• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Theist, Atheist Debates in England

theism atheism atheist theist debates

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:51 PM


Some of the greatest debates in modern times will be going on. They will be very interesting. I will post subject, dates and times as well as youtubes. No matter what your view, do the same if you wish.

#2 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 October 2011 - 11:58 PM

INFORMATION ON DEBATES. Look up various places on internet for broadcasts.

http://www.bethinkin... bethinking.org

#3 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 15 October 2011 - 12:16 AM

Debate Schedules in England 2011

Schedule of Events

Book tickets for the tour events

The schedule below will be updated with the latest information as it becomes available.

Monday 17th October 2011
7.30pm "Does God Exist?"
Public Debate with Stephen Law, lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, London and Editor of the magazine of the Royal Institute of Philosophy THINK. Arranged by Premier Radio.
Westminster Central Hall, Storeys Gate, London, SW1H 9NH

Tuesday 18th October 2011
12.45pm Student Lecture "The Evidence for God"
Pippard Lecture Theatre (Sherfield Building), Imperial College London (South Kensington Campus), Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ
Refreshments from 12.15. Start promptly at 12.45.
No tickets required but numbers are limited. Please email CU@imperial.ac.uk if you’d like to come, and arrive early to be sure of a place.
This event will be webstreamed to the world - full details will be announced here on bethinking.org when available.
6.30pm Lecture "A Moral Argument for the Existence of God ; can we be good without God?"
**NEW VENUE DETAILS** **SLIGHTLY LATER START TIME**
Re-arranged Venue: Malet Suite, 2nd floor, University of London Union, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY
No tickets required but numbers are limited, so arrive early to be sure of a place.
This lecture is open to all.

Wednesday 19th October 2011
7.30pm Public lecture "The Origins of the Universe - has Hawking eliminated God?" on Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design followed by a panel response
William Lane Craig will also discuss the issues arising from his presentation with Revd Dr Rodney Holder, physicist with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, Cambridge.
St. Andrew the Great, Cambridge

Thursday 20th October 2011
7.30pm Debate at the Cambridge Union: "This House Believes that God is not a Delusion"
Proposing the motion: William Lane Craig and Peter S. Williams
Opposing the motion: Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson
The Cambridge Union, Cambridge
[N.B. This event is open only to members of the Cambridge Union]

Friday 21st October 2011
7.30pm "Does God Exist?"
Debate with Professor Peter Millican, Gilbert Ryle Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, Oxford University
The Great Hall, Birmingham University, Edgbaston, B15 2TT

Saturday 22nd October 2011
9.30am - 5.30pm Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference
Westminster Chapel, London
Opening and closing lectures from William Lane Craig
Further lectures from Gary Habermas, John Lennox and Peter J. Williams

Sunday 23rd October 2011

Monday 24th October 2011
7.30pm Lecture “The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection”
Southampton Guildhall, Southampton SO14 7LP

Tuesday 25th October 2011
7.30pm Lecture "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion
[or a debate with Richard Dawkins if he should accept the invitation]
Sheldonian Theatre, Broad Street, Oxford, OX1 3AZ

Wednesday 26th October 2011
7.30pm Does God Exist?
Debate with Dr Peter Atkins, former Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University
University Place Lecture Theatre, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL
"Why isn’t there more of this kind of thing being preached from church pulpits? If there were, I’d go more often and I’d stay awake during the sermon!"
Comment from a self-confessed irregular churchgoer during the 2007 Reasonable Faith Tour.
N.B. All the events will be recorded and will eventually become available to the public.
If you are booking within less than 2 working days of an event, you may present your email confirmation of booking as proof of purchase in the absence of physical tickets. Tickets may be available on the day, however we cannot guarantee this for every event.
  • like x 1

#4 FrankMH

  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 6 â‚®
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:52 AM

If the format for these events was such that the debaters weren't just talking past each other; I'd consider going. I just don't think that will be the case with Bill Craig involved, though. Also, are the arguments presented by Craig the real reasons why people start to believe in God? What is the percentage of Christians that actually know or even understand these arguments? Do you think a God that wanted you to believe in it/her/him would have to rely on arguments that a small minority of Christians alive only during our time understand?

#5 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2011 - 08:22 PM







#6 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2011 - 08:51 PM

If the format for these events was such that the debaters weren't just talking past each other; I'd consider going. I just don't think that will be the case with Bill Craig involved, though. Also, are the arguments presented by Craig the real reasons why people start to believe in God? What is the percentage of Christians that actually know or even understand these arguments? Do you think a God that wanted you to believe in it/her/him would have to rely on arguments that a small minority of Christians alive only during our time understand?


I have watched many debates with Atheists and Bill Craig and I don’t know one where they talked past each other. Perhaps you have an example rather than empty charges. Share it.

