The WLC/Shelly debate -- gone missing!

[GrandizerII]

He was good. He certainly did better vs. Craig than Harris, Hitchens, or Krauss, but he still couldn't control Craig like Kagan did. I would say he did as well as Stephen Law did.

It was a good debate in that it showed what a charlatan Craig is when he uses terms such as "probably", "very probable", and yet, he refuses to attach any quantitative value to those statements.  For instance, I am 100% certain that the Earth is round and moves about the Sun approximately once per year and am also 100% certain that the South lost the United States Civil War.  However, I would say that I am only 50 to 60% certain that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Cosmos, and so, there is a great deal of uncertainty with respect to that fundamental question.

I love Scharp's conjecture that aliens stole Jesus' body, because 1) it is completely natural, and 2) Craig himself has admitted the possibility of intelligent life in our Galaxy.  And, so, why not?

Nothing wrong with such conjecture, but something like that won't faze Craig or make him stumble because Craig, in his view, has established the probability that God exists, that he is love, and all that follows, leading to the Resurrection. Did Scharp actively address Craig's usual arguments by the way, or did he do like many others and just provide alternatives? I skipped the first half of the video because I don't have time now to watch it all (will do later) so I have no idea what his opening arguments and rebuttals were during that half, but in general, if all you do is provide alternative explanations without actively destroying your opponent's arguments, then it's going to be really difficult to come out on top against someone like Craig. Furthermore, with him, you need to be an expert not just with logic, but also with rhetoric. Or the undecided (and relatively uncritical) portion of the audience will probably not be too impressed with you when you have Craig opposite of you.