| Mozam |
| Posted 03/17/09 at 12:47 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Often when I'm watching Dr. Craig debate, I wonder how difficult it is for him to not lose his temper. Why is it that Dr. Craig's opponents, nearly universally, use insulting "digs" and condescend to Dr. Craig and any other Christians present. If I were Dr. DiCarlo, and I reflected on my performance in this debate, I would be embarrassed. As far as substance goes, Dr. DiCarlo wasn't even present. He must have known, for certain after the Dr. Craig's second speech, how outmatched he, Dr. DiCarlo was. Even so, he can't help but make snide remarks such as implying Dr. Craig and other American Christians are white rednecks and saying Dr. Craig would make a "good" politician because he's duplicitous. How embarrassing for Dr. DiCarlo. Dr. Craig answered every question head on. Dr. DiCarlo was so clumsy in his reasoning, he did not realize it.
I don't know if Dr. Craig reads these forums or not, but if he does, I would like to tell him "good show". Dr. Craig, I love that you don't allow your opponents' insults to get you off track. I think their insults are only aimed at wounding your pride in order to try to make you angry. I love that you don't take their bait!
|
| Loading... | |
| ChristianJR4 |
| Posted 03/17/09 at 01:54 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Mozam
Often when I'm watching Dr. Craig debate, I wonder how difficult it is for him to not lose his temper. Why is it that Dr. Craig's opponents, nearly universally, use insulting "digs" and condescend to Dr. Craig and any other Christians present. If I were Dr. DiCarlo, and I reflected on my performance in this debate, I would be embarrassed. As far as substance goes, Dr. DiCarlo wasn't even present. He must have known, for certain after the Dr. Craig's second speech, how outmatched he, Dr. DiCarlo was. Even so, he can't help but make snide remarks such as implying Dr. Craig and other American Christians are white rednecks and saying Dr. Craig would make a "good" politician because he's duplicitous. How embarrassing for Dr. DiCarlo. Dr. Craig answered every question head on. Dr. DiCarlo was so clumsy in his reasoning, he did not realize it.
It's interesting the comments you bring up. I was at this debate and after it was over I overheard some people saying pretty much exactly the same thing on Dr. DiCarlo's performance.
|
| Loading... | |
| GreatPumpkin |
| Posted 02/13/12 at 10:12 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
The thing about criticism, either towards others or Dr.Craig is that some times it might be true... Just saying. Yes, there are ways of saying things in an offensive manner, but the substance could be true.
On to the debate.
This one was fascinating in that you had the greatest theologian who ever lived arguing that God mattered WHETHER OR NOT HE EVEN EXISTED!!! This is quite a position. Dr. Craig was actually arguing that absent any arguments that God existed, the fundamental qualities and inherent nature a a god was quite enough to say that God matters.
Dr. Craig pointed out a few times that he was not there to argue for the existence of god, but that he would defend that later (in a very arrogant and mocking tone, btw).
This position means that as long as you can find secular reasons to affect society, then there is no real purpose to god, but that even the delusion of any god existing is a useful tool.
I thought diCarlo wasnt a very good debator but since the whole thing was absurd, it didnt matter.
After all, dicarlo simply held the position that god wasnt true and while you can create stories for god so that he might matter, none of those things mean god matters in a larger sense. (after all, dicarlo likewise didnt need to defend the claim that god doesnt exist).
Dr. Craig, while having his arguments from authority ready, was out of his element and really struggled. He would try to tie his objective moral values back to god, but since he could only argue that they tie back to a possible dellusion, i think he realized the absurdity of his entire position.
After all, if you can argue how objective moral values that in one debate prove god, then in this one say that the BELEIF that OMV's matters whether or not its true, you are really falling apart at the seems.
At one point Dr.craig realizes his untenable position and simply starts to make a mockery of the debate. He rarely comes back to the real point of the problem and sumply leisurally swims around a yellowing pool of his and dicarlos waste.
Harsh, i know, but we just witnessed the greatest theologian in the world argue points in favor of god, whether or not he is real, and then at other times try to explain how meaningless everything is if he doesnt. Get that?
Dr. Craig actually argued that even the delusion of god matters in an atheistic world, because an atheistic world is so meaningles.... Unless you can create a god delusion!
So, doesnt that mean an atheistic world can be meaningful?
After all, many atheists agree that if some people find comfort in the beleif in Odin, Yahweh, or Brahma, then fine!
Atheists often claim that everyone needs to find their meaning in the world, Dr. Craig is no different.
Oddly, then we have Dr. Craig not only arguing positively for the atheist position, but also showing his die hard, unyeilding commitment to his presuppositions. He will, as this debate proves, defend his God beleif even if it was untrue - because just the BELEIF in god MATTERS.
This is akin to saying the beleif in Santa matters, because of how it makes christmas meaningful, but its not important if its true.
Thats well and good, but doesnt that mean if you can embody the spirit of santa, santa doesnt really matter!? That he is just a useful meme, or allegory to arrive at what really matters ?
So too god.
Bizarre debate and unfortunately both sudes let the audience down in terms of the real issue at hand. |
| Loading... | |
| GreatPumpkin |
| Posted 02/13/12 at 07:43 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Thinking about this debate more..
I thought there was a real failure to make a huge difference in the theist/atheist debate in how they could have simply discussed what it means for something to really, philosophically Matter.
I thought that it was a shame they both seemed to dumb down the debate to a lower common denominator and only really discuss it in rather bland terms or the vernacular meaning.
|
| Loading... | |
