| mjlivingstone |
| Posted 02/03/11 at 09:33 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
These are the links to the debate on youtube. The quality of the video is poor, but it still gives you some atmosphere as you listen to the arguments.Craig's opening arguments Williamson's opening arguments Craig's Rebuttal Williamson's Rebuttal Craig questions Williamson Williamson questions Craig Craig's closing arguments Williamson's closing arguments
|
| Loading... | |
| bm359 |
| Posted 02/03/11 at 04:19 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
| I enjoyed the questioning period. |
| Loading... | |
| IceKnight366 |
| Posted 02/04/11 at 05:27 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
What was that peanut gallery shouting out during Dr. Craigs closing speech at 5:52-5:57. Stupid people, shut up lol. People don't understand professional debate, it's embarrassing X_X...
|
| Loading... | |
| kolbe19 |
| Posted 02/04/11 at 07:34 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Craig was brilliant in that debate. His debating skills are unmatched!
|
| Loading... | |
| forthelord |
| Posted 02/04/11 at 08:52 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Very good debate. I think Williamson did much worse in this debate.
I swear I could give Dr. Craig's speech in my sleep. No joke, I actually had a dream last night where Dr. Craig responded to the problem of evil...it was really weird.
|
| Loading... | |
| lionofjudah |
| Posted 02/05/11 at 01:11 AM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: I swear I could give Dr. Craig's speech in my sleep. No joke, I actually had a dream last night where Dr. Craig responded to the problem of evil...it was really weird. HAHAHAH! |
| Loading... | |
| Digitalos |
| Posted 02/06/11 at 02:38 AM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Oooh a new one.  I think I really like the Q&A periods a lot, as another poster mentioned on this thread. I've been searching through YouTube and watching a lot of the Q&A sessions with WLC and others, really interesting, in some debates he has people who he has debated before in the audience, which is pretty amazing realy, that they are that interested to attend his debates with others - or maybe that happens a lot in professional debating circles, I dunno... I WAS IMPRESSED THOUGH .__.
|
| Loading... | |
| silentmatt |
| Posted 02/07/11 at 07:42 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Williamson was actually pretty good in this one, tactics-wise. He offered strong examples of the tested atheistic arguments, though I think Dr Craig had it in the end on rebuttals. Williamson's positions on the moral argument in particular were very irritating, and he seemed unable to appreciate the depth of the is/ought chasm in supplying his basis.
|
| Loading... | |
| click_here |
| Posted 02/07/11 at 09:28 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
| At one point Craig merely criticized the debate format and then Williamson got up as if the slight was directed at him making a smirk mark followed by an uproar of ignorant people. |
| Loading... | |
| lionofjudah |
| Posted 02/07/11 at 11:06 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
| Wow, from watching the debate it just seemed like Williamsons whole shtick was "I am not going to rebut your premisses, they may work for you but I'm not buying it", he just seems like a hack, not believing the "design" argument because it entails God? What a skeptical joke he was.... |
| Loading... | |
| AndrewGodHypothesis |
| Posted 02/09/11 at 05:09 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
It was a great debate, Dr. Craig in particular is outstanding!
One point for discussion.
I think the cosmological argument as Dr. Craig presents it has a few slight misunderstandings in the interpretation of science to philosophy (meaning of time - relative versus absolute for example). Also the cosmological argument as standardly presented comes under fire when inspected for fallacy particularly when it is stated that an actual infinity or real items cannot exist, yet a necessary being responsible for first cause must by nature be infinitely old (a type of actual infinity a priori - an infinite number of absolute time units). Further, that such entity is "timeless" - makes little sense, as the act of creating something is by nature a function of time - which leads to a fallalcy of contradiction.
For everyones enjoyment and perusal I present a re-worked cosmological argument for God's existence which I think remedies the problems sited above. I welcome anyone's comments!
Proof God Exists
1) Time is from a philosophical perspective arguably absolute and infinite - there could not have been a "beginning" of time, as one could justifiably ask for any postulated beginning in time what happened a moment before? Hence it is reasonable to posit that absolute time comprises an actualized infinity a priori (an infinite number of absolute time units regressing into the past).
*note, physicists define time at zero or beginning at the big bang, but this is only "relativistic time" - depending on consecutive changes of state of matter.
2) Our universe/multiverse of energy, forces and matter is not infinitly old - as if it where our universe, should have already substantially reached a state of completion (i.e. a state of maximized entropy, deep freeze, no life - per current consensus scientific perspective), which is not the case.
3) There must therefore have been a delay from eternity past, to allow provision, or at least a first interaction, of said energy, matter and forces to allow for the beginning of our unvierse/ multiverse.
4) The delay mechanism must have had intelligence, as without intelligence there would have been no capacity to effect such a delay. Further, the delay is beyond human comprehension, as it must have traversed an infinite time a priori.
5) The delay mechanism can be postulated as an intelligent creator of our universe/multiverse with a characteristic which surpasses all human understanding = God.
In Christ
A.
|
| Loading... | |
| lionofjudah |
| Posted 02/09/11 at 07:10 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
| God is outside of time and not chronologically prior to the beginning of the universe only causally. |
| Loading... | |
| AndrewGodHypothesis |
| Posted 02/09/11 at 09:59 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
The problem with the statement above is that if God is causally responsible for the universe (which I agree he is), he could not have been "outside" time to provide such causation, as causation is an action - thereby only operable in time. |
| Loading... | |
| Michael |
| Posted 02/10/11 at 07:59 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
If the causation is creating time, then it seems plausible to think the two seperate.
|
| Loading... | |
| ephphatha |
| Posted 02/10/11 at 11:23 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by AndrewGodHypothesis
Also the cosmological argument as standardly presented comes under fire when inspected for fallacy particularly when it is stated that an actual infinity or real items cannot exist, yet a necessary being responsible for first cause must by nature be infinitely old (a type of actual infinity a priori - an infinite number of absolute time units).
Quote: Further, that such entity is "timeless" - makes little sense, as the act of creating something is by nature a function of time - which leads to a fallalcy of contradiction. In Craig's version, time begins simultaneously with the act of creation, and God is not timeless once time begins. Where is the contradiction?
Quote: 1) Time is from a philosophical perspective arguably absolute and infinite - there could not have been a "beginning" of time, as one could justifiably ask for any postulated beginning in time what happened a moment before? This is my major problem with your argument. How does it follow that because one can ask what happened before time that therefore time must not have a beginning? It seems to me that people can ask all kinds of incoherent things, but nothing follows from the ability to ask these questions. I can ask, "What's north of the north pole?" but nothing follows from me asking that question. Or I can ask, "What's the sound of one hand clapping?" But again, nothing follows from that. The question you're raising is incoherent. If time had a beginning, then there's no such thing as "a moment before the beginning of time." You haven't given any reason to think time had no beginning. I'd be interested in hearing how you'd defend that premise.
Also, if you're going to say that time had no beginning, you need to refute Craig's two philosophical arguments that time did have a beginning.
|
| Loading... | |
