tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post3217505779597311073..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Debate with William Lane CraigStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65108560261230642152020-11-25T15:56:26.358+00:002020-11-25T15:56:26.358+00:00Its such as you read my thoughts! You seem to know...Its such as you read my thoughts! You seem to know so much approximately this, such as you wrote the book in it or something. I feel that you simply can do with a few p.c. to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, that is fantastic blog. An excellent read. I'll definitely be back.ed medicationhttps://erectiledysfunctionpillscvs.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30484708602447020502020-11-25T15:44:26.477+00:002020-11-25T15:44:26.477+00:00This website was... how do I say it? Relevant!! Fi...This website was... how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something that helped me. Cheers!erectile dysfunction causeshttps://besterectiledysfunctionpills.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1780295372163919452012-09-02T00:48:40.732+00:002012-09-02T00:48:40.732+00:00Dr. Law, have you considered using William Lane Cr...Dr. Law, have you considered using William Lane Craig’s own debating style against him? To illustrate, here’s an article on <a href="http://maverickatheism.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-argument-from-evil-in-nutshell.html" rel="nofollow">the argument from evil</a> that I made (I know, shameless plug) that uses the sort of debating style William Lane Craig does.Maverick Atheismhttp://maverickatheism.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17716660833607177972011-10-26T20:24:37.855+00:002011-10-26T20:24:37.855+00:00Hi - not semantics: the only point I am making to ...Hi - not semantics: the only point I am making to Stephen is that the major contention in your 1st address was that there could as equally be an evil god as a good one as foundational to your belief that either is highly unlikely. But this to me seems flawed unless you are prepared to accept dualism - the Lewis quote points to a logical reason why it can't be so - please respond if you think Lewis is wrong. If not, your mirror argument is negated and I am left wondering what other objections you have to Prof. Craig's assertion of a good creator. Despite enough provocation you didn't respond adequately to the kalam argument, the moral argument seems to be presupposition - not sure you really want objective morality to be true as you said - and I think the UFO stunt at the end was kind of playground for someone with your background. Of course atheists can refute any leg of the Christian claim as rationally avoidable but the cumulative case seems highly compelling. Anyway, at least you turned up which is more than some, and I agree the debate was carried out in good faith (pardon the pun) and was an interesting session overall so thank you.Ashdown Propertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00313521964225825756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51472142052640683872011-10-26T07:41:47.333+00:002011-10-26T07:41:47.333+00:00Ashdown Property,
You are just playing semantics....Ashdown Property,<br /><br />You are just playing semantics. Listen to the Craig Vs Arif debate. Arif demolishes your argument using an analogy.JOJO JACOBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09491469892042720606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23781069758824440302011-10-25T20:59:54.127+00:002011-10-25T20:59:54.127+00:00Ho Ashdown property. That seems to me to be a vari...Ho Ashdown property. That seems to me to be a variant of the "evil proves god" line that Craig took in his first rebuttal and which I dealt with in mine.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31569536516842122052011-10-25T20:06:53.639+00:002011-10-25T20:06:53.639+00:00HI Stephen - your argument vs Prof Craig by postul...HI Stephen - your argument vs Prof Craig by postulating an evil god assumes evil could exist independently of good. As CS Lewis once said (no doubt one of your favourite writers): "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.” Any response?Ashdown Propertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00313521964225825756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50473911382427884892011-10-17T13:10:17.249+00:002011-10-17T13:10:17.249+00:00Sorry atheists but God allways win in the end!
