Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

William Lane Craig loses debate?

unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:34:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Okay, so it's not a debate as such, more an exchange of ideas across the internet. Still, it's clear on this issue, in this exchange, Craig seems way out of his depth, and gets beaten up pretty badly.

Thoughts?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In my experience many young-earth creationists tend to greatly underestimate how sophisticated other animals are.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:26:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 7:01:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
In my experience many young-earth creationists tend to greatly underestimate how sophisticated other animals are.

I don't think WLC is a YEC....

Or was that meant as a tangential point not related to WLC's claims?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 7:26:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/9/2013 7:01:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
In my experience many young-earth creationists tend to greatly underestimate how sophisticated other animals are.

I don't think WLC is a YEC....

Or was that meant as a tangential point not related to WLC's claims?

No, you're right. I don't mean to imply that WLC is a YEC. I should be careful in how I word statements.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:07:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:34:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...



Okay, so it's not a debate as such, more an exchange of ideas across the internet. Still, it's clear on this issue, in this exchange, Craig seems way out of his depth, and gets beaten up pretty badly.

Thoughts?

She does seem to have a point, but I would reserve judgement until I hear what Craig replies.

There were a couple things that I found disturbing about her presentation, mainly the mixing "pre-frontal cortex", & "frontal cortex", & also the distinction between experiencing pain (which Dr. Craig says they do have) and awareness that they are experiencing 2nd order pain.

A perfect example of both of these in 1 place can be found in video 1, 12:00 - 13:00.
That type of sloppiness really bothers me, & leads me to question her integrity, that expert says nothing that contradicted Craig. I'm wondering why Dr. Craig mentioned this altogether, according to her it was to answer how god could let animals suffer for millions of years? It seems rather odd to me that Dr. Craig would ans. the way he did as opposed to treating it as the obvious BOE it is. Based on what I've seen from her though I wouldn't be surprised if she got it wrong. Does anyone know, when where or why Dr. Craig needed to say this?
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...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:15:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
& look at 15:50 - 16:05

"It isn't true that only primates have a prefrontal cortex, all mamals have a (slight pause) ccortex, all mamals have a neo cortex..."

Something is wrong here.
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...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:23:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A quick google search shows that she is cherry picking experts:

http://www.bio.net...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The lack of a single anatomical or functional definition of 'prefrontal cortex' has led to different and, in some respects, controversial views on the existence of a prefrontal cortex in non-primate mammals, in particular in rats.
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
2/9/2013 9:53:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:23:34 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
A quick google search shows that she is cherry picking experts:

http://www.bio.net...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The lack of a single anatomical or functional definition of 'prefrontal cortex' has led to different and, in some respects, controversial views on the existence of a prefrontal cortex in non-primate mammals, in particular in rats.

Par for the course with internet armchair philosophers.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:54:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:34:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...



Okay, so it's not a debate as such, more an exchange of ideas across the internet. Still, it's clear on this issue, in this exchange, Craig seems way out of his depth, and gets beaten up pretty badly.

Thoughts?

This is hardly a debate. In a debate both sides get a chance to respond to each other. You can't say Craig loses without knowing how he'd respond, or if he would be able to respond.

Incidentally, I don't agree with Craig about animal suffering, but I haven't looked too much into it.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:11:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:07:44 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 2/9/2013 6:34:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...



Okay, so it's not a debate as such, more an exchange of ideas across the internet. Still, it's clear on this issue, in this exchange, Craig seems way out of his depth, and gets beaten up pretty badly.

Thoughts?

She does seem to have a point, but I would reserve judgement until I hear what Craig replies.

There were a couple things that I found disturbing about her presentation, mainly the mixing "pre-frontal cortex", & "frontal cortex", & also the distinction between experiencing pain (which Dr. Craig says they do have) and awareness that they are experiencing 2nd order pain.

A perfect example of both of these in 1 place can be found in video 1, 12:00 - 13:00.
That type of sloppiness really bothers me, & leads me to question her integrity, that expert says nothing that contradicted Craig. I'm wondering why Dr. Craig mentioned this altogether, according to her it was to answer how god could let animals suffer for millions of years? It seems rather odd to me that Dr. Craig would ans. the way he did as opposed to treating it as the obvious BOE it is. Based on what I've seen from her though I wouldn't be surprised if she got it wrong. Does anyone know, when where or why Dr. Craig needed to say this?

