(July 2, 2016 at 2:49 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I listen to Craig's debates not because I care in the slightest what he has to say (he does not even need to show-up; just bring a cassette tape recording of one of his previous debates); rather, I like to listen to hear what his opponents have to say! Craig is monotonous boredom, like re-reading an issue of Penthouse from 30 years ago, absent any pictures; however, his opponents, for the most part, have always brought novel and thoughtful ideas with them to the auditorium.
I used to listen to them while playing World of Warcraft or Diablo 3, and yeah, Craig does mostly just repeat the same stuff every time. His opponents are much more interesting; some of my favorites were Stephen Law, Paul Draper, Shelly Kagan, and that interview with Peter Millican.
Oh, and Sean Carroll. One of the best moments came when Craig's collaborator, James Sinclair, was forced by Carroll to concede that the Aguirre-Gratton model is perfectly consistent with the BGV theorem, leaving them with only their a priori argument against an actual infinite to support the Kalam.
Not that Craig or his emulators would ever stop appealing to the BGV. It impresses laypeople with terminology, and that's really all apologists need their arguments to succeed at.
A Gemma is forever.