Jes...Sorry atheists but God allways win in the end!<br />Jesus was cruccified and since then he allways wins. <br /> Only people who are not in Jesus side have fear.Craig will be very calm and confident in Jesus help ,but you ..only in your mind ,and you know how weak are human mind.binnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1034593326033026742011-10-02T09:32:48.202+00:002011-10-02T09:32:48.202+00:00Just another comment re Craig's 5th argument ...Just another comment re Craig's 5th argument from personal revelation. I said above, the 'argument' is often supplemented by Craig when challenged by him suggesting that unless you establish his experience is 'delusional' then he sees no reason to abandon it. His own words and the emotion with which he speaks them are strong evidence of Craig's emotional investment in his 'reasoned belief'and reason to conclude that his fervor is or borders on the delusional. Just listen to him in his debate with Kagan at 1:15:26 where he confesses that the thought of an ultimate end is "...just so depressing so awful that it just seems to put a ? mark behind everything we do, all our accomplishments all our deeds just seem so trivial in light of this cosmic doom that awaits us all." <br />It really shows this man is really invested in his absolute significance to the universe and simply cannot accept he is going to end up dust. That simply cannot happen to the great W Craig and as a result he will cling to anything/do anything to maintain the delusion of a reasoned conclusion that an eternal existence awaits W Craig. Craigs world it seems would fall apart if he cant maintain his belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15515952659303411112011-09-29T02:55:06.096+00:002011-09-29T02:55:06.096+00:00Es evidente que el ala atea teme en sobremanera lo...Es evidente que el ala atea teme en sobremanera lo que WLC pueda hacer con su oponente...si Dios no existe y el Dr. Craig vence en el debate..felicidades por su capacidad pero si Dios existe...hay millones de cristianos orando para que el Poder del E.S. le respalde...y es algo que no toman en cuenta los ateos..Luvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10085168981235895792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82914537804000028942011-09-20T12:07:32.182+00:002011-09-20T12:07:32.182+00:00http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1212http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1212JOJO JACOBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09491469892042720606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41993727816687061612011-09-20T12:05:37.992+00:002011-09-20T12:05:37.992+00:00Craig knows nothing about infinity.
http://common...Craig knows nothing about infinity.<br /><br />http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1637JOJO JACOBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09491469892042720606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90630654197714755442011-09-18T22:16:05.196+00:002011-09-18T22:16:05.196+00:00I'm glad it's you and not an atheist such ...I'm glad it's you and not an atheist such as Dawkins or Toynbee. Watching debates against 2 equal opponents is good for the mind. This is how both sides learn each other, and I'm honored to see you on the other side of one of my favorite Christian philosophers.<br /><br />Stephen you definitely are a threat to my position and arguably one of the best philosophers the atheist side has to offer on the Existence of God.<br /><br />You and Dr. Craig shall have a splendid debate!!!Cornell Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13255210404560230404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49102301067784289512011-09-14T05:10:18.698+00:002011-09-14T05:10:18.698+00:00G'day Paul
Thanks for the feedback.
I blog o...G'day Paul<br /><br />Thanks for the feedback.<br /><br />I blog on a religion site and atheist site in a newspaper at home. Two to three years ago, the religion moderator challenged us Secular Humanists to come up with an objective base for morality and none of us could do it, so it got me thinking and searching, which is how I came across Stephen's work, amongst others.<br /><br />When the idea of peace came to me, it seemed too simple so I sat on it for a good while and thought and started writing it down. Eventually I thought I had to try it out in blogland knowing that if it was flaky it would get trashed and thrown back at me as there are some good thinkers on those blogs. It got a response so big I couldn't respond to all the comments. Many wanted to know how it would work in so and so situation and the Moonman thesis started getting longer and longer. <br /><br />We've discussed it at length over the past year, but no one punched any holes in it. The Untheists (religious unbelievers) liked it, except for the resident Randian who gets grumpy if anyone doesn't use Ayn's dictionary. One Asecularist (those who deny the existence or primacy of secularism) even agreed that it did work, but it was merely an alternative to his god and he'd continue to use his god. <br /><br />For myself, I prefer an alternative that is factual to an alternative that has not be shown to be factual and after mulling over this idea for two years, it still seems solid to me and makes gods redundant when it comes to morality.<br /><br />I agree that anyone with a scientific method outlook can't take Lane seriously and the bullshit detectors go into overdrive as he has too many unsubstantiated assertions that he just claims as facts to base his arguments on and he doesn't seem to get called on them. <br /><br />I don't have any debating skills myself, having done none since class room debates in school when I wasn't any good at it, though I have learned how to give to speeches well, but debating is another step or three up from speeches, so I appreciate Lane's skill in this area, but I do know that delivery can trump content in a public speaking debate, particularly when there are no substantiated facts behind each side of the main topic.Alan Millhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462577914066400107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14598177619638156292011-09-12T23:47:20.164+00:002011-09-12T23:47:20.164+00:00G'day Paul
Thanks.