The next you plagiarize arguments, be sure that someone can't click on a video link and see the original in the comments.

And WLC is an idiot.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:50:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 10:11:31 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:07:44 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 2/9/2013 6:34:34 PM, unitedandy wrote:


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...



Okay, so it's not a debate as such, more an exchange of ideas across the internet. Still, it's clear on this issue, in this exchange, Craig seems way out of his depth, and gets beaten up pretty badly.

Thoughts?

She does seem to have a point, but I would reserve judgement until I hear what Craig replies.

There were a couple things that I found disturbing about her presentation, mainly the mixing "pre-frontal cortex", & "frontal cortex", & also the distinction between experiencing pain (which Dr. Craig says they do have) and awareness that they are experiencing 2nd order pain.

A perfect example of both of these in 1 place can be found in video 1, 12:00 - 13:00.
That type of sloppiness really bothers me, & leads me to question her integrity, that expert says nothing that contradicted Craig. I'm wondering why Dr. Craig mentioned this altogether, according to her it was to answer how god could let animals suffer for millions of years? It seems rather odd to me that Dr. Craig would ans. the way he did as opposed to treating it as the obvious BOE it is. Based on what I've seen from her though I wouldn't be surprised if she got it wrong. Does anyone know, when where or why Dr. Craig needed to say this?

The next you plagiarize arguments, be sure that someone can't click on a video link and see the original in the comments.

And WLC is an idiot.

LOL. I was afraid of this.
Did it occur to you that the one who wrote that in the comments under the video is me.
& I can prove it.
Notice in both places it says
"A perfect example of both of these in 1 place can be found in video 1"
Now saying "video 1" over here makes sense, but why would it be written there?
Unless, I just C&P'd it from here to there, & forgot to change that part.

Another point is that they were both posted at the same time.

Next time don't jump to conclusions.

"Judge everyone favorably"
-Ethics of the fathers / perkai avot 1:6.
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...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 10:51:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:23:34 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
A quick google search shows that she is cherry picking experts:

http://www.bio.net...

This is merely a forum post on another website, it's no more authoritative than posts on DDO. So I'm a bit curious as to why you cite it as if it were some objective scientific study rather than some random blokes' opinion on the internet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The lack of a single anatomical or functional definition of 'prefrontal cortex' has led to different and, in some respects, controversial views on the existence of a prefrontal cortex in non-primate mammals, in particular in rats.

Yes, non-primate mammals. Even taken on face value this hardly supports the claim that only humans have a prefrontal cortex, or that apes do not.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 11:11:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 10:51:53 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:23:34 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
A quick google search shows that she is cherry picking experts:

http://www.bio.net...


This is merely a forum post on another website, it's no more authoritative than posts on DDO. So I'm a bit curious as to why you cite it as if it were some objective scientific study rather than some random blokes' opinion on the internet.

If you read the content, you'll see that it was based scientific American, one the most highly respected science journals

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The lack of a single anatomical or functional definition of 'prefrontal cortex' has led to different and, in some respects, controversial views on the existence of a prefrontal cortex in non-primate mammals, in particular in rats.

Yes, non-primate mammals. Even taken on face value this hardly supports the claim that only humans have a prefrontal cortex, or that apes do not.

Your making a fatal flaw of not listening carefully, just like that stupid girl.
WLC clearly said both, only humans & primates...
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...
Anaxa
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:08:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I disagree with Craig on many things, but those things aren't as cut and dry as this chick is putting forth, and the smug hubris with which she lays her 'case' is rather off putting.

It's clear Craig might've misspoke here and there, but ultimately she's done nothing to convince me that Craig and Murray don't raise substantial objections.
"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." -Darwin
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:28:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 11:11:50 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:

If you read the content, you'll see that it was based scientific American, one the most highly respected science journals

If you read the content you will see the link to the article in Scientific American returns "Page not found". Furthermore If you feel that any commentary that links to a respected scientific source is itself authoritative, then when should I expect you to begin citing my arguments containing scientific links as themselves authoritative sources? The kind of double standard applied here quickly becomes blatantly apparent.

