Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"

[Alexander]

emailestthoume wrote:

Well I did see "almost always," as  well. And I was a little surprised to see that you responded to someone who was giving an opinion about a debate you probably haven't even seen yet with these comments, which is why I said something.

The post I responded to was not just about the one debate that this topic is about, but about all of Dr. Craig's debates with atheists. I have not seen this debate but there have been several times in the past where I read on these forums what Dr. Craig's supporters have said about a debate and then I go to watch the debate for myself and find it to be vastly different than what they described. My point applies generally, and not to just one debate.

But to continue with your sports analogy, if one team has a significantly better record or lineup, people usually know that one side has the better team (in the analogy this would represent the better arguments) even if they are hardcore fans of the other team. I know all about it, I am a Bears fan but I realize they suck.

[FNB - Former non-believer]

Alexander wrote:

Well I did see "almost always," as  well. And I was a little surprised to see that you responded to someone who was giving an opinion about a debate you probably haven't even seen yet with these comments, which is why I said something.

The post I responded to was not just about the one debate that this topic is about, but about all of Dr. Craig's debates with atheists. I have not seen this debate but there have been several times in the past where I read on these forums what Dr. Craig's supporters have said about a debate and then I go to watch the debate for myself and find it to be vastly different than what they described. My point applies generally, and not to just one debate.

But to continue with your sports analogy, if one team has a significantly better record or lineup, people usually know that one side has the better team (in the analogy this would represent the better arguments) even if they are hardcore fans of the other team. I know all about it, I am a Bears fan but I realize they suck.

[Chris Dotson]

Where is the video for this debate?

[FNB - Former non-believer]

Chris9809 wrote: Where is the video for this debate?

It hasn't been released yet.

[thetheistexperience]

Is Craig getting in the ring with Atkins again? Boy, Atkins doesn't know when to quit does he? He lost in '98 by a land slide (see the youtube vid. for details) and he's going to again. Any idea where it is going to be held?

[Anthony Wijaya]

Hi. Check . im newbie

[Aaron Massey]

Debate dosnt seem to be linked yet...  here:

[Stephen]

I was really dissappointed with Atkins performance here.  I would have thought, being a chemist and all, Atkins would be more than prepared to take on these arguments- Craig seemed to invite it by selecting those 3 particular arguments out his typical 5!  Instead, Atkins chooses to attack philosophy in general, purporting how useless it is?  Isn't that a philosophical stance on its own?

[Lawlessone777]

I agree I just finished this and Atkins was massively unprofessional. He was just talking down to believers and never engaging the arguments. "I can say that there will possibly be eventually an answer to the questions given by science." Seriously? We're supposed to discard your opponents arguments because you're saying that there might one day possibly be proof they're wrong?

[Pieter]

I only watched half way through and I was just shocked how Atkins STILL holds to the idea that "Nothingness is separated into opposites". Easily rebutted: Nothingness has no properties to do anything or to produce anything. Atkins: Well we should not use philosophical arguments, but only observation and science. Really? You mean, do not use philosophical arguments when it is inconvenient for atheism. Arguing that using philosphical arguments are invalid is a philosophical statement as the truth of this assertion cannot be observed by science.

I think Atkins is often very rude and patronising towards Christians, but actually being taken under proper scrutiny himself, he has nothing to offer other than rethorical banter.

[Pieter]

I have much more respect of the likes of Peter Millican and Stephen Law who actually make me think.

[Chris Dotson]

That was hilarious.

Edit: If I were Dr. Craig, I'd have likely walked over and poked Dr. Atkins on the shoulder to prove my point.

[clarkgriswold]

Corioa wrote: Yet regardless of his self-assurance of wisdom, he however was at a complete loss to address a single argument Dr. Craig gave.

That is an interesting and cogent observation.  I have heard Dr. Craig remark on several occasions how many of his atheist debate opponents appear not to be schooled in the art, style, or rules of debate, or that they are sufficiently trained in philosophy to present in debate a coherent argument.  Yet, in some cases, as with atheist author and apologist Sam Harris, at least some of his opponents have at least some formal training and debate experience.

I am coming to the belief that these atheists use the forum as nothing more than a foil, a sounding board, a bully pulpit, with emphasis on the bully.  They also attempt to stack the audience with rhetorical bullies, as well.  This I believe is regarded as merely a free opportunity to rail in public against theism in general and against Christianity in particular.  They certainly have a religion (atheism), but use the debate forum as an ersatz Sunday congregational gathering.

[Leonardo Oliveira]

And Craig called Atkins "Richard Dawkins" twice or three times, it made the public laugh and made me very very embarrassed. Then he in fact quoted Dawkins, showing that he was with his name in mind because he had this quotation to do.

But Atkins, who was nervous but more prepared than in the first time, made a point that should be explored: the application of causation notion in a time that we don't know how it works. And again, as in many debates, the opponent shows that doesn't understand how metaphysical argumentation can be true and refer to reality. I miss some showing of this important lesson when they do it.

[Kostas Spiliotopoulos]

Mr Craig proved that infinite God does not exist as infinity as he suggested is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing that means nothing should have qualities as modern science and quantum mechanics suggest. God is a more complicated problem than the solution it applies and don't solve anything as the question remains how God came from nothing. Morality is very clear that is not objective and alter depending on the physiology of humans, culture, environment the illusion of objectiveness on morality comes from morality being the evolution of our the two basic instincts ho are essential for every species to exist.