What are the percentages of Christians who came to believe with any kind of evidence there is? You act as if you know. You are constructing a straw man based upon no evidence at all. What would you say if the same question was asked of Atheists? I was raised an atheist and the first question I asked was “If there is a God, who made God?” So, all kinds of issues are dealt with. Where is your evidence? By the way many of the issues are both ancient and modern.

#7 FrankMH

  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 6 â‚®
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 October 2011 - 01:44 AM

If the format for these events was such that the debaters weren't just talking past each other; I'd consider going. I just don't think that will be the case with Bill Craig involved, though. Also, are the arguments presented by Craig the real reasons why people start to believe in God? What is the percentage of Christians that actually know or even understand these arguments? Do you think a God that wanted you to believe in it/her/him would have to rely on arguments that a small minority of Christians alive only during our time understand?


I have watched many debates with Atheists and Bill Craig and I don’t know one where they talked past each other. Perhaps you have an example rather than empty charges. Share it.

What are the percentages of Christians who came to believe with any kind of evidence there is? You act as if you know. You are constructing a straw man based upon no evidence at all. What would you say if the same question was asked of Atheists? I was raised an atheist and the first question I asked was “If there is a God, who made God?” So, all kinds of issues are dealt with. Where is your evidence? By the way many of the issues are both ancient and modern.


Firstly, my apologies if I came across as a 'know-it-all'; I certainly am not.

I have only watched a few of Craig's debates, but the Sam Harris Moral debate stuck with me for a while. Harris made his case, then Craig made his case, Harris made his case again, Craig made his case again and pointed out that Harris hadn't addressed this. Meanwhile, Harris points out that Craig misrepresented what Harris said etc. It's more a Format issue rather than a Craig issue. It happens quite often and I find it frustrating.

Well I'm sure you know the main reasons why people believe in Gods. There are plenty of Surveys out there, (here's one http://www.beliefnet...od-And-Why.aspx). But I would have thought we are all kinda familiar with these reasons anyway. So I don't think it's unfair for me to suggest that relatively speaking, not many people become christians for the reasons people like Craig present, and a God would know this, which is all I am saying.

Can I ask how you became a Christian?



#8 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2011 - 10:49 PM

Firstly, my apologies if I came across as a 'know-it-all'; I certainly am not.

I have only watched a few of Craig's debates, but the Sam Harris Moral debate stuck with me for a while. Harris made his case, then Craig made his case, Harris made his case again, Craig made his case again and pointed out that Harris hadn't addressed this. Meanwhile, Harris points out that Craig misrepresented what Harris said etc. It's more a Format issue rather than a Craig issue. It happens quite often and I find it frustrating.

Well I'm sure you know the main reasons why people believe in Gods. There are plenty of Surveys out there, (here's one http://www.beliefnet...od-And-Why.aspx). But I would have thought we are all kinda familiar with these reasons anyway. So I don't think it's unfair for me to suggest that relatively speaking, not many people become christians for the reasons people like Craig present, and a God would know this, which is all I am saying.

Can I ask how you became a Christian?


You were just fine, no apologies needed. I especially enjoyed the Sam Harris / Craig debates. The last one was good I thought. I will post it so anyone who wishes can judge for themselves.

I think the reasons people become Christians are unique to each person. That humans have human reasons comes as no surprise to me. For example I have observed many at LONGECITY have a commitment based of a fear of death. How many times have I heard Christians accused of this! Anyone that doubts we can live forever in the present situation is labeled a pejorative, “deathist.” Christians are interested in life but many doubt the present reality allows for eternal life. There has to be a fundamental change in our reality. So who has a pie in the sky view?

I was raised an atheist. My father almost disowned me when he found out. I was in the military and very outspoken in my atheism. I treated the only Christian I knew very poorly and went out of my way to put down God. I felt bad because I treated the Christian so poorly and one evening by myself I said a little prayer, “God, if there is a God, I put my little bit of faith in You.” My life has never been the same, though I have had my doubts.

So how did you become an atheist, if you are one?

#9 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2011 - 11:31 PM




HARRIS / CRAIG DEBATE, leading atheist and theist debate on God

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 October 2011 - 11:40 PM.


#10 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 19 October 2011 - 12:25 AM

William Lane Craig touring Britain

Posted: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 17:43 (BST)
William Lane Craig brought his robust defence of the Christian faith across the Atlantic to London last night for the first stop on his Reasonable Faith tour across the UK.
Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot Theological College, California, and has built up a solid reputation as one of the most formidable opponents in debates on the existence of God and the Christian faith.
He certainly didn’t disappoint the thousands of people who turned out last night to hear him debate prominent philosopher Stephen Law at the Methodist Central Hall, in Westminster.

Law, an atheist, seemed less intent on answering the question ‘Does God exist?’ and more taken with arguing that the Christian belief in a good God was “absurd” given the amount of suffering in the world.
He concluded that just as there was sufficient observational evidence to rule out that an evil god had created the universe, there was likewise enough observational evidence to rule out that a good God had created the universe.
“One hypothesis is fatal to the other,” Law said.

