Logic

Originally posted by sonship
1.) John Lennox mops the floor up with Richard Dawkins in a debate.
2.) Richard Dawkins is too chicken livered for a debate William Lane Craig. He's called a coward by an academic colleague.
3.)
In spite of his continuous tactic of rude interruptions, parading red herrings, switching subject matter and dodging around like a grasshopper in a hen ho ...[text shortened]... t physicist Lawrence Krauss receives a thrashing behind the wood shed from William Lane Craig.

I dispute that any of those debates were won by the theists. Not even close.
But interestingly every time we have discussed debates of this nature and I have pointed out all the problems you have run away rather than admit you were wrong.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
As I already said - because good debating technique can make up for mediocre arguments.

What are you more concerned with, the process of good debating or learning where truth lies ?

Overall, I am more concerned with learning where truth lies. Having said that, I don't see why it is evident that you have something to teach Craig about the process of good debating techniques.

Are you a professional debater ?
Craig makes his living doing this. That is along with donations from people of faith and others who want to see the Christian faith defended well.

He makes his living packing places out in universities and colleges debating world class opponents to the Christian world view, and in the company of philosophers and academics.

I'm curious. With your alledged better knowledge of the technique of debating has anyone ever paid you to come and debate something ?

Originally posted by sonship
What are you more concerned with, the process of good debating or learning where truth lies ?

Overall, I am more concerned with learning where truth lies. Having said that, I don't see why it is evident that you have something to teach Craig about the process of good debating techniques.

Are you a professional debater ?
Craig makes his l ...[text shortened]... r knowledge of the technique of debating has anyone ever paid you to come and debate something ?

I don't think you understood his point.

He was saying that WLC has excellent debating technique.

And it is this excellent debating technique that allows him to come off appearing to have
won debates when his arguments are not in fact very good.

His skill is in making bad arguments look good.

Something he has lots of practice at.

Scientists tend to have less skill at this, as the idea is to have good arguments and
factual backing in the first place.

WLC is like a spin doctor making whatever policies the government proposes look good.
For his purposes it doesn't matter if the policies actually ARE good, as long as he can
make them look good to the general public.

I have never seen him debate an atheist/scientist where I thought his arguments were
better than the arguments of the atheist/scientist he was debating.
They were on occasion better presented.

And the fact that he makes a living by being a good and engaging public speaker and
debater doesn't in any way mean that his arguments are actually logically valid or
factually correct. Which is all I care about.


EDIT: and to twhitehead's point... In all these video's where you think WLC won the argument,
I/we think he lost. The arguments that are convincing to you are utterly unconvincing to us.
He earns his money by preaching to the choir, by 'convincing' people who are already convinced.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I don't think you understood his point.

He was saying that WLC has excellent debating technique.

And it is this excellent debating technique that allows him to come off appearing to have won debates when his arguments are not in fact very good.

His skill is in making bad arguments look good.

It is the counterpart debater on the other side who has the job of showing that the arguments are in fact bad arguments.

That is the job of the opponent.
Now you may say that Craig usually makes bad arguments.
Well, you have right to that viewpoint. However, I think that you cannot fault him for [not] explaining exactly why he views an opposing argument or attempted rebuttal AS a bad argument.

I would like to think I can be somewhat objective. And I have heard some debates with WLC in which I think something went unanswered or even an opponent made a rather strong point.

Something he has lots of practice at.

Next time you view a WLC debate notice how often he hones in on exactly what the opponent said and why he considers it not valid.

Anyway, the debate of the week I recommend is between -
Lenny Esposito and Richard Carrier on

The Great Debate: Does God Exist?

YouTube

If you watch the whole thing entirely, I will be glad to reciprocate and watch an entire debate of your choosing between an Atheist and a Theist (as long as it is not blasphemous).

Scientists tend to have less skill at this, as the idea is to have good arguments and factual backing in the first place.

I don't think "winning" an argument or the skill to do so necessarily means that one has truth on their side. It may help in someone thinking things through to arrive at their own persuasion.