I blog on a religion site...G'day Paul<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />I blog on a religion site and atheist site in a newspaper at home. Two to three years ago, the religion moderater challenged us Secular Humanists to come up with an objective base for morality and none of us could do it, so it got me thinking and searching, which is how I came across Stephen's work, amongst others.<br /><br />When the idea of peace came to me, it seemed too simple so I sat on it for a good while and thought and started writing it down. Eventually I thought I had to try it out in blogland knowing that if it was flaky it would get trashed and thrown back at me as there are some good thinkers on those blogs. It got a response so big I couldn't respond to all the comments. Many wanted to know how it would work in so and so situation and I found I could answer those queries and the Moonman thesis started getting longer and longer. Others pointed out a few logic errors that I corrected. <br /><br />We've discussed it at length over the past year, but no one punched any holes in it. The Untheists (religious unbelievers) liked it, except for the resident Randian who gets grumpy if anyone doesn't use Ayn's dictionary. One Asecularist (those who deny the existence or primacy of secularism) even agreed that it did work, but it was merely an alternative to his god and he'd continue to use his god. <br /><br />For myself, I prefer an alternative that is factual to an alternative that has not be shown to be factual and after mulling over this idea for two years, it still seems solid to me and makes gods redundant when it comes to morality.<br /><br />I agree that anyone with a scientific method outlook can't take Lane seriously and the bullshit detectors go into overdirve as he has too many unsubstantiated assertions that he just claims as facts to base his arguments on and he doesn't seem to get called on them. <br /><br />I don't have any debating skills myself, having done none since class room debates in school when I wasn't any good at it, though I have learned how to give to speech well, but debating is another step or three up from speeches, so I appreciate Lane's skill in this area, but I do know that delivery can trump content in a public speaking debate, particularly when there are no substantiated facts behind each side of the main topic.Alan Millhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462577914066400107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-608354110467721802011-09-12T07:42:35.182+00:002011-09-12T07:42:35.182+00:00Patrick who is not Patrick exposes the fallacy of ...Patrick who is not Patrick exposes the fallacy of Loard craig's deductive logic.<br /><br />http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6113JOJO JACOBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09491469892042720606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29614892651033178842011-09-12T00:59:24.593+00:002011-09-12T00:59:24.593+00:00Hi Buzz,
A very interesting argument on morality....Hi Buzz,<br /><br />A very interesting argument on morality.<br /><br />I agree with your point: <br /><br /><i>Secular humanist liberal social democracy is the only guarantee the religious have to freely practice their beliefs. Not even their own religion or denomination can guarantee this.</i><br /><br />Living in a 'secular humanist liberal social democracy' I couldn't agree more.<br /><br />I also think think this is a pertinent point: <br /><br /><i>Morality is not a result of a religious discourse. Religion is the result of a moral discourse. You cannot have religion without first having morality as you can't have religion without having a stable social group and to have a stable social group, you need to have morality.</i><br /><br />I've long argued that God is the projection of the human psyche rather than the converse. So God can represent both the best and worst of humanity.<br /><br />I've only one thing to say about Craig: Anyone with a scientific background cannot take him seriously at all. It's a conundrum that he can convince so many people that he's more knowledgable than he really is.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26244141719160853202011-09-11T01:06:44.000+00:002011-09-11T01:06:44.000+00:00What was accepted as moral by Christians in the pa...What was accepted as moral by Christians in the past is not accepted by them now, like slavery. The Quakers and liberal Christians who were at the forefront of abolition were not popular with mainstream Christians but they persevered and succeeded because their measurement of slavery against the idea of mutual peace was correct.<br /><br />The practice of mutual peace is the end result of morality but the idea of mutual peace is the starting point. Peace is the alpha and the omega of morality. <br /><br />There is absolute morality - do not murder<br />There is conditional morality - do not kill (except under certain conditions, like self defence)<br />There is no relative morality - honour killings are murder<br /><br />"Good" is not a basis for morality because it is subjective. There is disagreement about the concept of good because "good" is subjective. There is no disagreement, which I am aware of, around the concept of mutual peace. Everyone knows what that is, because it is objective.