Craig built his defence of the existence of God around the idea of a creator of the universe and the notion that “from nothing, comes nothing”; the existence of objective moral values and duties in the world; and reliable historical records and eye witness accounts concerning the resurrection of Jesus.
Whilst Law came to the conclusion that evil proves there is no God, Craig said the existence of suffering and evil proves the existence of God.
“Evil is the greatest emotional obstacle to God,” he said. “But it is extraordinarily difficult on the basis of evil in the world to prove that God doesn’t exist … Bad things don’t disprove the existence of God.”
Whilst suffering may be “pointless” in the eyes of humans, he argued that it was not necessarily pointless in the eyes of God.
Law claimed his opponent’s arguments were “remarkably weak” and relied too heavily on playing the “mystery card” instead of offering solid evidence.
To Craig’s bemusement and the evident frustration of the 2,000-strong audience, Law repeatedly refused to respond to his first point about a god, good or bad, as the starting point for all created things.
Law said it was “not relevant” to the debate, to which Craig replied that his was a “very strange form of atheism”.
Craig will be arguing the case for God around the UK until Wednesday 26 October on the Reasonable Faith tour, sponsored by UCCF, Premier Christian Radio and Damaris.
To find out more, visit www.premier.org.uk/craig

#11 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:43 PM

WEDNESDAY - THE GRAND DESIGN - hawkings



#12 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 20 October 2011 - 12:02 AM

TUESDAY "EVIDENCE FOR EXISTENCE OF GOD"



#13 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 24 October 2011 - 08:37 PM

Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist

Using William Lane Craig's remarks as an excuse not to engage in reasoned debate is typical of New Atheist polemic


Posted Image
'Dawkins is opportunistically using these remarks as a smokescreen to hide the real reasons for his refusal to debate with Craig.' Photograph: Alastair Thain

Richard Dawkins is not alone in his refusal to debate with William Lane Craig. The vice-president of the British Humanist Association (BHA), AC Grayling has also flatly refused to debate Craig, stating that he would rather debate "the existence of fairies and water-nymphs".
Given that there isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed.
Ironically, there is nothing substantively new about the New Atheists either. Despite its self-congratulatory tone, The God Delusion contains no original arguments for atheism. Summarising what he calls "the central argument of my book", Dawkins insists that even without an entirely convincing explanation for the fine-tuning in physics, the "relatively weak" explanations we have at present are clearly better than "the self-defeating … hypothesis of an intelligent designer".
Dawkins maintains that we're not justified in inferring a designer as the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe because then a new problem surfaces: who designed the designer? This argument is as old as the hills and as any reasonably competent first-year undergraduate could point out is patently invalid. For an explanation to be successful we do not need an explanation of the explanation. One might as well say that evolution by natural selection explains nothing because it does nothing to explain why there were living organisms on earth in the first place; or that the big bang fails to explain the cosmic background radiation because the big bang is itself inexplicable.
What is new is the belittling posture toward religious believers and the fury of the polemics. The New Atheism is certainly a far cry from the model of civilised interlocution between "old atheist" Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston that took place and was broadcast on BBC Radio in 1948. The New Atheists could learn a lot from the likes of Russell, whose altogether more powerful approach was at once respectful and a model of philosophical precision.
In his latest undignified rant, Dawkins claims that it is because Craig is "an apologist for genocide" that he won't share a platform with him. Dawkins is referring to Craig's defence of God's commandment in Deuteronomy 20: 15-17 to wipe out the Canannites. Here is Craig's offending passage:

"[If] God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of [the Canannite] children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

I am disinclined to defend the God of the Old Testament's infanticide policy. But as a matter of logic, Craig is probably right: if an infinite good is made possible by a finite evil, then it might reasonably be said that that evil has been offset. However, I doubt whether Craig would be guided by logic himself in this regard and conduct infanticide. I doubt, that is, that he would wish it to be adopted as a general moral principle that we should massacre children because they will receive immediate salvation.
But whatever you make of Craig's view on this issue, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists. Hence it is quite obvious that Dawkins is opportunistically using these remarks as a smokescreen to hide the real reasons for his refusal to debate with Craig – which has a history that long predates Craig's comments on the Canaanites.
As a sceptic, I tend to agree with Dawkins's conclusion regarding the falsehood of theism, but the tactics deployed by him and the other New Atheists, it seems to me, are fundamentally ignoble and potentially harmful to public intellectual life. For there is something cynical, ominously patronising, and anti-intellectualist in their modus operandi, with its implicit assumption that hurling insults is an effective way to influence people's beliefs about religion. The presumption is that their largely non-academic readership doesn't care about, or is incapable of, thinking things through; that passion prevails over reason. On the contrary, people's attitudes towards religious belief can and should be shaped by reason, not bile and invective. By ignoring this, the New Atheists seek to replace one form of irrationality with another.

#14 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 26 October 2011 - 12:15 AM

WHERE IS DAWKINS? HE DIDN'T SHOW UP.



