Friday, June 11, 2010

William Lane Craig vs. Massimo Pigliucci Debate MP3

In this 2001 debate at the University of Georgia, William Lane Craig and Massimo Pigliucci address the topic: Does the Christian God Exist? 

Full Debate MP3 Audio here. (2hr 34min)


Be sure to subscribe to all of Dr. Craig's audio debates here.


Glenn Hendrickson said...

Thanks Brian!!

bossmanham said...

Pigliucci has a great accent.

byrom said...

What an awful performance from Pigliucci! There simply isn't enough room to go through the unbelievable list of fallacies and contradictions (and even concessions) he made!

Most noteworthy, however, was his back-pedaling against his own claim that quantum physics demonstrates creation "uncaused, out of nothing" when confronted by an actual physicist from the audience!

Simply awful, and Craig wasted no time dismantling his arguments!

bebil said...

What an awful performance evaluating this debate byrom, craig brings nothing but arguments from ignorance and red herrings. His arguments are false dichotomies he attacks the position the atheist takes then says its god or nothing, ignoring many other options. Craig is an idiot.

Russell said...

@ Bebil

First you said craig brings nothing but arguments from ignorance and red herrings.
then you said Craig is an idiot.

Perhaps this sort of sophistry is the reason you have one follower on your blog.

adam santibanez said...

I think what's great about apologists like WLC and others is that when their arguments are given an audience, the self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual atheists are exposed. Their responses evince an inability to understand/grapple with the argument, and it shows by their lack of a relevant rebuttal.

You almost never hear a WLC debate go like this:

WLC: I feel a good argument for the existence of God is X. Here is my syllogism:

i) If -P, then -Q.
ii) But we know that P.
Therefore Q.

Opponent: I disagree with my opponent's argument. Here is why:

1) It is not necessarily the case that if -P, then -Q. My counter example: X.

2) I think the second premise is only an assumption and therefore, if I am to accept it as a solid premise, I will require more of a reason to believe it is more probably true than its negation.

3) The conclusion is not warranted because the argument is logically invalid.

But no, instead we often hear, "It isn't nice to think that God doesn't exist. It isn't nice to believe that all this will pass away eventually. And these ideas are the only reason you believe in a God. It is because you are a weak-minded religious person."

A hilarious example of this is the debate between Craig and others with Dawkins and others, found here:

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have the other Craig vs Pigliucci debate? Pigliucci claims to have debated Craig twice, the first claiming the debate came to a draw (which I assume is referring to this one, even though his assessment seems mistaken), the second he claims to have "wiped the floor with Craig".

Kyle Preston said...

This is actually the 2nd of the debates. Pigliucci claims this is the debate where he "wipes the floor with Craig's.....". He says so here:

I say...listen to this debate and judge who wins for YOURSELF!!

Anonymous said...

Pigliucci could've done a much better job. He should have proven how the resurrection (assuming it happened and can be proven) doesn't prove WLC's concept of God (trinitarianism). All it would prove is that a supernatural agent exists that rose Jesus from the dead. It wouldn't prove that this supernatural agent is a Trinune God (which is how WLC defines: 'Christian theism').

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive