The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Lazarius
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Shelly Kagan Defeated William Lane Craig In Their Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,076 times Debate No: 41480
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro


I believe that Shelly Kagan won this debate. My opponent will argue that William Lane Craig won this debate (the burden of proof will be shared).

First round just for acceptance.
Lazarius

Con

You like moth so I lick and liek you till you wet so much you die nimanimaNIMMANIMMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMA LOLOL den you lick horsies good bay
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Lazarius

Con

Lazarius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Lazarius

Con

Lazarius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Lazarius

Con

Lazarius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Be believes God is omnibenevolent. What being is more benevolent? One who:

(i) Allows suffering that is not for a greater good

(ii) Allows suffering only if it is for a greater good

Well, an ALL good being would obviously have (ii) apply, and not (i).
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
@Rational I'd be interested in seeing a source for your assertion that Craig believes all suffering to result in some greater good.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Craig and Kagan were not necessarily having a knock-down debate. It was more of an open forum. This is what Craig said. That is why Craig did not respond in depth in the Veritas Open forum.

"I did respond briefly to Prof. Kagan's view, Alexander, but I didn't press the point because our hosts with the Veritas Forum had made it very clear to me that they were not interested in having a knock-down debate but a friendly dialogue that would foster a warm and inviting atmosphere for non-believing students at Columbia. The goal was simply to get the issues out on the table in a congenial, welcoming environment, which I think we did."
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
"Who would you say is an apologist that fits my statement better?"

I'm not sure. I tend to gravitate toward people who communicate clearly and am easily frustrated with people who don't. Maybe Doug Groothuis. I read his book on Christian Apologetics, and although he used a lot of the same arguments Bill Craig and others used, he wasn't half as articulate in explaining them. He comes across as pretentious to me, so it may be that he's intentionally not as clear as he could be, but I'm not really sure. I can't say with any confidence that I know of any Christian apologist who is intentionally unclear in order to confuse people or hide the fact that they don't have a good argument. But there are some who I think aren't always clear, Doug Groothuis being one of them. I think John Lennox is way overrated. I read his book, God's Undertaker, and was so unimpressed with it that I decided I wouldn't read anymore of his books. Ravi Zacharias is often unclear, and I suspect pretentiousness on his part, too. He does have his moments of clarity, though.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
@Induced Interesting, there may be a debate topic there. I acknowledge that morality is technically subjective in that people will see it from different perspectives but morality is also based on our evolutionary development and enhanced by our rationality. I largely agree with Kagan's points although I'm not a vegetarian. I think you've gone to far describing it as BS.

@philochristos I see what you're saying. For those familiar with logical arguments, particularly the God debates, many of his arguments may be pretty straight forward. Who would you say is an apologist that fits my statement better? I'm sure there are atheists who do this as well.
Posted by induced 3 years ago
induced
both are wrong. morality is BS with God AND without God
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
"His arguments are complex and difficult to follow and he seems to capitalize on this to confuse rather than inform his audience."

I've found the exact opposite to be true. It seems to me that Craig ought to be one of the easier Christian apologists to debate with because his arguments are always crystal clear. He spells them out in tidy syllogisms so you're not left wondering what his argument is or trying to piece together his argument from unspoken premises like you do with a lot of people.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
@Rational I'm not sure this was clear, the comment was by Craig directed at Kagan in an interview about the debate here: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...

My main objection is that Craig would bring up such an emotionally charged scenario after the debate, when Kagan does not have the chance to respond, and attribute the view to Kagan.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"He surprised me by not arguing for his own view of ethics, which is a radical consequentialism. He holds that if torturing a little girl to death would somehow result in greater overall good as a consequence, then that is what we should do!"

Craig believes that all cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good. If that's the case, then it would seem silly to stop a rape if it lead to a greater good. Certainly more goodness is better than less goodness... I'm not sure how that is a radical view. It is the consequence of believing that all apparently gratuitous suffering is really not gratuitous. Only if some apparently gratuitous suffering wasn't for some greater good, would it make sense to stop rape.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Oh, thought you were kidding I take your point. I guess I prefer a more informal debate style like this. For me it is more effective in comparing two views. I have watched several formal debates between theists and non-theists and I would prefer a lot more discussion. It's very easy for opponents to drop the majority of their opponents arguments and just follow their script without being challenged on it.

Another issue is that Craig can rapid fire fifteen unfounded assertions in a couple minutes without any evidence and it takes an opponent a lengthy amount of time if they want to address each issue. Opponents often do not bother and it looks like he has made several unchallenged 'arguments.'
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Rational_Thinker9119LazariusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: S/g to Pro because "nimanimaNIMMANIMMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMA" is not a word.