Skip to main content


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


Salim said…
Have you tried contacting James and Liz from The Pod Delusion? They are often up for that sort of thing.
Anonymous said…
I would have thought Westminster Hall had facilities for that kind of thing?
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?
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?
Tracy is a graphic designer. Not a sophisticated philosopher. I have never seem an argument like this from any so-called experts in philosophy.
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
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
jbierly said…
oh I am so excited to hear this debate!!!!
Lord craig says that the debates are going to a draw.
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.

Popular posts from this blog

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.


(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

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o