the atheist's denial of it? I think the answer is obvious for any rational, sane person.

If something can come into being from nothing (which is what the atheist denial of the causal principle entails), then it is absolutely inexplicable why we don't see something or everything coming into being from nothing continuously. Why don't beautiful blonde girls appear from nothing in my room? Why doesn't 1 million dollars appear from nothing in my bank account? Why don't lot of foods appear in Africa? Why the insane atheists and skeptics who offended and insulted atheist girl Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) don't appear with their butts severely kicked "from nothing"?

If something could come from nothing, then it is not impossible that a lamborghini car like the one that you're watching below will appear in your garage "from nothing".

Do you really (I mean, honestly) think that something (e.g. 1 million dollars, a black lamborghini or the physical universe itself) can appear uncaused from absolutely nothing? Well, atheists who deny the causal principle are, in principle, committed to this idea.

Moreover, atheists cannot quote ANY single scientific example of something beginning to exist from absolutely nothing. Often, some atheists deliberately distortion science in order to fool and mislead the public, claiming that virtual particles, coming from the quntum vaccum, comes from "nothing". But as atheist, theoretical physicist and world's leading cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin explains, the quantum vaccum is NOT nothing:

Therefore, the main example quoted by (some) atheists have turned to be a sheer misrepresenation of science on behalf of the atheistic deception and charlatanism.

No evidence whatsoever exists for the claim that something could come from nothing, and ALL the available evidence (from all sciences and common sense) support the proposition that Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

This poses a problem for atheists, because the universe began to exist. According to atheist comsologist Alan Guth, only "crackpots" deny the beginning of the universe:

And since the unvierse began to exist, it follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. And this leads you to a cause of the universe which has some of the main essential attributes of God:

Dennett says that even if Craig's argument is conceded, God's existence is not proved, because "abstract things" could be the cause too. But abstract objects are, by definition, objects causally non-efficacious. For example, the number 7 doesn't cause anything (your belief in the number 7 could be causally active, but the number 7 considered by itself, as a abstract non-physical object doesn't, among other things because they have no physical powers, i.e. not energy).

Dennett mentions the example of the principle of a triangle, which allows us to construct rigid structures. But here obviously he conflates the principle of the triangle itself with physical structures arranged triangle-wise: What produces the rigidity of such structure are the properties of the concrete material being used (e.g. cement, iron, etc.), not the principle of triangle itself (just try to create a rigid structure using a paper arranged triangle-wise, and you discover what I mean). Just try to make a triangle of paper and see if such triangle is rigid enough to bear the weight of your foot... or try to draw a triangle in a paper and see if such triangle is rigid enough to avoid the destroying influence of water.

Dennett's fallacy is conflating an abstract principle with the concrete instantiations of it (like conflating the number 4, as an abstract object, with the concrete exemplification of  it, like 4 apples for example).

Sheer bad and sophomoric philosophy.