#15 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 27 October 2011 - 05:59 PM

Peter Atkins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born 10 August 1940 (age 71)
Amersham, Buckinghamshire, England
Residence Oxford, England
Citizenship British
Nationality British
Fields Physical chemistry
Institutions University of California, Los Angeles
Lincoln College, Oxford
Alma mater University of Leicester
Doctoral advisor MCR Symons
Doctoral students Laurence Barron
A.D. Wilson-Gordon
Known for Academic level chemistry text books
Notable awards RSC Meldola Medal

Peter William Atkins (born 10 August 1940) is a British chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. Atkins is also the author of a number of science books for the general public, including Atkins' Molecules and Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science.

[...]He was the first Senior Member for the Oxford Secular Society and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of The Reason Project, a US-based charitable foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The organisation is led by fellow atheist and author Sam Harris.


FIRST DEBATE on existence of god



REVIEW OF SECOND DEBATE this week by someone who attended.



#16 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 27 October 2011 - 11:40 PM

ection | Featured Stories, News

OXFORD STUDENT

Craig strikes back at genocide smear



By James Rothwell | Last updated: 12:58, 27/10/201


Christian apologist William Lane Craig addressed a packed Sheldonian theatre this week, in the absence of Richard Dawkins.
Organisers left an empty chair for Dawkins, who has consistently refused to debate Craig and branded him a “deplorable apologist for Genocide” in his Guardian column last week. Members of
During his speech Craig tackled what he perceived as logical flaws in Dawkins’ 2006 book “The God Delusion”, as well as discussing his view of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
In lieu of Dawkins, Craig was instead pitted against a panel of three Oxford academics including Daniel Came, who has publicly criticized the controversial atheist for refusing to attend the debate. Also among them was Philosophy senior research fellow Stephen Priest, who declared that philosophy “had committed suicide,” much to the amusement of the predominantly religious audience.
However, in a question and answer session near the end of the debate, Craig’s response to the accusation that he approves of Biblical genocide provoked murmurs of disapproval from parts of the audience, and a loud boo from the upper wings.
“There was no racial war here, no command to kill them all,” he initially said, referring to extermination of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, “the command was to drive them out.”
Then Craig said: “But, how could God command that the children be killed, as they are innocent?”
“I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead…than being raised in this Canaanite culture. “
One attendee, who wished not be named, called Craig’s argument “alarming”: “I’m a Christian who generally agrees with Craig’s ideas but what he said for the last question was simply disturbing. He completely contradicted himself, one minute saying that, effectively, no children were killed in the genocide, only to say later on that it was OK that children died, that it was God’s will, and that they were saved from a debauched culture.”
He added: “I believe in a benevolent God, but that didn’t sound very benevolent at all.”
Others were generally satisfied with the quality and contents of the debate.
“It was a very interesting and stimulating debate – I actually saw Craig speak in Southampton as well, but I did find a lot of inspiration in this event in particular,” said one Philosophy graduate in the audience.
Members of Oxford Atheists, Secularists and Humanists society distributed copies of Dawkins’ Guardian article outside the Shledonian. Their President, Ben Krishna, said: “I think it’s a horrendous view to hold, both because of its moral repugnance and that it justifies inaction in the face of infanticide. His view is, however, completely justified by his beliefs. It shows what religious belief can (for some people) lead to.”
But Atheist Daniel Came, who was a panellist in the debate, defended Craig’s argument, writing in the Guardian: “I am disinclined to defend the God of the Old Testament’s infanticide policy. But as a matter of logic, Craig is probably right: if an infinite good is made possible by a finite evil, then it might reasonably be said that that evil has been offset. However, I doubt whether Craig would be guided by logic himself in this regard and conduct infanticide. I doubt, that is, that he would wish it to be adopted as a general moral principle that we should massacre children because they will receive immediate salvation.”
Oxford Inter-collegiate Christian Union President Robbie Strachan, who introduced the debate, joking that Professor Dawkins “couldn’t make it.” After the debate, Strachan praised Craig’s speech as “convincing,” with” some solid philosophical arguments for the existence of a creator God.”
“The next step after establishing that the existence of God is a possibility is obviously to find out what that God might be like. Christians believe in a good and loving God, which is why the ‘problem of evil’ question came up last night.”




