Skip to main content

Upcoming debate with William Lane Craig



For tickets go here: http://www.premier.org.uk/craig

Comments

AIGBusted said…
Hope it'll get recorded, and I know you'll do well.
September 11, 2011 at 1:19 AM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks - will do my best, obviously.
September 11, 2011 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said…
Hopefully you've been given advice not to underestimate Craig.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
September 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Laurence said…
I really hope this gets recorded because I really want to see it. I love Philosophy Bites podcast that you are on.
September 11, 2011 at 9:50 PM
Alan Fox said…
I suspect quite a few people have already suggested that debating Craig is going to be counter-productive.

For example:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-reasonable-people-should-not-debate.html

He has debated several prominent atheists in this way and, for example, Christopher Hitchens, found the experience frustrating.

Below is a link to a blog that has a summary of Craig's debates with video and audio links which you may find useful (or already be aware of).

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

Anyway best of luck.

(Though I have my doubts how anyone can sensibly philosophically argue for the existence of God(s. You either fall back on Gods) being immaterial entirely, in which case they might just as well not exist, or God(s) can have effects in the material world, in which case we can examine the scientific evidence. No factual claim for the power of divine intervention has ever been supported when subjected to scientific study. So it boils down to whether one is emotionally disposed to believe claims for divine existence. This, of course should be a personal choice and a basic human right for everyone, a much more important issue, in my view.

Anyway, best of luck!
September 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM
Alan Fox said…
Apologies, I did not notice the previous thread where you have already been "bombarded" with good advice.
September 12, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Stephen Law said…
That's OK Alan. It's all useful....
September 12, 2011 at 10:19 AM
The Uncredible Hallq said…
I currently lean towards thinking that atheists should not agree to debate Craig because of his habitual dishonesty.

But that's not very useful to you right now. So instead, I'll say that I attended his debate with Sam Harris live, and thought Harris did an excellent job. I recommend both watching the debate online, and reading Harris' comments on it:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-god-debate/
September 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM
frances said…
We'll be there (4 of us in my family) & wearing our Atheist T-shirts (literally). I listened to the debate between WLC & Grayling re the problem of evil & personally I didn't think WLC was so great. His arguments included a very obvious appeal to authority. But having said that, the consensus, even amongst atheists, is that he is a formidable opponent - the triumph of style over substance, I think.
September 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM
JOJO JACOB said…
craig says that the debates are going to a draw

http://www.youtube.com/drcraigvideos
September 20, 2011 at 8:04 AM
Reynold said…
Well, don't know how much this will help, but maybe this example of how Craig really feels about evidence may come in handy.
September 21, 2011 at 9:30 PM
Rere said…
People who keep on saying don't debate craig because of his way of arguing theism is just obnoxious. The point of debate is to show who is more convincing, and if one had better arguments then one should crush craig's theism so people can think.
Opting not to debate, to me if one has better argument is really like a kid closing his ear and sing lalalala at the top of his lungs.... Just silly ignorance.

I applaud you Stephen, i hope you can present your case better than other atheist debater so far.
October 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more