WLC is like a spin doctor making whatever policies the government proposes look good.
For his purposes it doesn't matter if the policies actually ARE good, as long as he can make them look good to the general public.

Hmmm! Sounds like sour grapes a little.

I have never seen him debate an atheist/scientist where I thought his arguments were better than the arguments of the atheist/scientist he was debating.

Okay. Then again you would never regard any theist to have had better reasons for his belief than an atheist for his.

I on the other hand could probably think of some debates which I found embarrassingly bad performance by some theist over his head in the art of debating. WLC is not one though.

Anyway, this week the debate of the week I recommend, as said before, is between Lenny Esposito and Richard Carrier -

YouTube

They were on occasion better presented.

And the fact that he makes a living by being a good and engaging public speaker and debater doesn't in any way mean that his arguments are actually logically valid or factually correct. Which is all I care about.


EDIT: and to twhitehead's point... In all these video's where you think WLC won the argument, I/we think he lost. The arguments that are convincing to you are utterly unconvincing to us. He earns his money by preaching to the choir, by 'convincing' people who are already convinced.

I leave you the last word. However, seriously now - these are very important decisions. And I am sure that one needs to tap into something deeper in his being than merely rhetorical skills.

In my opinion, the atheist should go into a place where he can pour out his heart aloud even in desparation and - just in case - have a good honest talk to the God who he might well think "may be" be there.

What does he have to lose ? Nothing I think. Rhetorical skills and eloquent reasoners will come and go and come and go.

A man needs to pour out his heart to God, or assume the chance that IF God does exist, he can have a could session to air his problems with who God purports to be.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dispute that any of those debates were won by the theists. Not even close.
But interestingly every time we have discussed debates of this nature and I have pointed out all the problems you have run away rather than admit you were wrong.

I do not consider what you do to be really debating that often.
Then again I also am informally discussing something too.

But you conceal positions and attempt to play an entirely defensive posture by placing entire burden of proof on the opponent. And then you constantly attempt to portray any argument as not being familiar with what you really believe.

No position or a hidden position or an obscure one or a position undecided upon, is the easiest to defend.

Discussion it may be. But if you think writing the last post or having the final word stands for winning an causing your opponent to "run away" is "winning" that's naive on your part.

I would not formerly debate someone with your rhetorical gimmicks unless it was structured, timed, moderated.

I do not consider your arsenal of gimmicks to be impressive debating skills. Sorry. One can realize that one is wasting time.

(Don't ask me to take time to provide examples. Take my observation or leave it.)

Originally posted by sonship
I do not consider what you do to be really debating that often.

Neither do I, nor did I claim to. What I said, was that when we discuss a debate, you run away rather than admit the theists points were incorrect, even when I show conclusively that the theist was wrong.

But you conceal positions....
That is an outright lie. You repeat this claim over and over but have never once been able to back it up. What position have I ever concealed? When have I ever refused to answer a question about my position?

... and attempt to play an entirely defensive posture by placing entire burden of proof on the opponent.
When my opponent makes a claim, the burden of proof lies on him. But I dispute the claim that I always put the burden of proof on my opponent.

And then you constantly attempt to portray any argument as not being familiar with what you really believe.
Not true. Not even coherent. How can an argument be familiar with what I believe, and why would it be relevant? I do portray you as refusing to accept what I truly believe, because despite me telling you over and over what my position is, you constantly try to portray me as believing something I don't.

No position or a hidden position or an obscure one or a position undecided upon, is the easiest to defend.
The last time we had a long discussion you were under the false impression that I supported the idea of changing peoples thoughts using technology, despite the fact that I stated in clear English multiple times that I did not. You were against a position I did not hold and refused to listen to the fact that I did not hold it.

Discussion it may be. But if you think writing the last post or having the final word stands for winning an causing your opponent to "run away" is "winning" that's naive on your part.
I have said nothing about 'winning'. I am not here to 'win' as you appear to be.

I would not formerly debate someone with your rhetorical gimmicks unless it was structured, timed, moderated.
I am uninterested in formal debate. I am more interested in the truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I am uninterested in formal debate. I am more interested in the truth.

