RE: Sam Harris simply destroys William Lane Craig
July 25, 2013 at 1:03 pm
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2013 at 1:07 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
(July 25, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:(July 25, 2013 at 11:10 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: One of them gave Harris the segway
LOL, I think you mean segue. I had a hilarious mental image of Harris riding around on stage on one of these:
![[Image: segway.jpg?w=203&h=300]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=co2calculator.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F10%2Fsegway.jpg%3Fw%3D203%26amp%3Bh%3D300)
Lol...yes! Thank you sir!
(July 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Unless Harris came up with more substantive arguments against Craig later in the debate, I don't see how his arguments could be seen as compelling. He's primarily committing appeal to emotion fallacies and assuming without argument the existence of a moral system to put God under.
You're right. Espcially since the topic of debate is "IF God exists, then objective moral values and duties do exist" Craig gets a bit of an advantage by having that assumption spelled out from the get go. Anyway you have these debates, one side is going to get to start with an assumption, the travesty is when it's not the side that starts an argument from circular logic. The assumption that Craig gets to start with prevents everything he says from being at all circular. God is granted in the topic. Bummer. I enjoy Sam's funny anecdotes, but I agree, debate is not his forte.