2 Responses to “Craig strikes back at genocide smear”
Peter Byrom say
  • 27/10/2011 at 23:23
    Three things to point out:
    1. I’m sure there were some murmurs and boos from some people after Dr Craig’s answer to the Canaanite question… but most people actually applauded, because they found Dr Craig’s answer sufficient for clarifying a) why it was not genocide, b) the extreme and unique circumstances which necessitated the command, and c) the fact that, Biblically, this sort of action is prohibited from ever happening again.
    2. It’s not a contradiction to say:
    A) God gave an order
    B) It eventuated that the order was not carried out
    That is to say God could have instructed even the deaths of the children if encountered but, as Dr Craig pointed out, in the actual chain of events it may not have actually happened (no children to be found)?
    3) As for Dawkins using this as an excuse, Dr Came is right to call his bluff and accuse him of “smoke-screening”. Dr Craig’s views on the Canaanite question are completely separate from the criticisms of Dawkins’ arguments in The God Delusion. To argue “I feel offended by Craig’s views on (X) therefore he can’t be right about the invalidity of my (Y) and I don’t need to listen to him” is itself an ad hominem fallacy, not a good objection given that Dawkins is being criticised for logical fallacies in the first place!
    Lastly, Dawkins’ inconsistencies INCLUDE his having no ontological moral basis for how anything can be evil (he denies evil exists, yet describes things as evil when it suits him) and even Dawkins thinks there are circumstances where infanticide is okay (Peter Singer).


#17 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 31 October 2011 - 09:47 PM

GREAT DEBATE ON EXISTENCE OF GOD



#18 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:20 PM



#19 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 04 November 2011 - 11:30 PM



#20 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:37 PM

Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford (October 25, 2011) Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to defend his book The God Delusion in public debate with William Lane Craig. The invitation remained open until the last minute. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. Craig then gave a lecture to a capacity audience on the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book and responded to a panel of academics. The event, which was chaired by atheist Prof. Peter Millican.



#21 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:46 PM



#22 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240 â‚®
  • Location:Italy

Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:56 PM

Is this Dr. Craig by any change some type of a Christian (would not surprise me), or does he argue for all gods?

#23 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:43 PM

Is this Dr. Craig by any change some type of a Christian (would not surprise me), or does he argue for all gods?


Yes He is a Christian but these arguments can be used by most theists.

#24 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 28 November 2011 - 10:02 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg&feature=related


HARRIS / CRAIG DEBATE, leading atheist and theist debate on God





#25 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:20 AM



#26 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240 â‚®
  • Location:Italy

Posted 29 November 2011 - 06:14 PM



#27 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 01 December 2011 - 10:10 PM

https://www.youtube....h?v=Wb10QvaHpS4

Dennett shows why he wasn’t in the debates. I wonder why?

#28 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 December 2011 - 07:08 PM



#29 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:02 PM

Great debate, one of the best. Craig vs.Peter Millican Does God Exist?


Edited by shadowhawk, 19 December 2011 - 08:11 PM.


#30 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12 â‚®
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2011 - 06:51 PM

Wintery Knights summary of the previously posted debate between W.L. Craig and Peter Millican.

“The debate was held at the University of Birmingham, England in 2011. I would put this debate in the top 3 Craig debates ever, along with his debates against Austin Dacey and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

My summary of the Craig-Millican is below. This debate is really meant for advanced students, but if you read my post "What you need to know about the BVG Theorem" before watching the debate, it should help you to follow along.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech:

There are good reasons to believe that God exists.

There are no good reasons to believe that God does not exist.

A1) The origin of the universe

The universe began to exist
If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
The universe has a transcendent cause.

The origin of the universe is confirmed by philosophical arguments and scientific evidence.

There cannot be an actual infinite number of past events, because mathematical operations like subtraction and division cannot be applied to actual infinities.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, cannot be eternal into the past.

Even speculative alternative cosmologies do not escape the need for a beginning.

The cause of the universe must be transcendent and supernatural. It must be uncaused, because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be eternal, because it created time. It must be non-physical, because it created space. There are only two possibilities for such a cause. It could be an abstract object or an agent. Abstract objects cannot cause effects. Therefore, the cause is an agent.

A2) The fine-tuning of the universe

The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to law, chance or design.
It is not due to law or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.

The progress of science has revealed that the Big Bang was fine-tuned to allow for the existence of intelligent life.

Type 1: Constants like the gravitational constant are finely-tuned, and are not dependent on the laws of physics.

Type 2: Quantities like the amount of entropy in the universe, are not dependent on the laws of physics.

The range of life-permitting values is incredibly small compared to the possible values of the constants and quantities. (Like having a lottery with a million black balls and one white ball, and you pick the white ball. Even though each individual ball has the same tiny chance of being picked, but the odds are overwhelming that the whichever ball you pick will be black, and not white).

Not only are the numbers not due to laws, but they are not due to chance either. It’s not just that the settings are unlikely, it’s that they are unlikely and they conform to an independent pattern – namely, the ability to support complex life.

A3) The moral argument

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Objective morality does exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Objective moral values are values that exist independently of whether any humans believe them or not.

Michael Ruse, an atheist philosopher agrees that if God does not exist, then there is only a “herd morality” that is determined by biological evolution and social evolution. There no objective moral standard, just different customs and conventions that vary by time and place. Anyone who acts against the herd morality is merely being unfashionable and unconventional. On the atheistic view, there is nothing objective and binding about this evolved “herd morality”. However, people do experience objective moral values, and these cannot be grounded on atheism.