God is not real to you.

And I am afraid that you vastly prefer it that way.
If I attempt to explain why God is not real to you, what will you do?

I am pretty sure that if I explain to you why God is not real to you, you will argue that there is some problem with my "system". You will explore some weakness in my "system".

If I explain to you why God is not real to you, you will probe for a rational which will place any such unreality of God to you as the fault of God according to my "system".

I am being honest with you based on past experience.
If I say to you.

"Twhitehead, I understand that God is not real to you. I remember what it was like when God was not real to me. What makes God not real to a person are his sins. His sins have made a separation, an insulation, a barrier because of which God is not real to that person."

One or another arguments I expect I will probably receive:

1.) You don't believe the Bible so it is useless to tell you what it says about sins making a separation between yourself and God.

Argument "won" - one point for atheism.

2.) Sin is not defined. What in the world is sin? ? ?

Argument "won" - one more point for atheism.

3.) How can one choose any plan to have God correct the situation?
It is impossible for a choice of alternatives to even be decided upon.

BIG point for atheism - Argument "won".

4.) Any concept of one's sins causing a separation between him and God is God's fault anyway. So why should one feel responsible for something that is essentially the fault of God, in the Christian's system ?

Argument "won". Another point for atheism.

That's just a few sample of pushbacks I would expect.

Yes you say impressively that you are not interested in debate but interested in the TRUTH. Sounds really good.

But I think you mean "the truth" on Twhitehead's terms only.
It has to be a truth in which the possibility of God is nil, the possibility of God's person or personality or interference is nil. You are interested in the truth on the terms that there is no God.

It sounds good to hear you say that you are only interested in the truth.
But I wonder, if you mean "the truth on MY TERMS."

If I advize you how (according to God's provision) to remove the obstacle which stands between you and God being real to you, you will resist to the uttermost. You will probe my reasoning and point out a perceived inconsistency in the system.

IE. "But your SYSTEM, sonship, has this logical problem with it."

I cannot impress you with the fact that ultimately "the TRUTH" is a Person. I just cannot do it.

Maybe someone else can. But I haven't seen that you're at all open to that experience. As long as you can probe and find for yourself some chink in the SYSTEM, you are self satisfied that the truth is your atheism.

Originally posted by sonship
Argument "won". Another point for atheism.

That's just a few sample of pushbacks I would expect.

But why do you interpret them as 'argument "won" one point for atheism'? Why can't you take them as my honest answers about my beliefs? And why do you then, after I have answered, lie that I am secretive about my beliefs?

But I think you mean "the truth" on Twhitehead's terms only.
I mean the truth as best as I can establish it. That does tend to be on my terms, yes.

It has to be a truth in which the possibility of God is nil, the possibility of God's person or personality or interference is nil. You are interested in the truth on the terms that there is no God.
I wouldn't put it that way. I would say it this way: I believe I have already established the truth that there is no god, so I am unlikely to bother considering the possibility that there is one. That does not mean I would not consider it if there was good reason to do so.

If I advize you how (according to God's provision) to remove the obstacle which stands between you and God being real to you, you will resist to the uttermost. You will probe my reasoning and point out a perceived inconsistency in the system.
No, I will simply not take your advice because I do not believe a God exists, so I would not be motivated to remove the obstacle that stands between us.
Much as you claim to think back to when you were not a Christian, you don't seem to understand the concept of not believing in God. You seem to think that I secretly do believe in God. Was that perhaps the case for you when you were not a Christian?

I cannot impress you with the fact that ultimately "the TRUTH" is a Person. I just cannot do it.
No, I concede, you probably cannot, just as I probably cannot impress you with the fact that you are mistaken.

What I could potentially do however is impress you with the fact that William Lane Craig lost every debate I have seen him in and has some extremely faulty arguments. But in my experience you wouldn't even admit to that because you seem to think that anyone who is against you, must be wrong, whatever they might say and however sensible it might seem, and any argument for the existence of God must be right however ridiculous it might be.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But why do you interpret them as 'argument "won" one point for atheism'? Why can't you take them as my honest answers about my beliefs? And why do you then, after I have answered, lie that I am secretive about my beliefs?

