Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

W.L.C. Debate on Feb. 1st

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:48:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
WLC is going to slaughter Rosenberg.

I predict Rosenberg will offer some vague argument along the lines of "God has nothing to do with science. End of." He takes scientism to dizzying heights (or, perhaps, untold depths depending on your perspective).

http://onthehuman.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 10:33:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is another philosopher of science/economics who wrote a semi-professional book promoting atheism debating Craig. It's quite dull, in all honesty. We need someone from debating to come out, really, simply to match the presentation skills.
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...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 11:18:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I'll check it out now.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 1:08:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

Nice to see you active again on the forums, Rational.

I haven't watched the other debates you mention recently, so I'll withhold commenting on those. There's no question, however, how embarrassing the debate between WLC & Harris was for Harris. If I remember correctly, not once did Harris ever respond to any of Craig's critiques of his Moral Landscape. Instead, Harris just ignored what Craig said and provided red herring after red herring after red herring. At one point, just after Craig provided a knock-down argument against Harris' Moral Landscape, all Harris had to say was, and I quote: "Well that was all very interesting. Uh..." before launching into another theologically incorrect red herring.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:00:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 1:08:10 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

Nice to see you active again on the forums, Rational.

I haven't watched the other debates you mention recently, so I'll withhold commenting on those. There's no question, however, how embarrassing the debate between WLC & Harris was for Harris. If I remember correctly, not once did Harris ever respond to any of Craig's critiques of his Moral Landscape. Instead, Harris just ignored what Craig said and provided red herring after red herring after red herring. At one point, just after Craig provided a knock-down argument against Harris' Moral Landscape, all Harris had to say was, and I quote: "Well that was all very interesting. Uh..." before launching into another theologically incorrect red herring.

Like I said, it's debatable. I'm not too bothered by the notion of WLC winning that debate.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:03:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

Yes, that's a moronic argument from Craig. I mean, "Deep down" Hitler thought what he was doing is right...I've yet to see anything else but appeals to emotion to defend the notion that morality is objective. This is what makes the moral argument one of the worst theistic arguments ever.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:11:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 3:03:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

Yes, that's a moronic argument from Craig. I mean, "Deep down" Hitler thought what he was doing is right...I've yet to see anything else but appeals to emotion to defend the notion that morality is objective. This is what makes the moral argument one of the worst theistic arguments ever.

WLC's morality argument is simply riciculous; one the one hand he uses objective morality to prove Gods existance, then says stuff along the lines of:

"The problem isn"t that God ended the Canaanites" lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn"t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it"s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God"s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God"s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong."

"By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel"s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel"s being set exclusively apart for God.

"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God"s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these 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."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Yes, that's a moronic argument from Craig. I mean, "Deep down" Hitler thought what he was doing is right...I've yet to see anything else but appeals to emotion to defend the notion that morality is objective. This is what makes the moral argument one of the worst theistic arguments ever."
Yeah, this kind of thing is what ruins Cartesian Dualism for me.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:26:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 3:21:43 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"Yes, that's a moronic argument from Craig. I mean, "Deep down" Hitler thought what he was doing is right...I've yet to see anything else but appeals to emotion to defend the notion that morality is objective. This is what makes the moral argument one of the worst theistic arguments ever."
Yeah, this kind of thing is what ruins Cartesian Dualism for me.

Really? The arguments appealing moral epistemology ruins cartesian dualism for you? Lolwat?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:53:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 3:11:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/28/2013 3:03:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

Yes, that's a moronic argument from Craig. I mean, "Deep down" Hitler thought what he was doing is right...I've yet to see anything else but appeals to emotion to defend the notion that morality is objective. This is what makes the moral argument one of the worst theistic arguments ever.

WLC's morality argument is simply riciculous; one the one hand he uses objective morality to prove Gods existance, then says stuff along the lines of:

"The problem isn"t that God ended the Canaanites" lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn"t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it"s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God"s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God"s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong."

"By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel"s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel"s being set exclusively apart for God.

"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God"s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these 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."

His defense of genocide has nothing to do with whether his moral argument is good or not.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:55:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 3:00:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2013 1:08:10 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
(maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

Nice to see you active again on the forums, Rational.

