This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

WLC Wins Another Debate

#21FlashOfLightPosted 2/4/2013 10:21:45 AM
As a side comment; William Craig has strange hands, at least particularly in his right thumb, it seems almost like it is dislocated, or giving it an appearance of "chicken hands". It is quite unusually long, and the bone is more pronounced. I hope he doens't have any illness on them. I mean no disrespect either way, since it can happen to anybody. Just an observational comment.

Back to the things argued in the debate; whenever one side resorts to mentioning outside philosophers, or those who wrote books with commentaries on the subject, as well as anyone in a particular scientific area of research, or archaelogical one, it is quite a vain effort by either side, because their intention is to appeal to their opponent's recognition of these outside recognized individuals, but one side always dismisses them as either not being collectively representitive of the majority of people who espouse that view, or the other side dismisses it as just a reference to someone who thinks contrary to them in a general sense, and not as one to take seriously, which is the opponent's intention when they are brought up and presented into the argument.

It is a tactic, and technique that should be avoided if possible, they should always focus on their personal views and their methods of expression to their particular point, unless they agree beforehand to rely on outside sources of credibility to either push their point or discredit their opponent's point.
---
And out of this crust, put out your thrust, do what you must, try not to rust, as you turn to dust.
#22LunarAmbiencePosted 2/4/2013 10:30:33 AM
It is a tactic I prefer to galloping a debate into the dust.
---
The above is both true and false.
#23AynRandySavagePosted 2/4/2013 3:17:21 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
WLC has missed the entire point of Christianity. If his Kalam Argument actually does prove that God exists, then what role is there for faith? Craig's faith is not in God Himself, his faith is in the ability of his own arguments to prove that God is necessary. In other words, he is putting his trust in his own intellect.



Craig says the he has faith, but that faith isn't opposed to reason, even logical certainty of something
#24C_MatPosted 2/4/2013 4:12:45 PM
Just finished watching/listening to the whole debate while I was working. Craig was the clear winner, atheists are never going to beat him if they don't even make any effort to disassemble his arguments (and I'll admit, I don't think you can).

In this weekend's debate, I think Rosenberg only clearly took on two (the cosmological and historical arguments) of Craig's seven arguments (and you have to admit, those attempts were pretty ineffective, especially when Rosenberg talked about the historicity of the Gospels). He also gave another brief, weak argument against Craig's argument from mathematics. I hadn't heard the math argument before, I thought it was pretty interesting.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#25JonWood007Posted 2/4/2013 5:30:33 PM
C_Mat posted...
Just finished watching/listening to the whole debate while I was working. Craig was the clear winner, atheists are never going to beat him if they don't even make any effort to disassemble his arguments (and I'll admit, I don't think you can).

In this weekend's debate, I think Rosenberg only clearly took on two (the cosmological and historical arguments) of Craig's seven arguments (and you have to admit, those attempts were pretty ineffective, especially when Rosenberg talked about the historicity of the Gospels). He also gave another brief, weak argument against Craig's argument from mathematics. I hadn't heard the math argument before, I thought it was pretty interesting.


http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig

It is possible to counter them, Rosenberg just did a horrible job at attempting to do so.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#26Julian_CaesarPosted 2/4/2013 5:52:27 PM
From: AynRandySavage | #023
Julian_Caesar posted...
WLC has missed the entire point of Christianity. If his Kalam Argument actually does prove that God exists, then what role is there for faith? Craig's faith is not in God Himself, his faith is in the ability of his own arguments to prove that God is necessary. In other words, he is putting his trust in his own intellect.



Craig says the he has faith, but that faith isn't opposed to reason, even logical certainty of something


He can say it all he wants; his actions speak far louder than his words on that subject. Logical certainty of the internal consistency of Scripture is one thing; logical certainty of God's existence according to what we know about the universe is putting logic/knowledge before God in the hierarchy of the mind. After all, there is nothing inherently logical about God creating the universe from nothing...unless you've already accepted (by faith) that God exists and created everything (or perhaps that some Being exists and created everything, whatever).

Not saying I know anything about Craig's spiritual future, only God knows that. I just don't think fighting fire with fire is what Jesus wants us to do in order to witness to others.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#27AynRandySavagePosted 2/4/2013 9:39:07 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
logical certainty of God's existence according to what we know about the universe is putting logic/knowledge before God in the hierarchy of the mind. After all, there is nothing inherently logical about God creating the universe from nothing...unless you've already accepted (by faith) that God exists and created everything (or perhaps that some Being exists and created everything, whatever).


There's an entire tradition of Christian apologetics that you're overlooking. The idea that it WASN'T Possible to prove god's existence and nature through rationality was incredibly uncommon up until the Protestant Reformation.
#28ProudcladPosted 2/4/2013 9:51:09 PM(edited)
JonWood007 posted...
Er...maybe not. The more I listen (I'm updating in real time), the weaker Rosenberg seems....meh. As I said, we need a real lion in there like Matt Dillahunty....Rosenberg's stuttering and going off on tangents, started out strong in calling out WLC's BS, but now he's going on about alpha particles and smoke detectors and crap...meh. He's kind of debating poorly. Very poor debating style, no wonder WLC won.


Matt Dillahunty's argumentation is garbage. Rosenberg was ranked top 13th out of the top 50 atheists in that one list. WLC already debated Bart Ehrman a few years ago
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#29ProudcladPosted 2/4/2013 9:46:52 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
WLC has missed the entire point of Christianity. If his Kalam Argument actually does prove that God exists, then what role is there for faith? Craig's faith is not in God Himself, his faith is in the ability of his own arguments to prove that God is necessary. In other words, he is putting his trust in his own intellect.

To be honest, I would love nothing more than for Dawkins or someone else to prove him completely wrong. It would be a much greater service to his soul than all this intellectual masturbation he's been doing for the last 5 years.


Faith is an action. Not a mindset. Having a powerful mindset rooted in logic and reason does NOT mean you cannot have faith. WTF.

Jesus and Paul and Peter and James used intellect to argue. They also used simple words backed by the Holy Spirit. There's a time and place for everything.

Craig would f***ing DEMOLISH Dawkins.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#30LunarAmbiencePosted 2/4/2013 9:54:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZabnReL224

Craig couldn't handle a guy outside of forum that encourages his gallop. Put Dawkins on a stage with him, it will appear that he'd been demolished. Put him in a sit-down exchange or video/text exchange, and Craig will fall apart as fast as he did for this guy.
---
The above is both true and false.