Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Debate: William Lane Craig & Peter Atkins: Does God Exist? Audio and Video


On Wednesday 26th October 2011 William Lane Craig debated Peter Atkins on the topic: Does God Exist? This debate took place at the University of Manchester  as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. The debate was chaired by Christopher Whitehead, Head of Chemistry School at the University. Post-debate discussion was moderated by Peter S Williams, Philosopher in Residence at the Damaris Trust, UK. Video can be found on YouTube here. Craig's previous debate with Atkins can be found in the debate feed here.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here (1hr 50min)

Enjoy.

7 comments :

Chad Miller said...

That's a very inconspicuous microphone...

LittleGoose said...

"..in light of professor Dawkin's critique"

hehe not sure why but I got a crack out of that.

LittleGoose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David J. Houston said...

It was painful to listen to Atkins' ramblings. It became increasingly obvious that he didn't grasp even the most basic distinctions. How many times have I heard atheists responding to the moral argument by insisting that atheists are capable of behaving well? How many times have I heard atheists equivocating on 'nothing' so that it the 'nothing' is really something? How can people still believe that atheism is the only 'rational' worldview?

Anonymous said...

The Kalaam Cosmological argument is retarded. You cannot go back further than the big bang so it makes no sense whatsoever to make assertions as to what did or didn't exist prior to the big bang.
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin do not come to the same conclusion as WLC - they don’t see their own theory as sufficient cause to believe in God.
Furthermore I quote: “I then asked Vilenkin, “Does your theorem prove the universe must have had a beginning.” He immediately replied:
“No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating the universe was prior to some time.”
So unfortunately for WLC he can’t use the BGV theory to support his claims. Indeed the whole idea of a ‘Transcendent cause’ has now been made irrelevant.

Likewise the digression into the modelling problems of infinity is irrelevant. Note all matter is the same age; nothing can be destroyed or created, just rearranged. So the idea that there are ‘real’ problems of infinity is silly, composite forms clearly aren’t backwardly infinite and it’s extremely doubtful that they will be infinite into the future – but this says nothing about the fundamental building blocks!!

Objective moral values - unfortunately WLC basically adds nothing more to the Euthyphro problem. In fact Russ Landau-Shaffer provides an approach to how even if God does exist those ‘objective moral values’ exist apart from God. The naturalistic approaches of evolutionists again give more than adequate reasoning to how morality may have arisen.
Even as to the idea of what we consider moral … so do Theists still believe that it’s acceptable for a man to rape his wife? It’s only been 20 years or so since it was considered immoral and then finally illegal. So exactly how is this idea of WLC’s that rape is intrinsically evil … or is he suggesting that marital rape is morally ok?
The killer here is that it would seem that ‘religious morality’ is ill-functioning and that irrespective of its ‘objective’ existence humanity has become more coherently moral throughout time, not through following the bible but through reasoned debate.
As for Jesus - seriously, there's no credible evidence to say one way or the other. As for claiming that historical peoples are bizarrely homogeneous is disingenuous and downright ignorant. When faced with the unfortunate death of their messiah the disciples were thrown into a mess, Christianity almost disappeared until decades later someone decided that they could make use of it and lo and behold vast wealth was accumulated by the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

What was the probability that Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme?

So don't go believing what people would or wouldn't claim if you have no knowledge of what they themselves were getting out of the claim.

Russ Anderson said...

"Objective moral values - unfortunately WLC basically adds nothing more to the Euthyphro problem. In fact Russ Landau-Shaffer provides an approach to how even if God does exist those ‘objective moral values’ exist apart from God. The naturalistic approaches of evolutionists again give more than adequate reasoning to how morality may have arisen."

Morality or altruism? I have to say, I've tried to understand the evolutionists theory of how morality came about and I fail to see how it leaves us with anything meaningful or binding? Perhaps you agree with the honest evolutionists in that it really is meaningless?

"Even as to the idea of what we consider moral … so do Theists still believe that it’s acceptable for a man to rape his wife? It’s only been 20 years or so since it was considered immoral and then finally illegal. So exactly how is this idea of WLC’s that rape is intrinsically evil … or is he suggesting that marital rape is morally ok?"

When did theists believe it was morally acceptable to rape their wives? Please refrain from quoting the Old Testament out of context or ignoring the cultural ramifications of the time. I'm really not sure what you're getting at with the second part? In what way was Craig suggesting that marital rape was okay? Unless you have a much better answer than one I have heard from nearly all the atheists I listen to, I am afraid you are left with a worldview in which rape, marital or not, is no more right or wrong than the statement "Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream".

"The killer here is that it would seem that ‘religious morality’ is ill-functioning and that irrespective of its ‘objective’ existence humanity has become more coherently moral throughout time, not through following the bible but through reasoned debate."

Based on what? You don't have a framework to ground morality in. It's nothing more than an instinct to aid in survival and propagating genes. You and I might agree that something is "wrong" or that it hurts someone else and we ought not engage in it, but what if someone else disagrees and feels that they can? Who are you and I, in your world of subjective morality to judge them one way or another?

When faced with the unfortunate death of their messiah the disciples were thrown into a mess, Christianity almost disappeared until decades later someone decided that they could make use of it and lo and behold vast wealth was accumulated by the Catholic Church.

When was this? Can you provide some historical evidence for when Christianity almost disappeared?

Post a Comment

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

Blog Archive

Amz