I haven't watched the other debates you mention recently, so I'll withhold commenting on those. There's no question, however, how embarrassing the debate between WLC & Harris was for Harris. If I remember correctly, not once did Harris ever respond to any of Craig's critiques of his Moral Landscape. Instead, Harris just ignored what Craig said and provided red herring after red herring after red herring. At one point, just after Craig provided a knock-down argument against Harris' Moral Landscape, all Harris had to say was, and I quote: "Well that was all very interesting. Uh..." before launching into another theologically incorrect red herring.

Like I said, it's debatable.

Not really. lol Unless the the "debatable" part is whether Harris got destroyed or got eviscerated.

I'm not too bothered by the notion of WLC winning that debate.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 11:39:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think this debate will be a lot about morals. A big section of Rosenburgs book "Atheist Guide to Reality" is focused on this subject.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:10:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 6:52:07 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
http://live.biola.edu...

Looking forward to it. My apologetics group is going to stream the debate live and watch it, then discuss it afterward.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:15:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've not read Rosenberg's stuff, but if he really does take the scientism route, it's going to be an easy win for Craig. I'd much rather see Craig debate Schellenberg or Jeff Lowder.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:19:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

It's not an appeal to emotion, he's appealing to intuition. He's not saying "we all feel that rape is wrong, so it's wrong." He's saying "deep down, we all *know* rape is wrong." Now, of course intuitions aren't *always* reliable, but if they're not, it requires an argument as to why not.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:33:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:19:18 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

It's not an appeal to emotion, he's appealing to intuition. He's not saying "we all feel that rape is wrong, so it's wrong." He's saying "deep down, we all *know* rape is wrong." Now, of course intuitions aren't *always* reliable, but if they're not, it requires an argument as to why not.

Unless you somehow prove that our intuitions ought to be followed and right in cases like these, I don't see why I wouldn't assume the opposite. Craig never justifies the assumption, so it's definitely an appeal to emotion.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:16:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:19:18 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

It's not an appeal to emotion, he's appealing to intuition. He's not saying "we all feel that rape is wrong, so it's wrong." He's saying "deep down, we all *know* rape is wrong."

He backed up that statement with nothing though. That's like saying "deep down, we all know the Godfather is a good movie". In reality, that's a subjective statement.

Now, of course intuitions aren't *always* reliable, but if they're not, it requires an argument as to why not.

Switching the burden of proof fallacy. Craig must prove that intuition is right in this case, it's not up to me to prove it's not. My intuition is against the notion that the entire universe was once smaller than a marble. That seems completely counter-intuitive, but that's what modern cosmology suggests. Basically, since it's known that intuition can fail us, Craig must show why that's definitely not the case here for his argument to work. Also, I'm not even sure that's a valid appeal to intuition in the first place.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 6:08:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:19:18 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

It's not an appeal to emotion, he's appealing to intuition. He's not saying "we all feel that rape is wrong, so it's wrong." He's saying "deep down, we all *know* rape is wrong." Now, of course intuitions aren't *always* reliable, but if they're not, it requires an argument as to why not.

While I actually agree that intuition provides at least temporary support for moral realism, I think this is a double-edged sword for Craig. When it comes to epistemological statements like "Rape is morally wrong", this is no more intuitive than saying "The slaughter of the Canaanites was morally wrong". The whole appeal of Craig's point is to affirm what seems so strongly intuitive, yet he has to undercut this very intuition to make the latter morally permissable.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 10:23:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:16:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:19:18 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

It's not an appeal to emotion, he's appealing to intuition. He's not saying "we all feel that rape is wrong, so it's wrong." He's saying "deep down, we all *know* rape is wrong."

He backed up that statement with nothing though. That's like saying "deep down, we all know the Godfather is a good movie". In reality, that's a subjective statement.

The problem that is frequented by many who object to Craig's moral argument revolves around intuition. That is, the theist must show that her experience of certain intuited phenomena are, in fact, experienced in the very way that they are experienced... which is strange. For instance, when I say that this water is hot, I do not intend to mean that this water is hot TO ME, but that it is, in fact, hot in some objective sense. This is simply how I experience it. The experience of heat and cold actually presupposes the existence of an objective metric by which they may be judged. Moral distinctions, similarly, presuppose an objective metric by which they may be judged.