[b]But I think you mean "the truth" on Twhitehead's terms only.
I mean the truth as best as I can establish it. That does tend ...[text shortened]... ht seem, and any argument for the existence of God must be right however ridiculous it might be.[/b]

But why do you interpret them as 'argument "won" one point for atheism'? Why can't you take them as my honest answers about my beliefs? And why do you then, after I have answered, lie that I am secretive about my beliefs?

I don't mean you are secretive about being overall an Atheist, obviously.
A whole lot of other positions I find you obscure on.
Afterall the problem isn't your's to explain but only to point out inconsistancies with the Theist.

Practically ALL burden of any explanation is on the Theist.

And I am not lying that you often conceal positions about many other subjects.

Questions with innuendos. That is mostly what I recall.

Questions with innuendos.

And that is all the time I have on this now.

Originally posted by sonship
A whole lot of other positions I find you obscure on.

Well then feel free to ask and I will attempt to clarify.
What you shouldn't do is repeatedly keep claiming that I am deliberately obscure. That is a lie.

Practically ALL burden of any explanation is on the Theist.
For theistic claims, yes.

And I am not lying that you often conceal positions about many other subjects.
Yes, you are lying. When have I refused to answer questions about positions on any subject? When have you even bothered to ask questions about my position on any subject? Instead you tend to assume you know what my position is, then you get upset when I assure you that you are mistaken - and tell you what my position actually is.
All you need to do is ask, and read the replies, instead of insisting on relying on mind reading.

And this is not the first time I have made this offer to answer your questions, and you never take me up on it. Instead, you wait a week or two, then repeat the lie.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Two observations about two of the debaters.

1) I wish Dawkins stuck to science; he seems much better at explaining evolution than he does debating philosophical questions.

2) WL Craig possesses an enviable ability to remember, point-by-point, everything that he and his opponent say during the debate. That's the main thing that makes him a strong ...[text shortened]... pelling. Watching WLC debate only shows how a good debater can win even with mediocre arguments.

I completely disagree. I think Dawkins is quite articulate and does a good job in most debates I have seen him in. I have not been impressed by WL Craig at all. For the debates I have seen him in, he was the clear looser - mostly because he didn't seem to believe the arguments he was making. He might do better if he stuck to his beliefs, rather than trying to justify his beliefs with arguments that simply cannot stand up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But why do you interpret them as 'argument "won" one point for atheism'? Why can't you take them as my honest answers about my beliefs? And why do you then, after I have answered, lie that I am secretive about my beliefs?

[b]But I think you mean "the truth" on Twhitehead's terms only.
I mean the truth as best as I can establish it. That does tend ...[text shortened]... ht seem, and any argument for the existence of God must be right however ridiculous it might be.[/b]

I wouldn't put it that way. I would say it this way: I believe I have already established the truth that there is no god, so I am unlikely to bother considering the possibility that there is one. That does not mean I would not consider it if there was good reason to do so.

All I can do as you raise objections to the Christian experience then is show you why what is a problem to you is not or has not been a problem for me.

I don't promise anymore than that, if we ever converse again.

I can only point out what you find as a problem has not been in my experience. At least a problem that you may point out is not an unsurmountable one. There have been problems. None of these cannot be overcome by intimate experience with the living God.

No, I will simply not take your advice because I do not believe a God exists, so I would not be motivated to remove the obstacle that stands between us.

Right.

Much as you claim to think back to when you were not a Christian, you don't seem to understand the concept of not believing in God.

Sure I do.

I can think of a time when to talk about me searching for God was like talking about a mouse in search of a cat.

"Not Interested. Period."

As I recall those days, I think I always believed that there was SOMETHING as a grand answer - a Force, a impersonal Oversoul, a Vibration, maybe just a huge Question Mark somewhere. Seriously.

I do recall tell some people in my zanier moments - "What do you mean? I'm god. I'm god."

Nay, Twhitehead, I do remember not believing in God and being totally clueless about Jesus.