Furthermore, God must exist in order to argue that there is evil in the world. In order to be able to make a distinction between good and evil that is objective, there has to be a God to determine a standard of good and evil that is binding regardless of the varying customs and conventions of different people groups. Even when a person argues against God’s existence by pointing to the “evil” in the world, they must assume objective moral values, and a God who grounds those objective moral values.

A4) The resurrection of Jesus.

There are certain minimal facts that are admitted by the majority of historians, across the ideological spectrum: the empty tomb, the appearances and the early belief in the resurrection.
Naturalistic attempts to explain these minimal facts fail.
The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

A5) Religious experience

People can know that God exists through experience. In the absence of defeaters for these experiences, these experiences constitute evidence for God’s existence.

Dr. Millican’s opening speech:

Dr. Craig has the burden of proof because he claims that God exists.

The Christian God hypothesis:

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God created the universe.
This God cares about humans.
This God has acted in history though the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is a factual claim, and we are discussing the evidence for whether these claims are true or false. We are not interested in religious practice, or the consolation of religious belief, nor any other religions.

A1) Religious pluralism and epistemology

Human beings are purpose-finding creatures – we are prone to prefer explanations that involve purpose.

Human beings are pattern-finding animals – we tend to find designs in states of affairs.

Human beings have an interest in maintaining religious hierarchies because of the power it gives them.

Religious beliefs are not determined by rational considerations, but are determined by geographic location.

The same non-scientific method of generating religious beliefs (purpose-finding, pattern-finding, geographic location, parental teaching, charismatic speakers, praise songs and worship, religious education, ancient holy books) is being used in several religions, and it leads to different, contradictory truth claims. So at least some of those conflicting claims are false. And if the method is generating some false claims, then it’s not a good method, and it undermines all the religions that use those methods.

A2) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

There is no scientific evidence for God.

A3) Mental processes depend on physical systems

There is no scientific evidence for a disembodied intelligence.

Our universal human experience is that intelligence and mental operations require a physical brain.

The quality of our thinking depends on physical conditions, like being tired or on drugs.

But Christian theists believe that mental processes can exist independently of an underlying physical reality, unimpaired by the death of the physical body and the brain.

R.A1) The origin of the universe

1. There is no evidence that whatever begins to exist requires a cause. All the evidence we have of things beginning to exist are when something is created from rearrangements of other things that already existed.

The closest analog we have to something coming into being from nothing is quantum particles coming into being from nothing, and that causation is random.

There is no evidence that thoughts can bring about physical effects, and Bill is arguing for a mental cause to the origin of the universe.

Even if things that begin to exist IN the universe have causes, it doesn’t hold for the universe as a whole. Bill is committing the fallacy of composition.

Time begins with the universe, but our experience of causation is that it is a temporal process. So if there is no time “prior to” the universe’s beginning, then how can there be a cause to the universe?

It’s possible that there could be something outside our universe that is eternal.

It’s also possible that the Big Bang could be wrong, and this universe could oscillate eternally and not require a beginning.

2. There are cosmological theories that avoid the beginning of the universe by positing a prior period of contraction prior to the Big Bang.

The beginning of this universe depends on general relativity, and that theory breaks down at the level of quantum mechanics.

3. There is no evidence that minds can exist without an underlying physical system. So even if there is a cause of the universe, then it is neither an abstract object nor a mind. It would have to be something else, and not something we are familiar with – we are just not in a position to speculate of what it could be.

R.A3) The moral argument

Atheists do believe in a standard of morality that is not based on what groups of humans believe.

Utilitarians think there is a standard of moral values that is objective, because the measure of human happiness (for the greatest number) is objective, even if people are mistaken about what promotes that happiness.

Kantians have a rational process for determining which moral imperatives should be universalized.

Humeans have a system that is rooted in natural human sentiment.

Dr. Craig’s first rebuttal:

I do not have the only burden of proof. The topic is “Does God Exist?”. If Dr. Millican answers “no” then he has a burden of proof, otherwise we are left with agnosticism.

R.A1) Religious pluralism and epistemology

First, there is no single common method of adopting a religion.

Second, MY method this evening is logic and evidence and personal experience – which is the same as his method. So his comments about how people in different religions adopt their religion through parents, church, singing, etc. have no bearing on the arguments I will be making.

R.A2) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if we can reasonably expect that there should be some evidence that is not present. He would have to show that there should be more evidence for God’s existence that the 5 arguments that I already presented – something that we should expect to see that we don’t see.

R.A3) Mental processes depend on physical systems

No response by Dr. Craig. (but see below)

A1) The origin of the universe

1. He says that there are speculative cosmologies like the multiverse that escape the need for a beginning, but that’s false, the BGV proof applies to them, and they do need a beginning.

He says that you can escape BGV by positing a contraction prior to the expansion. However Vilenkin says that any contraction phase is unstable and would introduce additional singularities that would hamper any later expansion phase.

He says that we need a theory of quantum gravity in order to describe the early universe. But Vilenkin says that the BGV proof is independent of gravity as defined by general relativity.

