The WLC/Shelly debate -- gone missing!

[dyresand]

The whole point of my OP is the question of why Craig won't post that debate to his website, the transcript in particular.  Is Craig now on the Trump bandwagon?

Because WLC looks like a fucking idiot  when people debate against him.

[Jehanne]

The whole point of my OP is the question of why Craig won't post that debate to his website, the transcript in particular.  Is Craig now on the Trump bandwagon?

Because WLC looks like a fucking idiot  when people debate against him.

The Trump Ship looks like it is going to truly sink at this point, and so, it really doesn't matter what the Evangelical leadership does or thinks.  But, back to Craig, here is his most recent debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tb6LV_pvH0

This debate format was perfect; unlike the stupid rebuttals and then the "reply to the rebuttal".  Both speakers gave their presentations and then spent some time talking about it.  I thought that Scharp was great, although, some comments from other videos of the same debate don't think so.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps it is one of those 'miracles' the morons are always yammering on about?

[GrandizerII]

Because WLC looks like a fucking idiot  when people debate against him.

The Trump Ship looks like it is going to truly sink at this point, and so, it really doesn't matter what the Evangelical leadership does or thinks.  But, back to Craig, here is his most recent debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tb6LV_pvH0

This debate format was perfect; unlike the stupid rebuttals and then the "reply to the rebuttal".  Both speakers gave their presentations and then spent some time talking about it.  I thought that Scharp was great, although, some comments from other videos of the same debate don't think so.

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.

[GrandizerII]

I'd love to see a debate between Craig and this guy in the video below (Jeffrey Jay Lowder). He seems like a really good match.

[Jehanne]

The Trump Ship looks like it is going to truly sink at this point, and so, it really doesn't matter what the Evangelical leadership does or thinks.  But, back to Craig, here is his most recent debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tb6LV_pvH0

This debate format was perfect; unlike the stupid rebuttals and then the "reply to the rebuttal".  Both speakers gave their presentations and then spent some time talking about it.  I thought that Scharp was great, although, some comments from other videos of the same debate don't think so.

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?

[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.

[Jehanne]

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.

To understand Craig one must first understand his wife.  As with Ken Ham, there's money to be made in evangelical Christian apologetics, and considering the fact that Craig is pulling in at least 6-figures, if not 7, annually, he is simply not going to quit.  It would mean the end of his marriage and his lavish lifestyle.  Deep down he may already be at least an agnostic, but he's making money and his wife is happy and they are both getting to travel (at other people's expense) and are enjoying the good life.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

To understand Craig one must first understand his wife.  As with Ken Ham, there's money to be made in evangelical Christian apologetics, and considering the fact that Craig is pulling in at least 6-figures, if not 7, annually, he is simply not going to quit.  It would mean the end of his marriage and his lavish lifestyle.  Deep down he may already be at least an agnostic, but he's making money and his wife is happy and they are both getting to travel (at other people's expense) and are enjoying the good life.

This is very interesting.  Out of curiosity, I've considered that closeted atheists or agnostics, who have built their career, social status, and name through theistic/religious endeavors, would be among the best and brightest of its defenders. With the fear of exposure, these people would be masters of disguise: they'd be well-versed in the art of clothing themselves in good deeds and would be exceptionally skillful at taking the spotlight off of themselves and redirecting it toward some brave, new banner of righteousness; thus, protecting and solidifying their reputation and image.

P.S.  I'm not making any implications about anyone; I'm merely sharing a general observation and thought.  Thanks for your post, Jehanne.