WOW! This is one of the best debates I've ever heard, both sides were respectful and intelligent. That said it was maybe THE best I've ever heard Dr. Craig! Craig was simply devastating, he was brilliant.
One thing I have learned from these debates is that in England at least, hard atheism appears so indefensible that Dr. Craig's opponents are arguing for skepticism or agnosticism.
Thanks for the post, Brian.I am so glad that Dr. Craig ended up with the more astute debaters than someone like Dawkins because it really caused him to step up his game and can't be accused of taking on light weights during his trip to the UK. This debate is Craig as his best and I love it. I'm so proud to be a Christian. Thank you, Dr. Craig.
Was anyone else surprised when Millican mentioned the evil god argument? Millican was an improvement over Dr Law but he was no match for Dr Craig.
Millican was an improvement over Dr Law but he was no match for Dr CraigWhile that's true, his arguments were still completely irrelevant. At most his whole spiel about the geographic origin of religions would lead one to doubt how they came to the conclusion that God exists. But that's not the debate. Further, it's demonstrably false that science doesn't face similar geographic origins. The majority of scientific advancement even today is highly centered in westernized cultures. Furthermore, Christianity seems to contradict his claim, as it has spread to multiple types of cultures in completely unwestern and western contexts.Basically, a lot of fluff that did nothing to even touch Craig's arguments. Typical.(FYI, I write this having only listened to the opening presentations.)
It's amazing the skill of Dr. Criag to address questions of Millican which demonstrates the importance of being prepared not only academically but totally updated. There is an extra element in favor of Professor Craig -The fullness of the Spirit!From Costa RicaPastor Luvin Areas M.Sc.Good Job Brian....!
Brian Auten, I really really apprecaite the time and effort you put into posting these debates. You are a great Christian and you do amazing work.
Professor Millican's rebuttals to Dr Craig’s arguments which he said would be the focus of the debate were atrocious. He didn't even mention the Resurrection till his last rebuttal.
Wow. Best opponent for Dr. Craig I've heard in a while and it still wasn't even close. Millican did do a good job in his opening speech. I thought for a minute this may be a close debate. However by round 3 Dr. Craig had shown once again that Christianity stands heads and tails above all other belief systems. Thank God for the ministry of Dr. Craig and for you Brian. Your commitment is so appreciated and you do a great job.
Reading some of the review comments, I expected a bit more from Millican than what he was able to deliver. But it was still a decent debate. While I wouldn't say that Craig lost the Stephen Law debate, there were nevertheless some moments in that debate during which Craig wasn't quite on his normal high level. But here Craig seemed to be almost flawless throughout the debate.
Why would you be surprised that Millican mentioned the evil-god challenge? Craig already conceded in his debate with Law that there is no way to discern the attributes of the god he believes in by observations of the earthly world. That is a huge concession.Here is Millican's paper on the "anti-god": http://www.millican.org/papers/1989DevAdv.pdf
Craig already conceded in his debate with Law that there is no way to discern the attributes of the god he believes in by observations of the earthly world. That is a huge concession.No it isn't, because that's never been the position of theists. We know God is good by considering the definition of what God is as the greatest conceivable being.
Why do you believe that Craig won the debate with Peter? It is obvious that Craig lost. Did you actually watch the debate? I wouldn’t know if you had actually watched the debate based on the lack of substance in your comments. Not one of the comments posted here says why or where Craig won (they just say that he did… and I don’t see it and I don’t agree with it). In summary, the comments posted here are more like an expression of some kind of religiously repressed homo-erotic emotional state exploding out of these people in the form of a love letter to Craig (by the way… I’m not trying to insult gay people here… I’m all for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation… and those rights include the right to marry the person that you love…even if that person is of the same sex! I’m merely hinting to the people who wrote these comments that it is ok to come out of the closet…atheists (unlike god) won’t pass judgment on you based on who you are (your nature)... atheists will judge you based only on your actions). “I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.” - Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, p.39 If you would like for me to point out where and why Craig was “Destroyed” (lol) in the debate, as a liberal atheist (anti-theist) from Alabama (and a biochemist), I would enjoy doing that (or you could take off your god glasses and actually watch the debate for yourself).
one of the best debate of Prof. Craig
Dr. Millican was kind to not tear apart Prof. Craig's arguments more than he did. Craig's arguments were full of holes that I could see upon first viewing, and I'm not a professional philosopher, though I do have an undergraduate degree in philosophy. While I thought Dr. Millican clearly presented the stronger arguments, there was not enough time to truly do justice to all the topics they touched on. If they had, Mullican would have clearly triumphed. My sense is that if one is invested in being a believer, and is not trained in philosophy, historical criticism, physics, mathematics, biology, astronomy or cosmology then Craig's arguments probably seemed convincing. That is because without any of these backgrounds one could not evaluate his arguments and he is certainly such a slick performer on stage, exuding confidence and certainty, that he ends up seeming convincing when one has no other way to evaluate him. Prof. Craig could not be an expert in all these fields of knowledge, and yet he talks as if he is. He has clearly just cherry-picked argements made by others, and knows just enough about them to give a headline fly-by. But underneath his surface confidence he is either filled with uncertainty or completely oblivious to what consititutes a truly solid argument. Personally, given the number of such debates I see he has of this kind, I almost suspect he may be a huckster, enjoying the limelight he gets for his show. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply naive and oblivious to the standards such a debate really requires.
Hello Anonymous One,For the benefit of us all, why don't you point out the numerous holes that you saw in Dr. Craig's arguments. Respectfully
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.