He did not respond to the philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe.

2. He says that we don’t have experience of things coming into being except from material causes. However, it would be even more difficult to explain the universe coming into being on atheism since you can’t appeal to a material cause nor to an efficient cause. Even Hume recognizes that things can’t pop into being without causes.

He talks about how in quantum physics virtual particles appear out of nothing. But that’s false, because the quantum vacuum in which virtual particles appear is not nothing, it is a sea of subatomic particles and energy. Quantum physics is not an exception to the idea that things that come into being require a cause.

He mentions the fallacy of composition. But I am not saying that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe as a whole has a cause. I am saying that non-being has no capacity to bring something into being. Non-Being doesn’t even have the potential to bring something into being.

3. He says that there are no unembodied minds, so the cause of the universe can’t be an unembodied mind. But the argument concludes that there is a non-material cause, and it can’t be an abstract object, so it would have to be a mind.

In addition, we ourselves are unembodied minds. This is because physical objects cannot have the properties that minds have, like the property of having feelings.

Material conceptions of mind don’t explain identity over time.

Material conceptions of mind don’t explain free will.

Material conceptions of mind don’t explain intentional states (thinking about something).

Material conceptions of mind don’t explain mental causation.

The best explanation for our own first person experience of the mental realm is a substance dualism. We are non-material minds, and we can cause effects in the physical world. And God does the same thing. He is a mind, and he causes physical effects.

A2) He gave no response.

A3) He says that there are atheistic theories of morality that don’t depend on the opinions of groups. But these theories all depend on the idea that human beings have instrinsic value – that they are the sorts of things to which moral considerations apply. Naturalism cannot ground this moral value – human beings are no more valuable any other animal.

Also, there are no objective moral obligations in naturalist systems of morality, because there is no one in authority to command them. Moral prescriptions require moral prescribers.

A4) He gave no response.

A5) He gave no response.

Dr. Millican’s first rebuttal:

R.A2) The fine-tuning argument

We have to be careful not to judge what counts as finely-tuned through our intuitions.

We have to be careful about reasoning for a sample size of this one observable universe.

We don’t really know about the full range of possibilities for these constants and quantities.

There might be other universes that we can’t observe that aren’t fine-tuned, and we just happen to be in the one that is fine-tuned.

The fine-tuning might be solved by future discoveries, like the inflationary cosmology removed some of the fine-tuning.

There might be a multiverse that we don’t have evidence for right now.

We need to be careful about using science to prove God because science might change in the future.

The universe is very big and mysterious.

This argument doesn’t prove that God is good. He could be evil = anti-God.

God created the universe inefficiently if his goal was to produce life.

God created the universe too big.

God created the universe too old.

God created too many galaxies and stars that are not hospitable to life.

If the universe were fine-tuned for life, then there should be more aliens.

If the universe were fine-tuned for life, then there are probably lots of alien civilizations. But then Jesus would have to appear to all of the aliens too.

R.A1) The origin of the universe

2. It’s not a big deal that you can get multiple solutions to equations involving subtraction of actual infinities. For example, the equation 0 x y = 0 has many solutions for y, but that doesn’t mean that multiplication doesn’t work in the real world.

A2) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

I would expect that there would be more evidence than there is.

R.A1) The origin of the universe

2. The BVG proof might be overturned by future scientific discoveries. We have no reason to be confident in current physics.

I agree that the quantum vacuum is something and not nothing, but it’s similar to nothing.

We don’t have any reason to believe that things that come into being require causes – except for our universal experience that this is always the case.

3. As to the cause of the universe coming into being, you said that it could only be an abstract object or a mind, and it can’t be an abstract object because they don’t cause effects, so it must be a mind. But there are all sorts of things we’ve never thought of that it could be other than a mind.

I agree that mental properties are not physical properties and that epiphenomenalism is incorrect. Physical objects can have “algorithmic properties” as well as physical properties, it doesn’t mean that computers have minds.

Dr. Craig’s second rebuttal:

R.A2) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

He expressed his personal opinion that there should be more evidence, but that’s not an argument.

God knows how people will respond to getting more evidence or less evidence and he has to be careful not to take away their free will to disbelieve by piling them up with coercive evidence. God’s goal is not just to convince people that he exists. God’s goal is to have people respond to him and pursue him.

A1) The origin of the universe

2. He said that multiple answers to equations are no problem. But the problem is that you can’t translate multiple answers into a real world context.

The problem is that you are subtracting an identical number from an identical number and getting contradictory results, and that cannot be translated into the real world, where subtraction always gives a definite single result.

He talks about how you can get multiple answers with multiplication by 0. But 0 is not a real quantity, it is just the absence of something, and that cannot translate into the real world, because it has no being.

He says that I am only using evidence from current physics. But that is the point – the evidence of current physics and cosmology supports the beginning of the universe.

