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

WLC Wins Another Debate

#41ProudcladPosted 2/4/2013 10:33:32 PM
didn't watch the whole exchange? which exchange are you referring to?

and apparently you didn't watch the entire debate with rosenberg because rosenberg raised a similar criticism by pointing out that Craig uses the same arguments. if it isn't broken, don't fix it. and Craig offered two new ones in that video. i have no inclination towards sparkly shiny authority. im curious - do you accept that naturalism is valid?
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#42JonWood007Posted 2/4/2013 10:37:20 PM
ITT: Christians severely overestimate their apologists' intellectual capabilities. Look, WLC won because the atheist couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. It was so bad I could probably do a better job, and I'm not a professional debater. Not only that, but WLC is good at taking control of debates. There's more to debates than substance. WLC is very poor on substance. He has a good style though.
---
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
#43ProudcladPosted 2/4/2013 10:39:10 PM
the 13th atheist out of the top 50 couldn't debate? and you can do a better job? well first of all, it's unfortunate that anyone who loses is necessarily (according to you) incapable of debate. are hitchens and harris incapable of debate too? and second, you wouldn't do a better job either.

he's poor on substance huh? then why have his big opponents failed to refute his arguments? that's why he keeps using them. they work.
---
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net
#44LunarAmbiencePosted 2/4/2013 10:44:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZabnReL224
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo

That would be TBS's entire description and rebuttal of WLC's addressing of a particular tongue-in-cheek comment TBS made in another video.

That they're the same is fine with me. That they're numerous is the interesting bit. Telling me, "Oh, he has two new ones in this debate!" isn't encouraging. It simply emphasizes my point that if you take the guy out of a formal debate and put him in a forum where there-

...you know what, why should I repeat myself a second time? You'll never get this and even if you do, you'll ignore it.
---
The above is both true and false.
#45fudrickPosted 2/4/2013 10:49:22 PM
Proudclad posted...
the 13th atheist out of the top 50 couldn't debate?


Who exactly decided the "top 50 atheists" anyway? Was this based on debate skills, influence, fame, or something else?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#46JonWood007Posted 2/4/2013 11:18:39 PM(edited)
Proudclad posted...
the 13th atheist out of the top 50 couldn't debate? and you can do a better job? well first of all, it's unfortunate that anyone who loses is necessarily (according to you) incapable of debate. are hitchens and harris incapable of debate too? and second, you wouldn't do a better job either.

he's poor on substance huh? then why have his big opponents failed to refute his arguments? that's why he keeps using them. they work.


WLC is basically a professional Orange Wizard. Need I say more?

Anyway, just to touch on his Kalam argument a little bit. I don't think that strict logic is a good approach in trying to figure out the beginnings of the universe. He argues according to conventional thinking....and I'm not sure that applies here. When we get into the big bang, and stuff like that, such conventional understandings break down. Physicists like Stephen Hawking would argue that we wouldn't even need a first cause because time didn't exist before the big bang. Lawrence Krauss would cite quantum physics to argue that it is very well possible that the universe could have come from nothing.

So all of WLC's rambling on about the universe needing a cause and blah blah blah are....well...problematic. Not to mention Christians always like to push the loophole that God is infinite and therefore immune to the fact that everything else needs a cause. I say if God doesn't need a cause, maybe the universe doesn't either.

Quite frankly, we don't KNOW enough about why the universe is here to even make an informed guess on this matter. I don't deny that a creator is possible, but as I mentioned, a lot of notable scientists would argue that it's not necessarily necessary. I mean, I seriously doubt WLC's premises for whatever arguments he poses are valid, because they may not be in line with the kinds of things that happen when we're dealing with weird space/time quantum physics related crap. The only correct answer as far as this stuff goes is "I don't know".

And this is why I get annoyed with WLC and Christian apologists. They like to ramble on like they KNOW everything. Guess what, you don't know crap.

As for Hitchens, I'd argue that on some topics he is incapable of debate. I've never been a fan of Hitchens, he makes overly broad arguments that end up being his undoing. When you argue that there is not a single redeeming thing about religion at all, you're basically shooting yourself in the foot debate wise.

Also, to tackle another argument briefly. I remember WLC going on about Jesus' life and all that all scholars are in agreement...um...no they're not. Bart Ehrman, for instance, while believing in a physical Jesus, did not believe anything divine about his existence. He cites that the Biblical accounts are unreliable, contradictory, and decades removed from the events, etc.

So no, Biblical scholarship is not in agreement with much as far as Jesus' divinity goes at all.

Just a couple of things I wanted to mention, some of the more obvious flaws in WLC's arguments.
---
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
#47CdrRoguePosted 2/5/2013 1:50:14 AM
WLC's arguments are like religions in themselves. They start with far too many unsubstantiated claims and then derive off from there.
#48PhiZZiZle(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 1:27:58 AM
Jon, all your issues have been addressed by WLC....

Except for the history of Jesus stuff... I haven't found much from wlc on that. He tends to refer to others about history since he is a philosopher.
---
God made police so that firefighters could have heroes.
#49fudrickPosted 2/6/2013 1:54:23 AM
PhiZZiZle posted...
Jon, all your issues have been addressed by WLC....


Not really. Craig has still failed to demonstrate the accuracy of the premises of his KCA, or those of the standard KCA for that matter.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#50PhiZZiZle(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 5:43:42 AM
fudrick posted...
PhiZZiZle posted...
Jon, all your issues have been addressed by WLC....


Not really. Craig has still failed to demonstrate the accuracy of the premises of his KCA, or those of the standard KCA for that matter.


According to fudrick?

KCA is his bread and butter. Go to his website, read his written material, watch his debates. The man has literally spent thirty years studying and defending the KCA... His doctoral thesis is on the KCA... How can you possibly claim this?
---
God made police so that firefighters could have heroes.