<br /><br /><br />Peace does not care how we use the morality we obtain from peace, nor care whether we are moral or immoral. Peace doesn't demand that we behave in a certain way. Peace is not an entity. Peace doesn't have an agenda or a Plan for us that it demands we follow. Peace doesn't demand our submission to its will. <br /><br />Peace is objective and is the same for everyone regardless of their prejudices and ideologies. Some people may not want peace or like it but it is still objectively the same for them as it is for those who do want peaceful co-existence. That’s why people who are Humanist, be they religious or secular, strive for Peace on earth and goodwill to all. <br /><br />We naturally derive morality from examining the way to live in un-coerced peaceful co-existence which gives us a natural social ordering principle. We don't need a god to reveal this morality to us. The morality from god thesis only shifts the goalpost as it leaves unanswered the question of how god reaches a decision on morality. If god uses reason to arrive at a morality decision then god is not doing anything we can't do for ourselves. <br /><br />What’s the point of morality? What are we trying to achieve with it. What type of life are we after? What is the end result of behaving morally? A peaceful un-coerced life, that's what we are trying to achieve. <br /><br />Our cave dwelling ancestors would've worked this out a couple of hundred thousand years ago. <br /><br /><br />So the argument looks more like<br />Objective moral values can be measured by mutual peace<br />Objective moral values and mutual peace exist<br />Gods are redundant in determining objective moral values<br /><br />Note that this does not prove that gods do not exist or did exist but no longer exist, just that they are morally unnecessary and politically undesirable. <br /><br /><br /><br />Shalom<br />Peace be with you<br />Go in peace<br />Peace on earth and goodwill to all<br />Give peace a chance<br /><br /><br /><br />PS Break a legAlan Millhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462577914066400107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15050984994980471352011-09-11T01:05:07.636+00:002011-09-11T01:05:07.636+00:00Stephen
The other area where I think Lane is wron...Stephen<br /><br />The other area where I think Lane is wrong is on the objective base for morality. Again, he is making claims that he can't know about and he doesn't deal with the issue of how a god would make a decision on what they should tell us mere humans is the right and wrong thing to do.<br /><br />He makes many wishful thinking assertions and he never demonstrates that gods are objective. The information from their alleged interaction with humans shows them to be very subjective. Even a god is going to need an objective (external) base (idea) for measuring morality.<br /><br />So here is a different approach to harm based morality for you to think about. <br /><br />The objective foundation for morality is peace, the mutual peace of un-coerced peaceful co-existence.<br /><br />Morality comes from the idea of mutual peace, not the idea of god.<br /><br />Peace is not only the objective, it is objective. It is a political act between humans. It is not a divine gift. Peace exists regardless of the existence or not of any gods. It cannot be given as a gift, it has to be achieved by human co-operation.<br /><br />When humans behave in ways that create, enhance and sustain the conditions for mutual peace, they are being moral. The conditions necessary for peace, (and I mean un-coerced peaceful co-existence, not Pax Romana or Pax Britanica which are not mutual peace and are merely an Orwellian idea of peace) are created using the golden rule, mutual aid and loving your neighbour, using the tools of empathy, compassion and emotion, measured against peace.<br /><br />It's not rocket science. Why would you prefer not to live in a world of peace on earth and goodwill to all?<br /><br />Morality is not a result of a religious discourse. Religion is the result of a moral discourse. You cannot have religion without first having morality as you can't have religion without having a stable social group and to have a stable social group, you need to have morality.<br /><br />Morality changes because we constantly measure morality against the idea of mutual peace and when humans decide that a particular moral standard doesn't measure up against the idea of mutual peace anymore, we change our attitude and what was once moral now becomes immoral, like racism and sexism.