3. He said that an umembodied mind can’t be the cause, but we are minds and we cause effects on our physical bodies.

In addition, the design argument supports the idea that the cause of the universe is intelligent.

A2) The fine-tuning of the universe

He says we should be cautious. Of course.

He says the probabilities can’t be assessed. But you can just take the current value and perturb it and see that the resulting universe loses its ability to support life, and you can test an entire range around the current value to see that that vast majority of values in the range don’t permit life.

He says that the current physics is not well-established, but there are so many examples of fine-tuning across so many different areas of science that it is not likely that all of them will be overturned, and the number of finely-tuned constants and quantities has been growing, not shrinking.

He says it doesn’t prove that God is good, and he’s right – that’s what the moral argument is for.

He says that God isn’t efficient enough, but efficiency is only important for those who have limited time and/or limited resources. But God has unlimited time and resources.

He says that the universe is too old, but the large age of the universe is a requirement to support intelligent life – (i.e. – you need third generation stars to provide a stable source of energy to planets, and those stars require that two generations of stars are born and die).

He said what about aliens, and theists are open to that, and God can certainly provide for the salvation of those beings, if they have fallen into sin.

Dr. Millican’s second rebuttal:

R.A1) The origin of the universe

3. Just because epiphenominalism is false, it doesn’t mean that substance dualism is true.

The majority of philosophers of mind do not accept substance dualism.

R.A3) The moral argument

The majority of philosophers are moral realists, but a minority of philosophers are theists. So that means that there must be some way of justifying morality on atheism, which I will not describe right now.

Atheists can express their opinion that humans have intrinsic moral value.

He grants that atheists can perceive moral values. But if atheists can perceive moral values, then why is God needed to enable that?

Atheists can express their opinion that humans are special. We can be rational, and that makes us special.

Atheists can express their opinion that it is good to care about other humans because they are of the same species.

R.A4) The resurrection of Jesus

We don’t have any reasons to believe i the supernatural.

The gospels are written late for the purposes of evangelism.

The gospels are not independent, e.g. Matthew and Luke depend on Q.

John is the latest gospel, and the Christology of John is the highest of all.

The four gospels agree because the early church rejected other (unnamed) gospels that didn’t agree.

Matthew 27 – the earthquake and the raised saints – is not recorded in any other contemporary non-Christian source.

Dr. Craig’s final rebuttal:

A3) The moral argument

He says that human beings are rational, and that gives them value. But atheists like Sam Harris prefer the flourishing of sentient life. He includes non-rational animals as having moral value. So without God, we see that the choice of who or what has moral value is arbitrary. And where would objective moral duties come from if there is no moral lawgiver?

The fact that most atheists accept objective moral values doesn’t mean that they can rationally ground those values on their atheistic worldview. You can’t provide a basis for moral values on atheism by counting the number of atheists who accept objective morality. It’s not surprising that atheists can perceive objective moral values IF they are living in auniverse created by God who grounds these objective moral values and duties that atheists perceive.

A4) The resurrection of Jesus

He cites Geza Vermes and Bart Ehrman as authorities on the historical Jesus, but both of them accept all three of the facts that I presented as minimal facts. Ehrman doesn’t accept the resurrection of Jesus because he presupposes naturalism. He rejects the resurrection on philosophical grounds, not historical grounds.

Dr. Millican’s final rebuttal:

R.A5) Religious experience

Religious experience is an unreliable way to test the claims of a religion, because lots of religions have them and they make contradictory truth claims. In the future, we may discover naturalistic ways of explaining religious experience.

R.A4) The resurrection of Jesus

Even if you can make a case for the resurrection based on these3 minimal facts, there are other stories in the New Testament like Matthew 27 that are quite weird and they undermine the 3 minimal facts that even Geza Vermes and Bart Ehrman accept.

R.A1) The origin of the universe

Bill hasn’t shown that there is any reason for thinking that things don’t come into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

A4) The problem of evil

Theists can’t explain what God’s specific morally sufficient reasons are for permitting the apparently gratuitous evil that we see.
Wintery Knight | 12/19/2011 at 10:00 PM | Tags: Apologetics, Atheism, BGV, BGV Theorem, Big Bang, Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, BVG, BVG Theorem, Chaotic Inflationary, Conservation of Matter, Constants, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiiation, Cosmological Argument, Cosmology, Creation, Debate, Debates, Einstein, Elemental Abundance Predictions, Epiphenominalism, Epistemology, Evil, Fine Tuning, General Relativity, GTR, Jesus, Kalam, Kalam Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, KCA, Miracle, Moral Argument, Morality, Objective Moral Values, Oscillating, Peter Millican, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Physicalism, Physics, Progress of Science, Quantities, Quantum Gravity, Religious Pluralism, Resurrection, Second Law of Thermodynamics, Steady State, Substance Dualism, Universe, Vacuum Fluctuation, William Lane Craig | Categories: News | URL: http://wp.me/pqyhO-754





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: theism, atheism, atheist, theist, debates

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users