New WLC debate

[SuperSentient]

I tend to rely on the Reasonable Faith website to find WLC's recent debates, but this isn't on there.

He doesn't have all of his debates on that website; for instance, his debates with Peter Millican and Shelly Kagan are not there.

The Millican debate* is there, but not the Shelly Kagan debate. 

*http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-millican-university-of-birmingham

[SteveII]

A+ for Michael Nugent!



Go Irish!!

P.S.  I'll post the Craig/Came debate here soon.

I'll probably regret this, but what argument did you think Michael Nugent had that was successful (Craig didn't have an answer for)? Give timestamp so we can follow along. 

[brewer]

After all of Min's post with WLB, all I hear now is whiny little cunt.

[Simon Moon]

WLC would be nobody if it weren't for these debates. What do we keep providing him with a podium?

Because he is the evangelical rights' #1 apologist!  Simply put, he is way too important not to ignore.

Most theists have no idea who he is.

And more importantly, the vast majority of philosophers don't either. Even theist philosophers.

His name may be a little more recognizable recently than it was, but that is only because atheists have given him WAY more attention than he deserves.

---

A+ for Michael Nugent!



Go Irish!!

P.S.  I'll post the Craig/Came debate here soon.

I'll probably regret this, but what argument did you think Michael Nugent had that was successful (Craig didn't have an answer for)? Give timestamp so we can follow along. 

The fact that Craig may have an 'answer' for one of Nugent's arguments, does not mean that it was not a fallacious answer.

The fact that all Craig's arguments are fallacious, does not help the case you may be trying to build.

[Edwardo Piet]

He doesn't have all of his debates on that website; for instance, his debates with Peter Millican and Shelly Kagan are not there.

The Millican debate* is there, but not the Shelly Kagan debate. 

*http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-millican-university-of-birmingham

Ha! No surprise there.

It's DEFINITELY because Shelly kicked his ass.

[SuperSentient]

What I find quite surprising with what WLC says in this debate is that his conception of God doesn't entail that God is changeless. In other words, he throws Gods Immutability out the window. It seems he is committed to the view that change occurs independent of temporal reality, that time is really a product of material events, not point D transitioning to Point F. 

Craig (@ 58:42): Since something cannot come out of nothing, there must therefore be a transcendent cause of the universe...

This is why the KCA doesn't demonstrate God's existence, it assumes a specific relationship between non-existence and causality that has the medium being a personal omnipotent being. 
A previously did not exist. A now exists. B caused non-existence to become existence. B is omnipotent, which means there is a contradiction between B willing A to exist and A doesn't come into existence.
But wait! How do you know that an omnipotent being even exists? They just assume it does from the KCA's first premise (whatever begins to exist has a cause). How do you know that whatever begins to exist has a cause? "It just makes sense, from nothing nothing comes." How do you know anything could emerge existence from nonexistence? They don't, they just assume an immaterial causer is required.

[Cyberman]

Before he affected the middle name, Craig used to go simply by his initials WC because it was more of a convenience.

[Jehanne]

He doesn't have all of his debates on that website; for instance, his debates with Peter Millican and Shelly Kagan are not there.

The Millican debate* is there, but not the Shelly Kagan debate. 

*http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-millican-university-of-birmingham

They must have added it recently, because the last time I checked (which was probably over a year ago), it wasn't there.

---

A+ for Michael Nugent!



Go Irish!!

P.S.  I'll post the Craig/Came debate here soon.

I'll probably regret this, but what argument did you think Michael Nugent had that was successful (Craig didn't have an answer for)? Give timestamp so we can follow along. 

31:20 to 53:00– M Nugent
1:05:50 to 1:18:00 – M Nugent
1:27:05 to 1:35:30 -- M Nugent
1:41:35 to 1:48:00 – M Nugent
1:48:00 to 2:11:15 -- M Nugent, excluding WLC talking.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/

But, seriously, I think that Nugent buried Craig; perhaps another reason not to trust eyewitness testimony, eh?

[Nihilist Virus]

Which is more difficult - for a Christian to listen to Richard Dawkins or for an atheist to listen to WLC?