tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6148838096660997089..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Why Reasonable People Should Not Debate William Lane CraigLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26384266616143511212023-04-19T17:27:20.769-04:002023-04-19T17:27:20.769-04:00Yet, Craig has never demonstrated the existence of...Yet, Craig has never demonstrated the existence of "God" or the supernatural. Please let us know when he does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74874739625987235282023-04-19T17:23:59.205-04:002023-04-19T17:23:59.205-04:00Craig's Kalam argument has been refuted in the...Craig's Kalam argument has been refuted in the peer review and in public debates. He has also refused to debate Dr. Jaco Gericke over the existence of the Old Testament Yahweh. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68557202522488787392016-12-27T02:32:47.918-05:002016-12-27T02:32:47.918-05:00The style of the man is the same in all his debate...The style of the man is the same in all his debates. He outlines certain points or concepts adds a little science term here and there and simply ignores his opponents points and says they've offered no evidence for their view. In the end he is simply a spokesperson for evangelical christians. He's very knowledgeable about his faith but frequently gets schooled by his opponents. Jmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16769634613044587681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35622956156059189012016-06-15T04:03:42.222-04:002016-06-15T04:03:42.222-04:00It never ceases to amaze me that creationists thin...It never ceases to amaze me that creationists think they need to have the last word in a thread, even when responding to threads old and buried.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91413610336963967042016-06-14T13:37:26.507-04:002016-06-14T13:37:26.507-04:00Love how scared all these atheists are of WLC. If ...Love how scared all these atheists are of WLC. If you can't present your viewpoint on a stage in such a way that you don't look like a laughingstock next to him, then yes--be very, very afraid. :)liveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14912718583311474375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36444428771972485292015-10-26T07:04:20.934-04:002015-10-26T07:04:20.934-04:00When Craig debated Sean Carroll, Carroll demolishe...When Craig debated Sean Carroll, Carroll demolished him. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8<br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40749356615006566632015-10-26T04:51:32.945-04:002015-10-26T04:51:32.945-04:00If you are so sure that atheism is true why worry ...If you are so sure that atheism is true why worry about Craig's style! What you are really saying, Mr Morgan, is that you cannot find a style that will do the job for you. Then why be jealous of the man? All power to Craig! Yes, I recall the British humanists running for cover when he visited our fair country a few years ago. Shame on you lot... JamesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123888787663217819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55875068646236827332015-10-12T05:06:11.614-04:002015-10-12T05:06:11.614-04:00it's a circular argument with a pre-suppositio...it's a circular argument with a pre-supposition:<br /><br />you cannot have infinite regress, God exists, nothing created God therefore God is eternal.<br /><br />WLC refuses to address the idea that our local universe and time came into being (was caused by) the stuff that is outside our universe, stuff that isn't sentient or God or intending such "creation" etc. Sean Carroll gave him ample opportunity. This is where premise 1 of the Kalam argument fails.<br /><br />He also fails to address how Kalam leads to a personal God involved with our planet and lives.Mytheroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18198660837244491757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82066551856291121852015-10-02T15:36:07.317-04:002015-10-02T15:36:07.317-04:00I've never seen William Lane Craig even seem l...I've never seen William Lane Craig even seem like he belonged on stage in a debate. He doesn't debate anyone or anything. He talks to himself about things he believes are true and presents little to no relevant evidence. He wastes everyone's time really. I agree with anyone whose stance is to refuse to debate him. JoeKnowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09053850522542613090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3653055869568466212015-07-30T21:51:00.673-04:002015-07-30T21:51:00.673-04:00Fallacy of conflation in point 3).
