Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dr. William Craig

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.

I'd love to see you high and mighty DDO atheists try to refute some of the points this man can lay out in favor of God and Theism.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:12:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love how the page views are going down.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:20:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I enjoy watching his debates. He is very organized in his arguments and presentation, which is both necessary and futile given the free-flowing style of so many of his atheist opponents.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:21:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:20:26 AM, Maikuru wrote:
I enjoy watching his debates. He is very organized in his arguments and presentation, which is both necessary and futile given the free-flowing style of so many of his atheist opponents.

He really is a fantastic debater.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 6:19:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
He's a great orator, wouldn't say all round debater. His arguments seem very repetitive, and he uses a fair few unsavoury tactics (as in, more than a debater should).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 6:20:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.

I'd love to see you high and mighty DDO atheists try to refute some of the points this man can lay out in favor of God and Theism.

A lot of them have been, dotted about when you search his arguments. If you want, I can try and send you a compilation of the arguments and their refutation. Or, I can just link you to Hume, who basically refutes the KCA and fine-tuning argument in his dialogue.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 6:44:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.

I'd love to see you high and mighty DDO atheists try to refute some of the points this man can lay out in favor of God and Theism.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com...

That explains alot.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 7:48:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.

I'd love to see you high and mighty DDO atheists try to refute some of the points this man can lay out in favor of God and Theism.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com...

Great debater yes, but fantastic person? This is the same guy who defended genocide, right?
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 8:47:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.

We have many writings by Alexander, many writings of people in his army, many artworks of Alexander, Aristotle's teaching to Alexander left lots of evidence, family trees of Alexander, etc. etc. etc.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 8:57:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 8:47:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.

We have many writings by Alexander, many writings of people in his army, many artworks of Alexander, Aristotle's teaching to Alexander left lots of evidence, family trees of Alexander, etc. etc. etc.

No, we have writings ABOUT alexander, the original source i lost. We have nothing written by alexander.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 9:09:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
WLC is definitely like a sleazy fast talking lawyer.

I want to say that he is an idiot, but I think it is more likely that he is just dishonest, and willing to do anything to win.

The only reason he "wins" debates is because the people judging the debates aren't wise to his tactics. They think he's being impressive when his arguments are in fact, terrible and not very convincing.

Someone around here once said that logical fallacies tend to be more convincing when spoken rather than written. WLC manipulates this, and is like a fallacy machine crapping out bullshyt onto the factory conveyor belt that leads to your mind.

I think he's overrated, but he does what he can with a position that truly has no case.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 9:31:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll just say it. This guy is a clown. No one with a rationale thought would give him any credence. If there are those who do perhaps we have the reason the right is so screwed up, not a principle among um.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 9:40:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.

TAG and Kalam aren't anything to do with historical evidence - although Craig uses a range of arguments to try to verify Xianity. All of which are a complete suckfest.

The historical-type claims go back to what I have already stated on DDO. How do we go about working out whether claims are likely to be true or likely to be false?

Do you believe in the following?
1. The orbit of Pluto is 248 years (even though we only discovered Pluto in 1930)
2. Man has landed on the Moon.
3. The theory of evolution is true
4. Socrates existed
5. Robin Hood existed
6. Big Foot exists
7. Alien abduction is real
8. Stage magicians don't use tricks. They use real magic.
9. Fairies live at the bottom of my garden
10. Two thousand years ago, a man died for a weekend, rose from the dead, then flew up into the sky.

Where on this increasingly unlikely list would we place the following claims:

a) Alexander the Great existed
b) A religious leader called Jesus existed 2000 years ago, although some of what is written about him is untrue, especially outlandish claims to do with miracles.
c) There is an intelligent creator behind the Universe's existence and we call this God

Claim(a) and (b) I would put at no. 4
Claim (c) - I don't know where I would put this. It depends on my mood. Probably somewhere between 6 and 10.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 9:47:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.

I'd love to see you high and mighty DDO atheists try to refute some of the points this man can lay out in favor of God and Theism.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com...

Most of the critics of WLC on this site hate the fact that there literally has been no one to defeat him. Any claim to his defeat has been preferential desire for his downfall. Any public atheist, going up against Craig, that has a slight skill as an orator and can marginally give an outline to his reasoning, is hailed as a victor.

