Does the universe have a purpose? Dawkin team vs Craig team

[CeT-To]

Hey guys here is the debate between the Dawkin team vs the Craig team, i have to admit it isn't a good debate i found it quite boring and Dawkin and Shermer ( i think that's his name) were veeerry unbearable to listen to. Anyway to those who haven't watched it yet, give it a shot !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSXBDzX ... re=related

What are your thoughts?

[Echoside]

First off, I think the topic at hand has so many avenues to explore that having a satisfactory debate is difficult. "Does the universe have purpose" to me is pretty much pointing us right in the direction of "Does god exist". And of course, there are many subfields in that category that could stretch on for hours of debate and discussion.

Most of the things that stick out to me were things i noticed about the atheist side.

1. Michael shermer's opening statement seemed to have been filled with straw man comments, and i'll be honest after suffering through that i skipped his parts in the debate from then on. "Have one's cake and eat it too" seems to apply to everything he said.

2. Dawkins started off very reasonable, and it sounded as though he was sticking to the core of atheism - everything is meaningless. Operating from an atheist standpoint means the universe does not have an objective purpose, and he supported the idea relatively intellectually honest (even if you disagree that the premises he operated off of were false, it wasn't as bad as listening to shermer make himself look like a fool). However, later on in the debate he seemed to argue for purpose, but more of an illusory purpose, as Craig pointed out.

3. I was glad to see Michio Kaku address the hawkings statement and how it really is illogical. The concept of infinite answers might sound illogical as well, but he at least came off as "i just don't know" rather than, "string theory is my god".

It seems like atheists always shoot themselves in the foot by straying away from the key tenets of naturalism and heading towards aspects of life you would see with free will, and by extension God. The weak parts in this debate for the atheists seemed to be more of their own doing than the arguments from the other side.

[CeT-To]

Yeah i agree. Um i don't know if Dawkin started off reasonable all he was saying was how ridiculous religion is and how wonderful Darwin his ... he didn't really give a solid argument, it sounded like a "sophisticated" rant on Why i don't like religion without anything to back it up with... But damn Shermer was bad ...

[narnia4]

Judging from a few comments Craig made in this article he wasn't too impressed with Dawkins either- http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/Pag ... me=q_and_a

If you set out watching for their "posturing and rhetoric", it really is appalling the way that people like Dawkins conduct themselves. It was like a revelation the first few times I watched and saw they really weren't saying ANYTHING, but sadly I've now come to expect it.

[Jad]

Is there an MP3 download or something for this? Or am I gonna have to dload the youtube vid and rip the audio track myself?