"I do not...Fallacy of conflation in point 3). <br />"I do not believe in god" (implying no belief) =/= "[I believe] god does not exist" (implying affirmative belief in there being no of god(s)).<br />Craig does everything he can to project, bait or trick his opponent into taking the latter position, or being perceived to by the audience and then equivocating that position with his own, instead of providing any actual basis for his arguments. <br /><br />He deliberately and methodically (ironically) tries to slip premises into the debate unchallenged, such as (taking from the Lawrence Krauss debates):<br />That his concept of philosophical nothingness is actually reasonable, let alone possible, i.e that everything actually came from his proposed 'nothing' (for which he provides no justification);<br />That god is exempt from 'somethingness' in his 'nothing' and that some unknown natural process isn't (which would be a more likely possibility due to the axiom of Occam's Razor);<br />That extra universal conditions are possible wherein a 'God' can be eternal, and from which they can intercede within the (/our) universe.BenignViewerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03136075664810578234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57645775984084777342014-06-17T12:01:47.803-04:002014-06-17T12:01:47.803-04:00Matthew,
I do not believe you did not kill Tom. I ...Matthew,<br />I do not believe you did not kill Tom. I do not have any evidence to support a conclusion that you did, but I also do not have any evidence to support that you did not. Because I don't have evidence to show you did not then I shall believe you did. Just as I shall believe you killed Dick and Harry as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82071206996064859532014-06-09T17:32:42.333-04:002014-06-09T17:32:42.333-04:00Yeah... Can't blame you. I wouldn't want t...Yeah... Can't blame you. I wouldn't want to debate him either if I were an Atheist. When you "refuse to debate" someone, it makes you look afraid and weak... which is what they are... afraid and weak.<br />It is atheists who go around saying idiotic things.<br />The argument almost always follows this illogical pattern:<br />1. Atheist: "I only believe that which is supported by evidence"<br />2. Atheist: "I do not believe in God"<br />(This is where Craig points out there is no evidence that God does not exist)<br />3. Atheist: "You cannot prove a negative, but I still believe that God doesn't exist"<br />(This is where Craig points out that you do believe things that aren't supported by evidence then)<br />4. "Yeah but you can't prove a negative, so you're using semantics, and you're employing philosophical tricks, you're trying to make me show evidence for a negative and it cannot be done. "<br />(Craig points out that it is unfortunate that you can't prove negatives, but none the less, you can't; and you still believe that God doesn't exist, therefore you believe in a world view that has no evidence... by definition; you even just admitted it in detail. You cannot prove that God doesn't, but you believe that God doesn't exist).<br />5) "I'm real mad, because you tricked me. I'm going to just reiterate that I only believe things that are supported by evidence. I'm also going to call you 'delusional' and tell everyone that no 'real intellectual' should debate with you, because it gives you credibility. I'm so tired of you using 'LOGIC' in your debates. You should be using "science", and my Naturalistic World View. Even if there is no evidence.<br />...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14308002279070408192014-05-04T19:19:02.667-04:002014-05-04T19:19:02.667-04:00No reply to you Hakim, all atheists are silent and...No reply to you Hakim, all atheists are silent and are now probably going to their reading books to try and come up with more rants!Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16756919926249900017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37993380096678865382014-04-28T16:00:09.976-04:002014-04-28T16:00:09.976-04:00There are three reasons why atheists are having su...There are three reasons why atheists are having such a hard time with Craig:<br />1. Atheism is in fact intellectually, and philosophically lacking. 2. The juvenile pseudo-sophistic, Socratic-pretentious (Socrates pretended to have no opinion in order to force his opponent to expose fully their position so he could ridicule their views in his innocent acting pretense to seek truth) argumentation made popular by Bertrand Russel didn't really work under examination. It just sounded good to atheists, and they repeat it now only to have their lack of critical thought exposed by Craig. 3. Professors who are atheists are accustomed to bullying their openly religious students in the classroom. Then with their pompous, dogmatic, intellectually pretentious claims against religion they dismiss or demean the educational accomplishments of those with divinity degrees, or any degree if they openly profess belief in God. Craig is not a student who can be bullied. Craig's education cannot be dismissed or demeaned. What does this mean for the atheist professor? Trouble. This guy can make you look dogmatic in your own field which can discredit you academically. <br /><br />This article is yet another attempt to dismiss him without engaging him or his arguments, or giving support for your position. This is cowardice, academic and intellectual dishonesty at its worst. If a child stood up in a math class and said 2+2 = 5 for very large values of 2, it would be simple to show this person was clever in clever-sounding word use, but lacking in mathematical skill. In short...stop whining. Either demonstrate he is wrong with proof, demonstrate you are right with proof, or admit your situation: Craig is beating you, and you don't like it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38690978072561602282014-04-25T11:42:44.776-04:002014-04-25T11:42:44.776-04:00Harris won the debate by making his points and get...Harris won the debate by making his points and getting no real answer and not wasting his speeches on refuting Craig's pointless word games. Kagan made him look flustered and frantic as did Sean Carroll who made his arguments seem foolish and dated (cutting edge for 2000 years ago, to paraphrase). Uncle Tancredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08920674014636490247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46476408498686038162014-03-30T00:54:41.775-04:002014-03-30T00:54:41.775-04:00Yea, dont say that WLC has good.points or sound re...Yea, dont say that WLC has good.points or sound reasoning because ge DOESN'T. How could he ? He arguing for a fable!! He uses slick tactics and trickery instead of good arguments. No point in debating someone who has NO valid argument, because only waiting for you to say something out of confusion so he can go "gotcha!!" ....thats worthlessAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207271143585074240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42282831892557633552014-02-26T09:05:27.545-05:002014-02-26T09:05:27.545-05:00Ultimately, who cares? Craigy can be the