If we want to get into the agnostic vs atheist debate, I'll use Richard Dawkin's theist scale. 1 being I know for a fact there is a god and 7 being I know for a fact there is no god. I, like many other atheists, would be a 6. This is because I can't disprove the existence of god, but I find his existence so improbable that I live my life as though he didn't exist. I am, by definition, an agnostic, but Atheist makes it a bit easier to swallow. As Richard Dawkins said, "I'm agnostic to the existence of god to the same extent I'm agnostic to the existence of fairies."
I have watched William Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens and it came to me as no surprise that I was in agreement with Hitchens. I remember Craig made 5 arguments, 3 of which I remember.
1. God exists because there needs to be a creator to set everything in motion. Now, many consider this to be false. This is where I turned to Stephen Hawking.
2. Morality wouldn't exist without a God. As smart as William Craig is, and I'll give him that, this is by far the shittiest argument for a god. He assumes (something you can never do) that we have a universal morality, something that I don't think we do. So, his argument is based on an assumption which makes it "illogical," and therefore, philosophically irrelevent.
3. Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. All he points to is the fact that two chicks went looking for his body and it wasn't there, and that the Apostles didn't steal it. Shit evidence if you ask me.
To be completely honest, I forgot the other two arguments. I've been planning on watching the debate again.
Cole, if I were to come to disbelief in God, it wouldn't be through Dawkins or the other prominent members of New Atheism.
I see no problem in treating God like a hypothesis. I also have no problem using science and reason to "disprove" a God. It will forever more remain a pissing contest, and I will remain on the side that promotes logic and reason, not faith. If you want to continue this, start another thread. I'd rather not get into the whole God vs. No God debate in the middle of James' thread.
edit: And I just watched another video of his. His "ontological argument" has been proven over the years to be so fallacious, it isn't even funny. Descartes was the first to say, "I have a vision of perfection. I am not perfect, therefore God must exist because he is perfect." This is called "begging the question," and is also famous for bringing about the "Cartesian circle." I know god exists because I have a vision of him. I have a vision of him because I know God exists. From a purely logical standpoint, it makes zero sense.