If the atheists understood his arguments and valid reasoning, they would not be atheists. I find his written work wonderfully done with far more explanatory scope than the debate formats allow for.

I just completed another debate where a new version of the PoE and Craig's riposte was not even understood by my opponent, here on DDO (He had to use dodging tactics and character assaults to confuse the voters.)

***
Stephen Hawking brings up Hume here as having refuted these concepts, which I find bewildering! Hume's work is notorious and very well known, to Craig and adversaries and any argument designed by Craig would certainly have taken Hume's work into account. Yet Craig's adversaries on stage have not been able to show invalidity to Craig's arguments.

Now they have taken to 2 v 2 debates and trying to bring defeat based upon subject matter.(Ridicule of supernatural Resurrection for example)
http://vimeo.com...

Here is a recent example. One of Craig's opponents is near unintelligible due to accent.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 10:10:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it is rather silly to claim that the guy "wins" debates, as if that sort of thing isn't a subjective evaluation.

I don't dislike WLC for that reason. I dislike him because I think he's stupid, and I don't understand why any Christian would want him to be their apologetic.... then I see how many supporters he has.

If he was just another shmoe, I wouldn't say a thing. I only bash him because of how overrated and exalted the man is. Surely, the theists can do better . If I was a Christian, I would not support Craig.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 10:48:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 10:10:19 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I think it is rather silly to claim that the guy "wins" debates, as if that sort of thing isn't a subjective evaluation.

I don't dislike WLC for that reason. I dislike him because I think he's stupid, and I don't understand why any Christian would want him to be their apologetic.... then I see how many supporters he has.

If he was just another shmoe, I wouldn't say a thing. I only bash him because of how overrated and exalted the man is. Surely, the theists can do better . If I was a Christian, I would not support Craig.

So you complain about a subjective evaluation and then proceed to display a subjective evaluation. Interesting.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 10:58:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.

I'd love to see you high and mighty DDO atheists try to refute some of the points this man can lay out in favor of God and Theism.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com...

Dr. Craig supports the genocide and slaughter of the amalekites and all their babies, and is intellectually dishonest so I wouldn't call him a fantastic person. He has very good debate tactics and this is why he wins many debates, however Sam Harris and Austin Dacey pretty much put him in his place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 11:01:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 9:47:12 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.

I'd love to see you high and mighty DDO atheists try to refute some of the points this man can lay out in favor of God and Theism.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com...

Most of the critics of WLC on this site hate the fact that there literally has been no one to defeat him. Any claim to his defeat has been preferential desire for his downfall. Any public atheist, going up against Craig, that has a slight skill as an orator and can marginally give an outline to his reasoning, is hailed as a victor.

If the atheists understood his arguments and valid reasoning, they would not be atheists. I find his written work wonderfully done with far more explanatory scope than the debate formats allow for.

I just completed another debate where a new version of the PoE and Craig's riposte was not even understood by my opponent, here on DDO (He had to use dodging tactics and character assaults to confuse the voters.)

***
Stephen Hawking brings up Hume here as having refuted these concepts, which I find bewildering! Hume's work is notorious and very well known, to Craig and adversaries and any argument designed by Craig would certainly have taken Hume's work into account. Yet Craig's adversaries on stage have not been able to show invalidity to Craig's arguments.

Now they have taken to 2 v 2 debates and trying to bring defeat based upon subject matter.(Ridicule of supernatural Resurrection for example)
http://vimeo.com...

Here is a recent example. One of Craig's opponents is near unintelligible due to accent.

"Most of the critics of WLC on this site hate the fact that there literally has been no one to defeat him."

Sam Harris, Austin Dacey.....Two Atheists who completely wiped the floor with him.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 11:10:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 10:48:14 AM, Gileandos wrote:
So you complain about a subjective evaluation and then proceed to display a subjective evaluation. Interesting.

You arrogantly claimed that Atheists do not like WLC because they can't beat him in debate.

I informed you that this is not the case. Don't be dense.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 11:19:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 8:57:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:47:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.

We have many writings by Alexander, many writings of people in his army, many artworks of Alexander, Aristotle's teaching to Alexander left lots of evidence, family trees of Alexander, etc. etc. etc.

