Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"

[Reasonable Faith]

This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Klemens Kappel on October 18, 2011 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Video: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-kappel-copenhagen

[grosso]

Have to agree. He appeared totally unprepared. Not for the debate itself, but for the strength of the arguments themselves.

[Colin Miles]

Kappel was sitting on the fence smugly but appeared totally oblivious to his own "non-position" being a position in itself.

Disappointing to watch as there was no real meaty objections for Craig to counter.

[Anthony]

In this debate, Craig and Kappel seemed to be in two completely different boats in water with fog. But it comes to no surprise that Kappel, like all of Craig's other opponents, simply failed to refute his arguments which he presented in the opening speech. All Kappel kept on doing was stating that we can know that God does not exist without giving any good reasons why. Overall, Dr. Craig gave the better performance in the debate at a very secular country.

[David Summers]

I'm aware that the gentlemen in which Dr. Craig engages in debates
are known to be intelligent in their own respective fields, but I'm
beginning to believe that for the most part they are unable to follow
his arguments. To me Dr. Craig is as clear as it gets with his
presentations and arguments.
I constantly find myself frustrated with the arguments from the
atheist side mainly because of the disjointed, unorganized thought
processes. This includes their main guy in Dr. Richard Dawkins,
among others.

[ktulu Apoca]

I believe that the appearance of eloquence is equated in both the amount of experience and the qualifications.  Dr Craig is a highly experienced orator, philosopher and debater.  The majority of individuals that he debates are scientists.  Some are more eloquent then others, but very rarely are they all three.  In such a debate, sadly the debaters end up talking past themselves.

[James Glazier]

New to the forums here. Also new to apologetics. This is the first debate I have watched of Dr. Craig, but I plan on watching many more. Excellent and engaging. Thank you Mike Edwards for pointing me here.

[FNB - Former non-believer]

James wrote: New to the forums here. Also new to apologetics. This is the first debate I have watched of Dr. Craig, but I plan on watching many more. Excellent and engaging. Thank you Mike Edwards for pointing me here.

Welcome

[Reductio Ad Absurdum]

Craig 'lost' the debate by not having anything to attack. His own position were untouched, and were left jobless.

[Chase 200 mph]

Blake1960 wrote: That was tough to watch.  One can't help but feel sorry for Dr. Kappel.

Faith, an irrational belief in something that presents no evidence and this equates god? I've heard a lot of posturing done claiming evidence of and for god....it always ends the same way....someone always leaves claiming the feel sorry for the nonbeliever and never any evidence. Why do you think this is?ish

[Chase 200 mph]

Disciple_of_Jesus wrote: Interesting debate. Denmark is a pretty secular country, just like much of Western Europe. But Dr. Kappel said we can know that God does not exist because we know that all the Gods in the ancient scriptures of other traditions do not exist. I think this argument fails, because Dr. Craig gave a good reason why the God of the Bible is true through historical argument --> The resurrection of Jesus Christ. As far as I remember, Kappel never really said anything about Jesus.

A plus B equals C, then C subtract B must equal A. Why or why not…..

The bible is not a historical reference, it authors are anonymous, historical Jesus was born when? You see, you don’t know now do you and the bible doesn’t really say now does it. Christian renderings give a 60 decade time span to when Jesus was born if we look at everything. The best case scenario is Paul, who could have been alive at the latter of these possible dates concerning Jesus crucifixion…but he would have been very old for that time. What dispels one religion dispel ones’ own in the simple logic equation above…it not my argument and deal with the OP….the equation is either valid and neither religion is vindicated, or it is invalid and both of them do….but in no way does the equation support the argument of the OP, so why take this foolish trek? It’s not like I created the argument, so what problems do you have with it I wonder? Faith is at the heart of Christianity, it is it’s one and only ally and I put forth the challenge “let the believer post evidence to the contrary or except the only thing this religion has to offer”. PS, warning, apologies cannot solve or contradict…..as they were not a part of the matrix according to your post…..

[Chase 200 mph]

Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:

A plus B equals C, then C subtract B must equal A. Why or why not….. The bible is not a historical reference, it authors are anonymous, historical Jesus was born when? You see, you don’t know now do you and the bible doesn’t really say now does it. Christian renderings give a 60 decade time span to when Jesus was born if we look at everything. The best case scenario is Paul, who could have been alive at the latter of these possible dates concerning Jesus crucifixion…but he would have been very old for that time. What dispels one religion dispel ones’ own in the simple logic equation above…it not my argument and deal with the OP….the equation is either valid and neither religion is vindicated, or it is invalid and both of them do….but in no way does the equation support the argument of the OP, so why take this foolish trek? It’s not like I created the argument, so what problems do you have with it I wonder? Faith is at the heart of Christianity, it is it’s one and only ally and I put forth the challenge “let the believer post evidence to the contrary or except the only thing this religion has to offer”. PS, warning, apologies cannot solve or contradict…..as they were not a part of the matrix according to your post…..

I simply disagree with you The earliest Gospel is Mark, and it has been dated around 30 years after Jesus Death. The latest gospel was John which came about 60 years after Jesus death. there is a lot of evidence, both historical and archaeological to prove that the Gospels do contain many historical facts.

I simply disagree with you The earliest Gospel is Mark, and it has been dated around 30 years after Jesus Death.

Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

The latest gospel was John which came about 60 years after Jesus death. there is a lot of evidence, both historical and archaeological to prove that the Gospels do contain many historical facts.

Answer: I’ve heard plenty of doctrine making this claim…despite over forty active historians during the time you are about to claim is Jesus’ birthday, none ever heard of Jesus or his birth (or death). There is an absence of the multitudes claimed to have heard Jesus and no artifacts exist to date. But again, please post any evidence to the contrary and we will look at it together….if the mods allow us to that is.

[Chase 200 mph]

Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:

Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.

It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.

Answer: Except there are no personal claims now is there…unless you are aware of something I am not? Something not know to the accredited world historically.….

For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.

Answer: Yes…for all we know he may have never been born, the argument he was born is an argument of ignorance. That doesn’t mean anyone is ignorant, it just means there is nothing to go on and the argument stems from this ignorance. To use other words…faith. Who cares? Well if there is no evidence to examine, then no valid debate could have taken place since logic and debate can only example the tactile world and can never be used in an intellectual capacity to determine what one “feels” is  or should be ‘real or tactile” concerning any religion or anything else for that matter. A plus B equals C is what is claimed by the OP….and it simply doesn’t exist as seen by your last post, so in short you have overturned the OP all by yourself. What disprove ones religion disproves all, if this doesn’t seem fair, remember I did create the equation or its outcome, the author of this forum/thread did….

[Chase 200 mph]

Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:

Answer: Except there are no personal claims now is there…unless you are aware of something I am not? Something not know to the accredited world historically.….

Um.. yes he did. All throughout the Gospels (which are historically reliable) Jesus claims to be the Song of Man, the Son of God and the savior of the world. Have you ever read John 14:6?

With very few exceptions, almost all professional historians and scholars think that Jesus was a real person. We actually have more than enough evidence that Jesus was a real man. Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian who is very well-respected even to this day, and he mentions Jesus in a number of his writings. I Josephus said that Jesus existed, then I think we can make a pretty good bet on it.

Um.. yes he did. All throughout the Gospels (which are historically reliable) Jesus claims to be the Song of Man, the Son of God and the savior of the world. Have you ever read John 14:6?

Answer: None of the gospels are historically reliable, relevant, accurate or otherwise. The simplest test for my claim or yours is this…while you can study the bible in any Public School, College or University but you cannot study from the bible. This kind of study is only for unaccredited schools pushing for recruitment for one of the 38000 Christian denominations of the world. If anything in the bible were accurate, or remaining non-contradicted then there would be one Christian religion only.

With very few exceptions, almost all professional historians and scholars think that Jesus was a real person.

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….

We actually have more than enough evidence that Jesus was a real man.

Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian who is very well-respected even to this day, and he mentions Jesus in a number of his writings. I Josephus said that Jesus existed, then I think we can make a pretty good bet on it.

Answer: How old would have Justine been during the Crucifixion? We cannot even name the date but even what can be verified by dated the writings you speak of makes this claim prohibitive. I am betting there was no real debate as there is no validity to the logic used.

[Chase 200 mph]

Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:

Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….

Now, you are just being unrealistic. I can name you one well-respected archaeologist who is not even a Christian, yet he accepts that fact that Jesus really existed: Shimon Gibson.

Archaeology actually confirms certain historical aspects of the gospels, such as the fact that funerals were performed differently in the province of Galilee than the province of Judea. Are you saying that there are absolutely no historical facts in the gospels? You really think people like Pontius Pilate never existed? You think that the town of Nazareth never existed? You think that the Jewish annual religious ceremony at Jerusalem never happened? Honestly, if the gospels were myth, why is there so much history in them?

I think that you have read too much Internet Infidel people like Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and others. They are not very good scholars. Check out Bart D. Ehrman's new book, Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman is not a Christian; He's an atheist.

Quote:

Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.

Answer: There is no evidence of Jesus ever having followers or else what you claim would make perfect sense.

Quote:

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….  

Now, you are just being unrealistic. I can name you one well-respected archaeologist who is not even a Christian, yet he accepts that fact that Jesus really existed: Shimon Gibson.

Answer: So if I simple claim he does not make this claim you would then post what as a source of your knowledge. I mean, if I am being so ridiculous here it would seem to me that the natural response would be providing a direct quote and citation would it not?

Archaeology actually confirms certain historical aspects of the gospels, such as the fact that funerals were performed differently in the province of Galilee than the province of Judea. Are you saying that there are absolutely no historical facts in the gospels?

Answer: Well there were days and nights, and rivers, and some regions were mentioned when they actually existed, but I rather say these kinds of traits are the exceptions.

You really think people like Pontius Pilate never existed? You think that the town of Nazareth never existed? You think that the Jewish annual religious ceremony at Jerusalem never happened? Honestly, if the gospels were myth, why is there so much history in them?

Answer: Superman mentions Obama and New York and more…is superman real?

I think that you have read too much Internet Infidel people like Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and others. They are not very good scholars. Check out Bart D. Ehrman's new book, Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman is not a Christian; He's an atheist.  

Answer: Sorry, but his (Bart D. Ehrman's) (University doesn’t seem to instruct from
   the bible…..and I find nothing that claims the bible is a collection of historical documents. In other words it doesn’t seem to substantiate your claim, perhaps I missed something, could you quote him and cite the location?