I know of no person who says that raping children is morally wrong FOR THEM, but not for others. Thus, Craig appeals to this NATURAL intuition wherein we all make moral judgments that presuppose an objective metric. His moral argument is a deductive one with an inductive premise (objective moral values exist). It is counter-intuitive to say that objective moral values do not exist on pain of denying collective experience. It doesn't seem to be a premise that needs to be affirmed anymore than it already is in our daily experiences and by our collective intuition.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 11:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just got this Email:

www.biola.edu/debate

Thank you for registering for the upcoming "Is Faith in God Reasonable?" Debate Broadcast on February 1, 2013. We are excited about this partnership with Symposia Christi at Purdue University, Reasonable Faith, and Biola University to bring you this historic debate live! As we count down to the event we wanted to update you on a few event streaming details. Please read carefully!

VIEWING OPTIONS
In addition to the live debate at 7:00 pm EST we will be re-airing the debate at 7:00 pm PST for those on the West Coast. The debate will also be available on-demand after 2 pm EST on Saturday, February 2. Please visit http://live.biola.edu... for more details on viewing options.

VIEWING LOCATIONS
Many groups are hosting viewings that are open to the public. Check out the full list here: http://live.biola.edu... and join people in your community to watch the debate and dialogue. If you are interested in a hosting a public viewing please contact us at conference.coordinator at biola.edu to have your location added!

SOUTHERN CALFIORNIA SCREENING AT BIOLA UNIVERSITY
Are you near Biola? The debate may be happening in freezing Indiana, but we"ll be hosting a viewing in Sutherland Auditorium on the Biola campus at 7:00 pm PST. This event is FREE. For more information and to RSVP please visit www.apologeticsevents.com.

FAQ & TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
Please test your equipment and connection at our test site: http://live.biola.edu... If you run into any issues, please contact us before the event so we can help resolve them with you. Contact us at conference.coordinator at biola.edu.

HOW TO VIEW THE DEBATE
After you"ve tested your equipment and gathered round your friends and family, we recommend logging onto the debate website at least 20 minutes before the event begins. You will connect to www.biola.edu/debate (the same place you registered!) and be directed to log in. You will use the same email address you provided when registering. Remember: registration is required so if you have friends in other cities watching as well remind them to register now at www.biola.edu/debate.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Fire up Twitter and join the conversation by tagging your posts #GODdebate. You can pose questions to the debaters on Twitter as well, or by submitting a question via a form on the screening site. We look forward to a robust debate and stimulating Q&A time as well as entertaining and introspective commentary from viewers around the world.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
If this is your first apologetics event or your hundredth we recommend you follow up with further study to become better equipped to defend your faith.

On Guard Study Tools by William Lane Craig
This Box Set includes the Book, Study Guide, and DVD Companion! This is a one-stop, how-to-defend-your-faith study program! It will equip Christians to advance faith conversations deliberately, applying straightforward, cool-headed arguments. They will discover not just what they believe, but why they believe"and how being on guard with the truth has the power to change their life forever.
Buy now: http://apps.biola.edu...

The Best of William Lane Craig Debate Collection (Volumes 1-2)
This exclusive box set (two volumes!) features the very best of William Lane Craig"s long career of debating.
Buy now: http://apps.biola.edu...

Check out the full collection of recommended apologetics resources here:
http://apps.biola.edu...

ABOUT THE DEBATE
What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens? Or what hath faith to do with reason? Drs. William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg will debate this all important and pervasive question concerning the reasonableness of faith in God. The nature of the question in this debate is no mere academic matter. The question of God is the most important question. One"s answer to it will impact nearly all other beliefs one holds from common notions of morality to politics and from our interest and investigation of our world to what we take to be our purpose(s) in life. Is "faith" foolish? By this, should it be understood to be blind? Or is it reasonable and, if so, by what measure and to whom is it foolishness?

For many, Mark Twain is right on the mark when he said that "Faith is believing something you know ain"t true." Yet the great thinkers of Judaism and Christianity like Philo, Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin considered faith to be an extraordinarily important virtue (moral and/or intellectual)! Indeed, it is not only the condition by which salvation is appropriated in these Abrahamic faith traditions (which are taken by insiders to actually be knowledge traditions), but it is the basis for movements from Mother Teresa"s compassion and our concern for the poor to Isaac Newton"s inspiration in science in light of God"s creation of the world and man being made in God"s image. Is faith in God reasonable? Ought we to have faith in God?