<br /><br /><br />TBCAlan Millhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462577914066400107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13478105263009240152011-09-11T00:54:21.453+00:002011-09-11T00:54:21.453+00:00The topic is bit of a difficult one for secular hu...The topic is bit of a difficult one for secular humanists to win as well. You’re discussing a negative that hasn’t been proved in any of the thousands of times this topic has been debated over the centuries. He can't prove the positive either. In two and a half thousand years theologians have spent millions of pages on god and have not moved the issue a Planck length beyond Aristotle’s prime mover idea.<br /><br />On the other hand, the fact that we are still having this same argument after many centuries indicates that the pro gods mob have failed to demonstrate they have anything other than wishful thinking.<br /><br />Lane makes many unsubstantiated assertions and assumes they are right when he shows no such thing. The fact is that no one knows the origin of it all. He only has wishful thinking. And one thing you have to argue and get across is that there is nothing wrong is acknowledging that we don't know because it doesn't really matter if there are uncertainties. As Russell said "On the one hand there is theology, on the other hand there is science and in the middle is philosophy and the point of philosophy is to teach us to live with uncertainty." Which is exactly what philosophers like yourself have helped me do.<br /><br />The area that Lane would have problems with is the political aspect of religion, the totalitarian nature of god as ordering principle, an ordering principle that can be politically activated whether god exists or not. The indisputable facts are that clerics cause social disaster whenever they get their hands on the levers of practical political power. Lane's ordering principle is inferior to secular humanist liberal social democracy. The political reality of religion, which is theocracy, is a truly repugnant and obnoxious totalitarianism. These are indisputable facts. Religion is only mild in our society because secularism has done a pretty good, but not complete job of neutralising religion in the political process. Given the opportunity, the politically religious will seek to destroy separation of church and state and implement their authoritarian politics. They always have done this, are doing it now in some countries and will do so in the future if given the chance. Secular humanist liberal social democracy is the only guarantee the religious have to freely practice their beliefs. Not even their own religion or denomination can guarantee this.<br /><br />Maybe a better debate topic would be – Gods are politically obnoxious and socially unnecessary. The consequences of god as ordering principle are facts that can be scientifically examined and valued.<br /><br />It can be argued that god has no moral obligations (though I think that makes him dodgy and not a being you should take moral advice from) but humans do have moral obligations and it is never right for a human to support ethnic cleansing of innocent children no matter which conscious being does it. Being on the apologist cheer squad for Yahweh’s ethnic cleansing of innocent children is grossly immoral.Alan Millhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462577914066400107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33237168454037336932011-09-11T00:34:35.195+00:002011-09-11T00:34:35.195+00:00Paul
I fully agree with the advice of Polonius – ...Paul<br /><br />I fully agree with the advice of Polonius – to thy own self be true, but I also value of self improvement. <br /><br />I am not suggesting Stephen have a haircut or change his clothes. I’m fine with his hair and clothes. I’m just pointing out that a public speaking engagement with Lane and Law is not a level playing field. Lane is on the high ground when it comes to making an impression. Debating Lane is about engaging with religious people and presenting secular humanist ideas to them. Socially conservative people have their superficial prejudices and Stephen’s fine ideas have to counter these prejudices which is not easy.<br /><br />As an original thinker, Stephen is way ahead of Lane but this is a spoken debate and the techniques of such are involved. Lane is considered to have won most of his debates, usually with people who are better thinkers than him. So why does he win? And how do we measure a win in a debate where neither side can prove their position?<br /><br />Part of it comes down to superficial impressions, just like it does when the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition square off during election debates.<br /><br />Stephen’s writing skills are excellent but his presentation skills have room for improvement. Anyone who can climb those mountains does it because they have improved their climbing skills. Public speaking skills are no different. Well maybe they are harder as most people say they would rather die than give a public presentation. <br /><br />Lane wins debates partly because he has better delivery and doesn’t waste his time on waffle and silence when time is of the essence. The best lecturers are the ones who engage by bringing you into the zone and taking you along for the ride. For most of us that is a skill we have to acquire through hard work and self reflection on our abilities. It’s a skill Lane acquired to compensate for his shallow wishful thinking.