Skip to main content

Recording

Is anyone attending the craig debate in a position to make an audio recording of the entire exchange (from audience)?

Comments

Salim said…
Have you tried contacting James and Liz from The Pod Delusion? They are often up for that sort of thing.
August 20, 2011 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said…
I would have thought Westminster Hall had facilities for that kind of thing?
August 20, 2011 at 9:46 AM
zer said…
Won't it be webcast live? I'm from India. Can't attend it.I've been waiting for years to see Craig meet a good match who understands his arguments. Could it please be made possible?
August 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM
Jay44 said…
You do know that Premier Radio and UCCF are going to be recording all of the debates in Craig's Tour don't you?
August 21, 2011 at 12:45 AM
JOJO JACOB said…
Tracy is a graphic designer. Not a sophisticated philosopher. I have never seem an argument like this from any so-called experts in philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrSwn4-fitA
August 22, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous said…
Get someone to set up your laptop to record in most cases the quality should be good enough particularly if you have a plug in mic
August 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM
skydivephil said…
Ill be there and can do it and download it to your lap top there and then. Let me know if you want to facebook me: skydivephil
August 23, 2011 at 5:55 PM
jbierly said…
oh I am so excited to hear this debate!!!!
August 29, 2011 at 4:06 PM
JOJO JACOB said…
Lord craig says that the debates are going to a draw.

http://www.youtube.com/drcraigvideos
September 20, 2011 at 8:01 AM
Mark Szlazak said…
The problem atheist have is that Craig has good reasons for his arguments for God and atheists don't have much in the way of good responses against God that Craig can't easily destroy and they don't have great arguments for naturalism nor atheism.

It isn't really about debating tactics but just the shabby state of the atheistic position.

What you can beat Craig on is particulars about the Christian faith like resurrection of Jesus, the trinity and so on.

The best way to beat him isn't from an atheistic perspective but from a supernatural perspective.
October 15, 2011 at 2:54 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 comments
Read more