No, we have writings ABOUT alexander, the original source i lost. We have nothing written by alexander.

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk...

We have little to no information about Alexander's campaigns from his contemporaries, agreed, but not on Alexander. We also have many statues of Alexander, many people writing about him, etc. which are primary sources. We also have historical events, such as the burning of Persepolis, the dyansties he formed, and his impression left on the egyptian empire. The most lasting impression that Alexander's conquest left upon me was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Simply because of the skill he must have possessed to leave his mark in Egypt. Caesar's names are not in Egypt, I might add.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 11:27:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 11:01:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/25/2012 9:47:12 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.
http://vimeo.com...

"Most of the critics of WLC on this site hate the fact that there literally has been no one to defeat him."

Sam Harris, Austin Dacey.....Two Atheists who completely wiped the floor with him.

Must say, not sure about the Sam Harris debate, but the Steve Parsons one was definitely a win by Parsons, not Craig.

Also, again, W.L.Craig is a good debater, and kudos to him. I'm just disappointed that he has in recent years only debated what I'd call "Celebrity atheists" rather than scholastic atheists. Then again, he is debating (I hope) Stephen Law soon, which will be a good one.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 11:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 11:19:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:57:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:47:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.

We have many writings by Alexander, many writings of people in his army, many artworks of Alexander, Aristotle's teaching to Alexander left lots of evidence, family trees of Alexander, etc. etc. etc.

No, we have writings ABOUT alexander, the original source i lost. We have nothing written by alexander.

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk...

We have little to no information about Alexander's campaigns from his contemporaries, agreed, but not on Alexander. We also have many statues of Alexander, many people writing about him, etc. which are primary sources. We also have historical events, such as the burning of Persepolis, the dyansties he formed, and his impression left on the egyptian empire. The most lasting impression that Alexander's conquest left upon me was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Simply because of the skill he must have possessed to leave his mark in Egypt. Caesar's names are not in Egypt, I might add.

LOL we have statues. Let me see,we have first hand accounts but nothing from Alexander....mmmm so information is hearsay. Statues, gee and of venues and appool and even Mickey Moue. A statue proves people venerate. As I said..we can not prove it we infer it from secondary and Tertiary sources. I would not presume to consider those sources trite, I have no problem with such a reasoned inference. Well, I guess since you accept secondary and tertiary sources as well as statues, there was a Jesus and He is God, by your standards stated here of course.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 11:30:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 11:27:22 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 11:01:44 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/25/2012 9:47:12 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:04:34 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This man is the most fantastic person I have ever found in my life! He explains theism so well and has pwned atheists in debates on a regular basis.
http://vimeo.com...

"Most of the critics of WLC on this site hate the fact that there literally has been no one to defeat him."

Sam Harris, Austin Dacey.....Two Atheists who completely wiped the floor with him.

Must say, not sure about the Sam Harris debate, but the Steve Parsons one was definitely a win by Parsons, not Craig.

Also, again, W.L.Craig is a good debater, and kudos to him. I'm just disappointed that he has in recent years only debated what I'd call "Celebrity atheists" rather than scholastic atheists. Then again, he is debating (I hope) Stephen Law soon, which will be a good one.

I believe Sam took the debate, he gave Craig a basis for objective moral values that didn't need to come from a higher power.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 11:34:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Logicrules, what makes you think that autobiographies or self-writings are the strongest evidence for the existence of a historical figure?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 11:34:22 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
Logicrules, what makes you think that autobiographies or self-writings are the strongest evidence for the existence of a historical figure?

I never said that.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:19:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 11:27:27 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 11:19:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:57:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:47:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.

We have many writings by Alexander, many writings of people in his army, many artworks of Alexander, Aristotle's teaching to Alexander left lots of evidence, family trees of Alexander, etc. etc. etc.

No, we have writings ABOUT alexander, the original source i lost. We have nothing written by alexander.

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk...

We have little to no information about Alexander's campaigns from his contemporaries, agreed, but not on Alexander. We also have many statues of Alexander, many people writing about him, etc. which are primary sources. We also have historical events, such as the burning of Persepolis, the dyansties he formed, and his impression left on the egyptian empire. The most lasting impression that Alexander's conquest left upon me was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Simply because of the skill he must have possessed to leave his mark in Egypt. Caesar's names are not in Egypt, I might add.

