| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why I refuse to debate with William Craig Lane | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 27 2011, 01:01 PM (854 Views) | |
| Moonbat | Oct 27 2011, 01:01 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Oct 27 2011, 02:03 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Looking at his bio, it's pretty easy to see why Dawkins is afraid of him and reduced to demonizing him to save face...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history.[4] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[5] From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.[5] an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism.[1] He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy.[2] He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (co-authored with Quentin Smith, 1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith, 2007).[3] Craig has debated with prominent intellectuals such as Antony Flew,[27] A. C. Grayling,[28] Daniel Dennett,[29] Lawrence Krauss,[30][31] Victor Stenger,[32] Peter Atkins,[33] and Christopher Hitchens.[34] Craig maintains that science and faith are connected and that the physical sciences are more open to the idea of a creator than they have been in recent history.[35] Popular New Atheist author Sam Harris described Craig at their Notre Dame University debate as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."[36] Looks to me like it is Dawkins whose CV would get the boost..... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Oct 27 2011, 02:04 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
To reduce it down so the liberals and atheists can follow along.... He'd eat Dawkins alive. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 27 2011, 02:12 PM Post #4 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I already tried to hook you up with a gig, Moonbat. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 27 2011, 04:19 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I attended the debate between Craig Lane and Stephen Law who stepped in for Polly Toynbee. As I've noted before Craig Lane is quite a good debater, he uses a measured tone of voice, he does not belittle his opponents, he tends to make 2-3 points over 12 minutes then recaps them for the final 2. However his arguments were spectacularly terrible. For instance he started off by claiming that the universe could not be infinitely old because infinity was a weird concept ('metaphysically there are grave problems with infinity' or something like that but it amounted to the same thing) he actually trotted out a few bog standard examples e.g. if you have an infinite number of coins and then you give away half of your coins you still have an infinite number of coins. It got even worse from there. (The usual if there's a beginning there must be cause and then the mind boggling assertion that that cause had to be it to be a "timeless immaterial personal being".) Argument no.2 was: 1. For there to be an objective morality you need a deity 2. There is objective morality 3. Therefore there is a deity. This is supposedly the most intellectually rigorous defence for theology? Stephen Law did not really take his arguments on at all, instead focusing on the theodicy argument with an interesting twist: if someone put to you the idea that there is an infinitely evil God you would reject this as ridiculous by pointing to all the good things that happen, the love people feel for one another, babies laughing in the sunlight, etc. etc., then of course he points out that the same reasoning applies to an infinitely good God, furthermore all the get out clauses that are supposedly able to defend an infinitely good God, i.e. free will, master plan where everything works out, the good of afterlife outweighing everything etc. etc. can all be brought out for an infinitely evil one too. Craig Lane claimed (as I thought he would) that an infinitely evil God was not ridiculous. Or atleast that an evil God is not made ridiculous by observing the world. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 27 2011, 04:22 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
![]()
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Oct 27 2011, 04:30 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
One problem with the concept of an infinitely evil God. Evil by our definition must destroy. Creation would be anathema to it. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 27 2011, 04:36 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Meh you could say "evil" will destroy "good" things and create "evil" things and "good" will destroy "evil" things and create "good" ones. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 27 2011, 04:46 PM Post #9 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Unless you ground terms like "good" and "evil" in reason and observation and don't think in terms of dualism. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jane D'Oh | Oct 27 2011, 04:47 PM Post #10 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
. |
| Pfft. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Oct 27 2011, 04:48 PM Post #11 |
|
MAMIL
|
How do you mean, is he a cannibal, or does he like to play the pink clarinet? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 27 2011, 04:48 PM Post #12 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Hi John.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Oct 27 2011, 04:50 PM Post #13 |
|
Finally
|
|
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| brenda | Oct 27 2011, 04:53 PM Post #14 |
![]()
..............
|
Cruel he is. Whenever he does that, it makes me miss our Jane.
|
|
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.” ~A.A. Milne | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 27 2011, 04:54 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
One can proclaim that there is good and there is evil, one can proclaim that there is just good and evil is merely the lack of good or one can proclaim there is just evil and good is merely the lack of evil. It's just semantics, it says nothing. There can be no observations favouring one of these statements over the others for the statements are not empirical claims at all. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 27 2011, 05:01 PM Post #16 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That would be like saying: One can proclaim that there is light and there is dark, one can proclaim that there is just light and dark is merely the lack of light or one can proclaim there is just dark and light is the lack dark. or One can proclaim that there is heat and there is cold, one can proclaim that there is just heat and cold is merely the lack of heat or one can proclaim there is just cold and heat is the lack cold. It's just semantics, it says nothing, there can be no observations favouring one over the other for the statements are not empirical claims at all. (and preemptively, unless you want to say that things like raping and poisoning people are not empirically bad/evil and things like feeding the poor or dressing a wound are not empirically good, then I don't know how can disqualify the parallels). |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Oct 27 2011, 05:03 PM Post #17 |
|
MAMIL
|
Mrs. D'Oh's got more sense than to get involved with this kind of ridiculous thread. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Oct 27 2011, 05:07 PM Post #18 |
|
MAMIL
|
Do you mean raping and poisoning someone, and then feeding them and dressing their wounds, or is it all different people? Because if you mean it's all the same person, then I think that's a bit unrealistic. If anything, you'd do the feeding and dressing the wounds first, in order to gain their trust, and then, just when they weren't expecting it, you'd slip them a dodgy sandwich, and rape them after they fell over. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 27 2011, 05:24 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Indeed one could. If you couldn't measure photons.
Indeed one could. If you couldn't measure phonons. We could have found a world with both light particles and dark particles (e.g. we find a world with both positive charge and negative charge), or we could have found a world with just dark particles or with just light particles. An equivalent statement can be made for what we experience as heat and cold. We can easily think about what differences we would expect to see in a world where there really were only dark particles. In fact you can picture it pretty easily by looking at negatives. You could also explain what we would see if there really were both light particles and dark particles (you could do experiments that would detect particles of dark. You would find that you could make a room appear dimmer by adding more dark sources whilst holding the light sources constant, etc. etc.) that's what makes the theories empirical that's what makes them testable, and that's what necessarily lifts them above mere semantics. Can you tell me what you would expect to see in a world where there really was both "good" and "evil" or where "good" really was the absence of "evil"? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Oct 27 2011, 05:24 PM Post #20 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
John, I think your latter observation has been covered in that Deuteronomy |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Oct 27 2011, 05:57 PM Post #21 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
KSR783. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 27 2011, 05:59 PM Post #22 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The voice of experience, huh?
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 27 2011, 06:01 PM Post #23 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
LOTR
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 27 2011, 06:05 PM Post #24 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So is there some way of exciting matter than produces cold without removing the heat from somewhere else? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Oct 28 2011, 04:16 AM Post #25 |
|
MAMIL
|
You have to remove the energy from somewhere else, since energy is always conserved, however that energy wouldn't necessarily be heat. After they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, there wasn't this place in Idaho that suddenly got really, really frigid. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |














4:16 PM Jul 10