VIEW DEBATE ONLINE LIVE:
February 1, 2013
Friday, 7 " 9:30 EST
Sign up online at www.biola.edu/debate

ATTEND DEBATE LIVE:
February 1, 2013
Friday, 7 " 9:30 EST
Purdue University
Eliot Hall of Music
West Lafayette, IN
Cost: FREE
More info: www.apologeticsevents.com

FOOLISHNESS OF FAITH CONFERENCE:
February 2, 2013
Time: Saturday, 9:30 am - 3:45 pm
Location: Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Cost: FREE
More info: www.apologeticsevents.com

====================
APOLOGETICS ONLINE
====================

Shop now! CDs & DVDs of all our past events, lectures, and conferences available for purchase!
www.apologeticsevents.com/resources

Watch now! Web broadcasts available!
www.apologeticsevents.com

Like us on Facebook for events, dialogue, news and updates!
www.facebook.com/BiolaApologetics
www.twitter.com/biolapologetics

===============================
HOST AN EVENT AT YOUR CHURCH!
===============================

Bring lectures, debates, and events like these to your church! If you are interested in connecting Biola Apologetics with your community, please contact us.
Phone: 888.332.4652 (toll free)
Mailto:apologetics at biola.edu

===================================
Forward to your friends, family, and church!
===================================

For more information on these events, please contact:
The Christian Apologetics Program
Biola University
13800 Biola Ave
La Mirada, CA 90639-0001
Phone: 888.332.4652 (toll free)
Conference.coordinator at biola.edu

www.biola.edu/apologetics
www.facebook.com/biolaapologetics

=========================================================
You have received this email because you registered for an event through Biola University"s Christian Apologetics Program. If you did not register for this event and believe you received this message in error, please notify us by responding to this e-mail.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:56:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:33:33 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:19:18 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

It's not an appeal to emotion, he's appealing to intuition. He's not saying "we all feel that rape is wrong, so it's wrong." He's saying "deep down, we all *know* rape is wrong." Now, of course intuitions aren't *always* reliable, but if they're not, it requires an argument as to why not.

Unless you somehow prove that our intuitions ought to be followed and right in cases like these, I don't see why I wouldn't assume the opposite. Craig never justifies the assumption, so it's definitely an appeal to emotion.

It's not an appeal to emotion. It's an appeal to intuitions. If we can't trust our intuitions in one thing, we can't trust them in anything, and reasoning becomes useless. If something goes against our intuitions, it requires an argument as to why.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:59:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:16:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:19:18 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 1/27/2013 3:34:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:34:48 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/27/2013 9:29:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Never heard of the other debater, but WLC beat Hitchens, so this guy probably shouldn't be a problem for Craig at all. The only people who I think beat Craig in a debate were Austin Dacey and Shelly Kagan (maybe Sam Harris, but that one's debatable).

I think Arif Ahmed beat WLC pretty bad:

I don't see why Craig uses appeal to emotion constantly when trying to prove objective morality. "Don't we all know that rape is wrong, deep within us?" I definitely feel it is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it wrong... Also, I didn't see the whole video, but Craig made some awful points. Arif is pretty good.

It's not an appeal to emotion, he's appealing to intuition. He's not saying "we all feel that rape is wrong, so it's wrong." He's saying "deep down, we all *know* rape is wrong."

He backed up that statement with nothing though. That's like saying "deep down, we all know the Godfather is a good movie". In reality, that's a subjective statement.


Now, of course intuitions aren't *always* reliable, but if they're not, it requires an argument as to why not.

Switching the burden of proof fallacy. Craig must prove that intuition is right in this case, it's not up to me to prove it's not. My intuition is against the notion that the entire universe was once smaller than a marble. That seems completely counter-intuitive, but that's what modern cosmology suggests. Basically, since it's known that intuition can fail us, Craig must show why that's definitely not the case here for his argument to work. Also, I'm not even sure that's a valid appeal to intuition in the first place.

It's not switching the burden of proof. Incidentally, requiring someone to support their intuitions is switching the burden of proof. If he's appealing to intuition, he doesn't have to support it. The one who wants to argue against intuition is the one who is required to back it up, especially if someone is arguing that our intuitions are wrong. If Dr. Craig says, "our intuitions tell us that rape is objectively wrong," if someone questions or challenges that, the person questioning or challenging that assertion is the one required to give evidence to back it up. By saying, "Dr. Craig is wrong, now he has to support his statement" is switching the burden of proof.

Either our intuitions are reliable or they're not. Sometimes they're not, but if they're not, an argument is required as to why we shouldn't trust our intuitions. Especially if you're going to try and argue that rape is a moral behavior if you truly believe that it is.