Philosoph...Ultimately, who cares? Craigy can be the Philosopher King if he wants. The believers need their heroes too. Frohickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267051418863540418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91549375317845213282014-02-26T09:02:45.881-05:002014-02-26T09:02:45.881-05:00I sometimes find that men like Harris and Krauss a...I sometimes find that men like Harris and Krauss are more interested in communicating with the audience rather than waste time in a dubious battle of wits with Craig. It's more like they are giving a lecture which is periodically interrupted by Craig's diatribes. Craig seems to dislike that they ignore his many specific questions and just continue on where they left off. Frohickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267051418863540418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60329036548759517542014-01-21T13:55:11.393-05:002014-01-21T13:55:11.393-05:00No one has ever had their ass whipped by WLC. I...No one has ever had their ass whipped by WLC. I've watched many of his debates and the only people whoe seem to think he won are his fellow believers. I will give him this he is good at using tatics in his debate to try and keep his opponents from making their point. He often starts his debates (and he always goes first) by piling on numerous questions for his opponent to address, each of which could be a debate in and of themselves. For example he once opened a debate on the existence of God using the resurrection as a proof! For his opponent to refute him he would have to attempt to refute the arguments he presented, including the resurrection in 20 mins! This is nothing more than a debate trick. If in your opinion someone was unable to address many arguments thrown at them all at once, including one like the resurrection, would be considered the loser in a debate, then I have to ask, what in your opinion constitutes a fair and good debate? Every debate I have with WLC his oponent uses facts and data that are backed by imperical data and scholarship in the field being discussed. WLC will sometimes use scientific data but attributes its workings to God, how convenient. His fall back position is the bible. Really? So to "win" an argument with him you now have to dispute the validity of the bible in addition to everything else he throws at you. The simple fact is that at the end of the day WLC has NEVER offered imperical evidence fo the existence of a god, nor has anyone. The fact of the matter is when we look at cosmology, physiology, biology and any other study of the universe around us, all that we know and have found thus far can be, and is, explained by the natural laws that govern our reality. No god has yet to be found. The best any one can say is "I am a believer in God and I chose to see god at work in all the laws of nature". If someone choses to take that stand more power to them. However THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, IT IS ONLY A BELIEVE, At the end of the day WLC has never won a straight forward debate on the evidence of god because, again, there is none to date.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31657123579428045902013-12-09T04:24:57.023-05:002013-12-09T04:24:57.023-05:00the teapot analogy is stupid because it can be &qu...the teapot analogy is stupid because it can be "rationally disproved' Craig is right. However, let's say I believe in a God who exists inside black holes. Now, since you have NO present evidence to the contrary, my Black Hole God is JUST AS likely to exist as your christian god. This is a failure on his part. He chose to keep it "earth based" because he knows this point exists perfectly in "logical equivalence". Stick with faith, it's where religion belongs. It isn't logical or rational. (actually, faith by definition can not be based on evidence. So the entire premise is comical)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16992094477792400269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38761289233953779572013-12-04T06:42:14.929-05:002013-12-04T06:42:14.929-05:00Apparently you DO have to be a rocket scientist, o...Apparently you DO have to be a rocket scientist, or at least smarter than you seem to be.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16103332296796861202013-12-04T02:53:12.413-05:002013-12-04T02:53:12.413-05:00The Bible "literally" teaches the Trinit...The Bible "literally" teaches the Trinity, the Incarnation, Jesus' death that redeems from sin in the believer, the Resurrection, miracles, Divine Providence, the Omniscience, Omnipotence, Aseity, and Eternality of God, salvation by grace through faith, Christian particularism, etc., etc. Craig declares and defends all of these doctrines.<br /><br />As for why he doesn't debate someone who believes the Neo-Darwinian theory of naturalistic evolution:<br /><br />"Indeed, there are very good grounds for scepticism about the neo-Darwinian mechanisms behind evolutionary change." (Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed#ixzz2mUS9VbO7).<br /><br />Clearly, WLC is no fan of Neo-Darwinism, and therefore would be more likely to debate a Dawkins or Dennet on the subject than a Morris.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14265444111611995863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14061777708622179912013-12-04T02:30:01.854-05:002013-12-04T02:30:01.854-05:00Perhaps it's that all such debates proceed mor...Perhaps it's that all such debates proceed more on emotion than reason, but why is it that three terms, theist, atheist, and agnostic are so misunderstood and/or misconstrued? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the first two refer to those who hold beliefs, the former in the truth of a certain proposition we might refer to here as the "theistic proposition", the latter to the one who believes its denial, and the third that refers to a person lacking belief with regard to both the "theistic proposition" and its denial. Why is this view taken to be an odious debating tactic, or overly tyrannical, as opposed to being exhaustive of all possible epistemic circumstances with regard to what, for referential ease, I'm here labeling the "theistic proposition"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14265444111611995863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49759776552373074412013-11-19T23:10:39.195-05:002013-11-19T23:10:39.195-05:00Dawkins with his arrogant response to Craig. Craig...Dawkins with his arrogant response to Craig. Craig is world famous, he wins all the debates, that is why Dawkins is so afraid. Dawkins has the nerve to put down Craig instead of just debating him. heymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07862070686670002436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10507455129775302492013-11-19T23:08:00.941-05:002013-11-19T23:08:00.941-05:00watch the debate against Lawrence Krauss and watch...watch the debate against Lawrence Krauss and watch Krauss squirm. The audience again voted Craig the winner. You may prefer Krauss, but that doesn't make him the winner.heymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07862070686670002436noreply@blogger.com