I think God just had great mercy on me. What can I do ?
God just had mercy on me and gave me the ability to believe.

I do think I know who were the people who were praying hard for me.

You seem to think that I secretly do believe in God. Was that perhaps the case for you when you were not a Christian?

Look I sympathize with you and I empathize with you to a degree.
Sorry, rightly or wrongly my empathy, based on my own experience, is not totally boundless.

I think I always believed that there must be some over all SOMETHING. Sometimes I thought is was just the Great Grand Question Mark of existence. But it was SOMETHING.

The moment I realize that God was someone like a Friend to Whom I could take a problem to ... I laughed within myself in surprise.

The simplicity of Jesus Christ had alluded me. And when laser like a microscopic pin prick of truth penetrated my heart, I kind of laughed.

You see, in college ..... AH ... what do you care! Moving on.

sonship:
I cannot impress you with the fact that ultimately "the TRUTH" is a Person. I just cannot do it.

No, I concede, you probably cannot, just as I probably cannot impress you with the fact that you are mistaken.

I am mistaken about a lot of things.
About Jesus being risen and Lord of all?
No mistake.

Tell you what - Time will tell on that matter.

But for the record I do make mistakes about a lot of things.

What I could potentially do however is impress you with the fact that William Lane Craig lost every debate I have seen him in and has some extremely faulty arguments.

Okay. You certainly have a right to that opinion.

But in my experience you wouldn't even admit to that because you seem to think that anyone who is against you, must be wrong, whatever they might say and however sensible it might seem, and any argument for the existence of God must be right however ridiculous it might be.

Not really. There are a few debates out there in which I think the opponent scored some good points that were not overwhelmingly dealt with.

Those are often the ones I return to.
WLC debate with Shelly Kagin left me impressed very much with Shelly Kagin. I would take a course with Kagin without hesitation.

I do not know if he is an athiest or not. He is an ethicist. And frankly the debate "Is God Needed for Morality?" actually led me to view another whole video with Shelly Kagin to see what else he had to say.

I think WLC's debate with one Sean Carroll was tough one. And now I recall who Sean Carroll is. I told googlefudge I didn't know who he was. Now I recall.

Anyway, I have some objectivity about it.

Off the top of my head, I think Sean Carroll and Shelly Kagin did well up against Craig.

Anyway, the skill of argumentation is really not the final matter here either way. Something deeper in a man's being, in the kernel, in the nucleus of his spiritual being substantiates the reality of the available God, the available Christ.

If God is only available to the brightest and most intellectually astute academics then God is elitist.

The way may be narrow as Jesus said. But it is not narrow on those grounds. IE. only the Phd. can know the truth of life. Too bad for the others who are educated enough.

Originally posted by twhitehead

And this is not the first time I have made this offer to answer your questions, and you never take me up on it. Instead, you wait a week or two, then repeat the lie.

Okay. Let's give it a try.

If you are so positive that you have put to bed that God does not exist and that atheism is obviously the truth then -

Tell me where you think the Universe came from ?
Your position on that IS ... ?

And this is not the first time I have made this offer to answer your questions, and you never take me up on it. Instead, you wait a week or two, then repeat the lie.

Okay. Lets give it another try.

Your position sir.

Which words of the New Testament do you think were genuinely spoken by Jesus and which were latter fabrications put into the mouth of Jesus fictitiously ?

Take say the fifth through eight chapter of the book of Matthew.
Which ones do you regard as authentic ?

Your position is .... ?

And this is not the first time I have made this offer to answer your questions, and you never take me up on it. Instead, you wait a week or two, then repeat the lie.

Let's give it a third try.

Your position on this. To what do you attribute the information of Paul which states the his audience ( the Corinthian church ) knew that about 500 people had seen the resurrected Jesus at one time, of which most of were still alive to be consulted on that ?

Delusion on Paul's part ?

Latter fabrication added to the letter of First Corinthians ?

Mass hallucination ?

Deliberate lying to fool the reader of the letter into believing such was the case ?

I refer to First Corinthians 15:3 - 7.

Your position on that IS .... what ?