Your making a fatal flaw of not listening carefully, just like that stupid girl.
WLC clearly said both, only humans & primates...

Then he makes unjustified exceptions to the question posed to him. Why then does he not count the suffering of apes, in the question asked of him, if he concedes that apes do indeed suffer?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 3:22:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 11:27:27 AM, Apeiron wrote:
And this was what their response amounted to:

Fix'd
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 8:49:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 6:03:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even if animals suffer, how does that help the point that God doesn't exist exactly?

It's used as a variant of the problem of evil.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 8:49:19 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:03:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even if animals suffer, how does that help the point that God doesn't exist exactly?

It's used as a variant of the problem of evil.

My issue with the Problem of Evil is that it doesn't exactly disprove God. It neglects the possibility of a malevolent or indifferent god.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 1:37:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 1:21:36 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:49:19 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:03:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even if animals suffer, how does that help the point that God doesn't exist exactly?

It's used as a variant of the problem of evil.

My issue with the Problem of Evil is that it doesn't exactly disprove God. It neglects the possibility of a malevolent or indifferent god.

Well, I'd only really care about a good God. My choices in life wouldn't affect anything after I die with an indifferent/malevolent God.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:06:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 1:28:40 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/11/2013 11:11:50 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:

If you read the content, you'll see that it was based scientific American, one the most highly respected science journals

If you read the content you will see the link to the article in Scientific American returns "Page not found". Furthermore If you feel that any commentary that links to a respected scientific source is itself authoritative, then when should I expect you to begin citing my arguments containing scientific links as themselves authoritative sources? The kind of double standard applied here quickly becomes blatantly apparent.

Why is that site any less than that armchair philosopher?

Your making a fatal flaw of not listening carefully, just like that stupid girl.
WLC clearly said both, only humans & primates...

Then he makes unjustified exceptions to the question posed to him. Why then does he not count the suffering of apes, in the question asked of him, if he concedes that apes do indeed suffer?

Did you hear what question he was asked, or are you just relying on what she says.
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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:43:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 8:49:19 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:03:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even if animals suffer, how does that help the point that God doesn't exist exactly?

It's used as a variant of the problem of evil.

Wouldn't the Atheist have to argue for objective morality without God first, in order for the word "evil" to mean anything?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:58:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:43:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:49:19 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:03:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even if animals suffer, how does that help the point that God doesn't exist exactly?

It's used as a variant of the problem of evil.

Wouldn't the Atheist have to argue for objective morality without God first, in order for the word "evil" to mean anything?

The short answer is no. The problem of "evil" could be run pretty much as is, focusing on aspects of the world God would prevent (all things being equal). Call it the problem of animal suffering, for example. It's the same argument, with none of the loaded language.

Also, given that atheism is completely compatible with almost all systems of moral realism, even if this criticism was levelled, I doubt very much that it would get far.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 6:19:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 2:43:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Wouldn't the Atheist have to argue for objective morality without God first, in order for the word "evil" to mean anything?

You don't need a theory of morality to argue out that god is unlikely given suffering in the world. It's just an irrelevant consideration.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 10:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 3:22:57 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/11/2013 11:27:27 AM, Apeiron wrote:
And this was what their response amounted to:

Fix'd

Why thank you.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:34:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This seems to be a real tough question to answer. It's called The Darwinian problem of evil and I know John Loftus' book "The Christian Delusion" has responses to what Christians say about it.

You can read some here too
http://formerfundy.blogspot.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:41:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 5:58:52 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 2:43:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:49:19 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/12/2013 6:03:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even if animals suffer, how does that help the point that God doesn't exist exactly?

It's used as a variant of the problem of evil.

Wouldn't the Atheist have to argue for objective morality without God first, in order for the word "evil" to mean anything?

The short answer is no. The problem of "evil" could be run pretty much as is, focusing on aspects of the world God would prevent (all things being equal). Call it the problem of animal suffering, for example. It's the same argument, with none of the loaded language.

If God exists, how could you possibly know what things he would, or would not prevent?


Also, given that atheism is completely compatible with almost all systems of moral realism, even if this criticism was levelled, I doubt very much that it would get far.

This may be true, but it may not be as well. What standard are you basing your morality on if it's not subjective?