LOL we have statues. Let me see,we have first hand accounts but nothing from Alexander....mmmm so information is hearsay. Statues, gee and of venues and appool and even Mickey Moue. A statue proves people venerate. As I said..we can not prove it we infer it from secondary and Tertiary sources. I would not presume to consider those sources trite, I have no problem with such a reasoned inference. Well, I guess since you accept secondary and tertiary sources as well as statues, there was a Jesus and He is God, by your standards stated here of course.

Are you saying we should not accept "secondary and tertiary as well as statues" sources because of...what? I'm not sure of why you dismiss them. Secondary (no such thing as tertiary).

Historical likelihood:
The higher up the source is on the list, the more likely the chance of the historical person or event happening.

Sources written by the person being mentioned gives likelihood of that person existing. <-- Yes. Alexander has many letters of diplomacy, many letters regarding Aristotle, etc. . Jesus has no such record.

Sources written by contempoaries <- Unfortunately, though we know that there were contemporaries, none of them have survived. We only have references of them by Plutarch, for example. However, with Jesus, we have maybe two or three reliable sources which come many decades after the events of Jesus Christ.

Sources by enemies <- so many of them for Alexander that it is impossible to name them all in 8000 words, yet alone characters. For Jesus, it is the opposite.

History being the same without events proceeding as they have <- in other words, could history have occurred as we know it without their existence? Regarding Alexander, simply no. We needed someone who grew up being taught by Aristotle, the son of the king of Macedonia, invading and conquering most of the world and fooling them he was called Alex. On the other hand, all that is needed for Christianity is the story of Jesus and a handful of people believing it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:28:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:19:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 11:27:27 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 11:19:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:57:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:47:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:36:06 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 8:28:14 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
Dr Craig is the best that US Christianity has got going for it. Unfortunately, he is largely unimpressive, his arguments have ben refuted a thousand times. He is basically a lawyer for God. Why does God need people like him to prop him up, assuming God even exists? During any debate I've watched on the internet, Craig basically puts up a wall of crap so high that there is simply insufficient time in the debate to tear it down piece by smelly piece.

The thing is with TAG and Kalam, did these lead to his conversion to Xianity directly because the arguments were so powerful and irrefutable, or did he become a Xian for emotional reasons and he uses pseudo-intellectualism to bolster his fragile faith?

You are correct in your conclusion that Craig fails to make any point valid to his claim. I think it i because the historical proof is a fools errand. The evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great is second hand, how ya gonna find a jew in the Roman empire. If it is provable then it wouldn't be Faith.

We have many writings by Alexander, many writings of people in his army, many artworks of Alexander, Aristotle's teaching to Alexander left lots of evidence, family trees of Alexander, etc. etc. etc.

No, we have writings ABOUT alexander, the original source i lost. We have nothing written by alexander.

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk...

We have little to no information about Alexander's campaigns from his contemporaries, agreed, but not on Alexander. We also have many statues of Alexander, many people writing about him, etc. which are primary sources. We also have historical events, such as the burning of Persepolis, the dyansties he formed, and his impression left on the egyptian empire. The most lasting impression that Alexander's conquest left upon me was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Simply because of the skill he must have possessed to leave his mark in Egypt. Caesar's names are not in Egypt, I might add.

LOL we have statues. Let me see,we have first hand accounts but nothing from Alexander....mmmm so information is hearsay. Statues, gee and of venues and appool and even Mickey Moue. A statue proves people venerate. As I said..we can not prove it we infer it from secondary and Tertiary sources. I would not presume to consider those sources trite, I have no problem with such a reasoned inference. Well, I guess since you accept secondary and tertiary sources as well as statues, there was a Jesus and He is God, by your standards stated here of course.

Are you saying we should not accept "secondary and tertiary as well as statues" sources because of...what? I'm not sure of why you dismiss them. Secondary (no such thing as tertiary).

Historical likelihood:
The higher up the source is on the list, the more likely the chance of the historical person or event happening.

