Debate: God & Morality: William Lane Craig vs Erik Wielenberg

[Amarok]

Who has seen the debate where William Lane Craig was destroyed by Shelly Kagan?

---

There was a time Craig seemed unbeatable. That time has passed .

I've seen him debate two other people and lose both times lol.

---

I recall the last debate I watched with Craig about morality - it was with Shelley Kagan..he spent the entire time completely perplexed.  He didn't read a thing..and Kagans stuff is in the public  domain.........totally blindsided.  

In any case, the point of his debating is to puff his website to the credulous.......which sells his merch.

Yes that debate was golden. I've never seen someone so utterly destroyed in a debate.

---

Is this a thread to discuss the points made or is this one of your "I Hate WLC with a blind hatred that borders on obsession" threads?

Just in case it is the former, what was Wielenberg's best point against WLC's argument?

Actually it's not about a blind hatred of him. It's about making fun of how utterly pathetic his positions are.

Note the word seemed .

---

Is this a thread to discuss the points made or is this one of your "I Hate WLC with a blind hatred that borders on obsession" threads? 

Just in case it is the former, what was Wielenberg's best point against WLC's argument?

Were making fun of his shit positions 

And all of his points were good against Craig

[GUBU]

Is this a thread to discuss the points made or is this one of your "I Hate WLC with a blind hatred that borders on obsession" threads?

Just in case it is the former, what was Wielenberg's best point against WLC's argument?

No it's more a point and laugh at creatards thread.  And in the spirit of the thread, here's looking at you reality denier:

[Jehanne]

Is this a thread to discuss the points made or is this one of your "I Hate WLC with a blind hatred that borders on obsession" threads?

Just in case it is the former, what was Wielenberg's best point against WLC's argument?

Taking a nap instead of lifting a finger to stop a million Holecausts, unless commanded by God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who has seen the debate where William Lane Craig was destroyed by Shelly Kagan?

---

I recall the last debate I watched with Craig about morality - it was with Shelley Kagan..he spent the entire time completely perplexed.  He didn't read a thing..and Kagans stuff is in the public  domain.........totally blindsided.  

In any case, the point of his debating is to puff his website to the credulous.......which sells his merch.

Yes that debate was golden. I've never seen someone so utterly destroyed in a debate.

It was absurd, wasn't it?  What the fuck was Craig up to the night before?  Chain dropping shots at the hotel bar?  Running game on the house hooker? Watching infomercials in his room? Pick up a fuckin book ya knob, amiright?   It seems as if he should have had at least -some- idea of what he was about to walk into....but he didn't.

Favorite of mine, in that one..broadly, was that there was no reason for kagan to ever bring up esoterica in ethics. It never got passed the point of anything the dimmest bulb could easily understand, and he didn't have to directly argue against anything Craig had to say on the subject of morality..just say..literally "So what? So what If I don't have god meaning...?".

L-o-l. OTOH, before we get to bashing the living shit out of craig too much......anytime I've expressed the same points here, with atheists, I get craig level ridiculous responses........so..there's that. Moral realism is a rough one..not because it's difficult to establish, but because it's so commonly connected (at least in people minds) with ghosts and grumkins and snarks and shit. Way back in the day, when I first joined the boards...I said some pretty dumb shit in a convo about it, arguing against it..with Anom..iirc, though I bet he doesn't even remember it. One sentence set me straight and sent me searching for better info.

[SteveII]

A good debate, that Craig (at least in my opinion) lost.  I could only think, "The Emperor has no clothes..." while listening to Professor Wielenberg dissect Craig's theology, point by point.

I bet you don't even know Wielenberg's moral theory (of course you will go look now). Go ahead, explain it. Then explain why it is not an utterly crazy theory (even though I bet no one here buys it at all).

[Jehanne]

A good debate, that Craig (at least in my opinion) lost.  I could only think, "The Emperor has no clothes..." while listening to Professor Wielenberg dissect Craig's theology, point by point.

I bet you don't even know Wielenberg's moral theory (of course you will go look now). Go ahead, explain it. Then explain why it is not an utterly crazy theory (even though I bet no one here buys it at all).

More plausible than Craig's wacky theism, but no, I don't agree with every thing that Wielenberg said, but at least he is trying to give a naturalistic account of objective moral values, if there are such. Unlike you, Wielenberg does not claim certainty for his ideas.

[Amarok]

I bet you don't even know Wielenberg's moral theory (of course you will go look now). Go ahead, explain it. Then explain why it is not an utterly crazy theory (even though I bet no one here buys it at all).

Ah steve arrogantly telling us what we know and don't know . Interestingly while assuming he does . And assuming  none of us watched the video were his line of thinking becomes pretty clear . All because someone insulted Saint William of Craig .