<br /><br />CheersAlan Millhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462577914066400107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50720641886351544762011-09-10T07:50:06.362+00:002011-09-10T07:50:06.362+00:00With all due respect to Buzz, I say Stephen: be yo...With all due respect to Buzz, I say Stephen: be yourself.<br /><br />The worst thing anyone can do in a debate or public speaking is to project an image of themselves that they're not comfortable with, or is not them. It will just come over as insincere. Be authentic.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62646703072705303582011-09-09T04:36:17.981+00:002011-09-09T04:36:17.981+00:00G’day Stephen
As Sir Humphrey would say, "...G’day Stephen<br /> <br />As Sir Humphrey would say, "That's very brave of you, Stephen"<br /><br />I've been following your blog for a couple of years with interest, and have read a few of your excellent books but think that you have chosen to argue with Lane in the area of public speaking, which is his greatest strength and your greatest weakness. Your greatest strength is the written word, which is Lane's greatest weakness. Just try reading a transcript of one of his debates and then look at the video of it. His opponents look great on paper and then wither at the podium. Lane withers on paper and looks great at the podium.<br /><br />Lane is a brilliant public speaker, no ums or ers, no waffle, no stops and starts, great microphone technique and fabulous voice projection and tone. He gets in the zone right at the start and stays there. He is impressive at the lectern.<br /><br />I've listened to and watched a number of your presentations and unfortunately, you are a woeful bumbler, mumbler, waffler, who ums and ers and stops and starts so much that if that was edited out of your presentation, it would take up half as much time. You are rarely in the zone. This will cost you if you can’t correct this behaviour by the time of the debate.<br /><br />You may have the content over Lane but he has the delivery and in a public speaking debate, delivery can trump content. And Lane does have plenty of content that will impress the gullible. <br /><br />And then there is visible presentation. I know this is superficial but it is important because most people are superficial. Lane will be in a nice suit and tie, clean shaven with a tidy short back and sides haircut. He will look respectable. You will look a bit scruffy and no matter how groovy and true that is to your character, it will go against you with the religious people you are trying to connect with. It's why all the hippy Green politicians and spokes people now wear suits and look respectable rather than what is naturally them. Why do all leaders look like this. Because superficial appearance matters with the general public. Only in a totalitarian state like Iran could a president get away with looking scruffy. Even most totalitarians will dress up. It impresses the gullible.Alan Millhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462577914066400107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13497586209306501262011-09-08T14:21:09.888+00:002011-09-08T14:21:09.888+00:00Disappointed to see the amount of negativity in a ...Disappointed to see the amount of negativity in a lot of these comments. I, for one, think it's going to be a very interesting debate with two very intelligent philosophers.<br /><br />Also bit puzzled by people saying you should not let Craig go first- it would be strange for the affirming speaker, in this case WLC, to go second, especially given the fact that you will probably argue that absence of evidence for God is evidence of his absence. Given that fact, what your commentors expect you to say in your opening speech when WLC hasn't even had the chance to give the case for theism is anybody's guess. Let the affirming speaker go first, and look forward to a very interesting and cordial debate. Much like your debate with Plantinga, I expect you will have some very constructive things to say.<br />Looking forward to it! =)Michael Baldwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09496687749283004816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86625119348920121422011-09-08T12:30:43.734+00:002011-09-08T12:30:43.734+00:00By the way, Stephen, I've been very curious fo...By the way, Stephen, I've been very curious for a while to see Craig's Kalam examined on whether or not it commits equivocation. People have highlighted his use of "begins to exist" and whether or not it jumps between "ex nihilo" and "existent material re-arranging".<br /><br />He's responded to these objections already, but I've not really heard much substantive challenge put to him in debate, on this issue, it seems to resurface more regularly at the moment, in the general blogosphere.<br /><br />Would be fascinating to see what you make of it!<br /><br />Hope holidays go well! :-)Peter Byromnoreply@blogger.com