Sources written by the person being mentioned gives likelihood of that person existing. <-- Yes. Alexander has many letters of diplomacy, many letters regarding Aristotle, etc. . Jesus has no such record.

Sources written by contempoaries <- Unfortunately, though we know that there were contemporaries, none of them have survived. We only have references of them by Plutarch, for example. However, with Jesus, we have maybe two or three reliable sources which come many decades after the events of Jesus Christ.

Sources by enemies <- so many of them for Alexander that it is impossible to name them all in 8000 words, yet alone characters. For Jesus, it is the opposite.

History being the same without events proceeding as they have <- in other words, could history have occurred as we know it without their existence? Regarding Alexander, simply no. We needed someone who grew up being taught by Aristotle, the son of the king of Macedonia, invading and conquering most of the world and fooling them he was called Alex. On the other hand, all that is needed for Christianity is the story of Jesus and a handful of people believing it.

LOL historical likelihood? Give me a break. Sources, Primary, secondary and tertiary. That's it. You have been caught, you accept there is an Alexander with no Primary Source. That is fine, but please don't just make stuff up so you can feel smart. You are disingenuous.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 2:19:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:28:21 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:19:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No, we have writings ABOUT alexander, the original source i lost. We have nothing written by alexander.

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://history-of-macedonia.com...

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk...

We have little to no information about Alexander's campaigns from his contemporaries, agreed, but not on Alexander. We also have many statues of Alexander, many people writing about him, etc. which are primary sources. We also have historical events, such as the burning of Persepolis, the dyansties he formed, and his impression left on the egyptian empire. The most lasting impression that Alexander's conquest left upon me was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Simply because of the skill he must have possessed to leave his mark in Egypt. Caesar's names are not in Egypt, I might add.

LOL we have statues. Let me see,we have first hand accounts but nothing from Alexander....mmmm so information is hearsay. Statues, gee and of venues and appool and even Mickey Moue. A statue proves people venerate. As I said..we can not prove it we infer it from secondary and Tertiary sources. I would not presume to consider those sources trite, I have no problem with such a reasoned inference. Well, I guess since you accept secondary and tertiary sources as well as statues, there was a Jesus and He is God, by your standards stated here of course.

Are you saying we should not accept "secondary and tertiary as well as statues" sources because of...what? I'm not sure of why you dismiss them. Secondary (no such thing as tertiary).

Historical likelihood:
The higher up the source is on the list, the more likely the chance of the historical person or event happening.

Sources written by the person being mentioned gives likelihood of that person existing. <-- Yes. Alexander has many letters of diplomacy, many letters regarding Aristotle, etc. . Jesus has no such record.

Sources written by contempoaries <- Unfortunately, though we know that there were contemporaries, none of them have survived. We only have references of them by Plutarch, for example. However, with Jesus, we have maybe two or three reliable sources which come many decades after the events of Jesus Christ.

Sources by enemies <- so many of them for Alexander that it is impossible to name them all in 8000 words, yet alone characters. For Jesus, it is the opposite.

History being the same without events proceeding as they have <- in other words, could history have occurred as we know it without their existence? Regarding Alexander, simply no. We needed someone who grew up being taught by Aristotle, the son of the king of Macedonia, invading and conquering most of the world and fooling them he was called Alex. On the other hand, all that is needed for Christianity is the story of Jesus and a handful of people believing it.

LOL historical likelihood? Give me a break. Sources, Primary, secondary and tertiary. That's it. You have been caught, you accept there is an Alexander with no Primary Source. That is fine, but please don't just make stuff up so you can feel smart. You are disingenuous.

..Did you read what I put? The letters of Alexander of Macedon give very good likelihood of his existence to that comparable of Leibniz. Also, if you're questioning the idea of historical likelihood, i.e. arguing for there being proof in history, then go for it but you'd be going up against the modern understanding and evaluation of history.

Therefore, I would like the following:

An addressal of the three sources I gave of Alexander's writings and letters, specifically why they do not 'count'. They consist of:

Decrees by Alexander the Great
Letters back and forth between Alexander the Great and Porus (Alexander writing the third letter that is sourced)
Letter from Alexander the Great to the Chians (a translation : http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk...)

An explanation of why the historical method can "prove", specifically referring to the historical method.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...