Commentary

William Lane Craig vs Klemens Kappel: Does God Exist?

23 Comments

UPDATE: I found the video on Youtube: (H/T Joona)

Apologetics 315 has the audio here.

Here’s a debate summary (not snarky) from William Lane Craig’s recent trip to Denmark.

Excerpt:

After this Prof. Kappel compared God to other mythical beings like Thor or Aphrodite in effort to show the absurdity of such reasoning. Afterwards he explained that we ought to give space to science and common sense that tells us that such creatures do not exist and even though there are areas that science cannot yet give account for, we ought to stay careful in filling them with God. He stated that hewill not respond to the arguments given by Prof. Craig for we should not give them so much credit, rather he will only give reasons to show why atheism is a better option. For it is most likely impossible to show somehow with arguments that God does not exist. Quote: “Not to persuade you, but to illustrate“.

[…]Then he showed the variety of religions still present, but also those which are extinct and built his case around doubting the relevance of any religion since there are so many, finishing with the question: “Why should we then consider atheism and theism equal?” Then he proposed that the burden of proof thus lies on the side of theism.

[…]Kappel answered with repeating the controversy behind Craig’s premises, putting them into a less certain light. In effort to give an alternative explanation to beginning of the universe he simply stated, that he does not find it irrational to believe that universe just did not have a cause.

My goodness, even I can list ten arguments for atheism… every Christian ought to know at least ten arguments for atheism from reading all the atheists we have to read to qualify as Christian apologists. It’s our job to know both sides, otherwise how could we even know why we believe what we believe?

The three things the Danish guy said are not good arguments:

  • I don’t have to think of any reasons and evidence to substantiate what I believe, but you do
  • If people disagree about a truth claim, then no one can know whether it’s true or not
  • The universe popped into being uncaused out of absolute nothing

It made me think about that recent post I wrote about how atheists seem to worry more about having autonomy to make themselves happy than they worry about changing their beliefs and values to fit reality. I don’t get the impression that they have been convinced into their view. It’s more like they start with wanting to make themselves happy and then believe whatever they have to believe in order to make sure that nothing blocks that pursuit of pleasure.

Anyway, I found that debate summary in Brian Auten’s Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links. There are many more goodies in there!

Please come back tonight, as the Friday Movie this week is one of my favorite movies. In fact, it’s a movie I use when courting, and I explain a little about how I am like the main character.

23 thoughts on “William Lane Craig vs Klemens Kappel: Does God Exist?”

  1. “He stated that hewill not respond to the arguments given by Prof. Craig for we should not give them so much credit, rather he will only give reasons to show why atheism is a better option.”

    This is a dangerous trend I have seen in the last few years coming from atheists. They have long considered theology a non-subject. They are now doing the same with philosophy (Hawking, Grand Design and Peter Atkins in his debate the Craig a few months ago). I consider their defense of atheism sort of an “Atheistic Fideism” of sorts. Forget the arguments and rationale. Have they given up the fight?

    Like

    Reply

  2. I was so disappointed. In Q&A I asked Kappel that he admitted that he did not give arguments for atheism and that we cannot prove whether God exist or not, how can one be a reasonable atheist?

    Kappel, like many Danish here in Copenhagen, do believe that Christianityis a subjective private belief with no need to prove its truthfulness.

    Bill was brilliant in this debate. Kappel was sadly not prepared for that challenge.

    Like

    Reply

      1. I really like the idea, but i have to wonder. Will it be snarky or will you actually try to present their arguments without any commentary?

        Like

        Reply

        1. Oh, no. If I am arguing for atheism, it’s going to be serious. Sure, I know how to refute the arguments, but when you make them for an atheist, you make them as strong as possible to show them that you have carefully considered their side. For example, good arguments are the inductive problem of evil, the corelation between brain and mental phenomena, the incompatibility of divine foreknowledge and free will, religious pluralism, the problem of the unevangelized, the progress of science in giving naturalistic explanations, the hiddenness of God, the problem of animal suffering, problems with Calvinist theology (predestination, etc.), specific Bible difficulties that challenge inerrancy (e.g. – the earthquake in Matthew), the grief-hallucination explanation of the minimal facts for the resurrection, the logical consistency of the concept of God, the justice of eternal damnation for a finite number of sinful actions, and so on.

          Like

          Reply

          1. You just went up in my estimation. You were up before, but now you’ve really done it.

            How do you keep figuring out the right answers to my questions?

            *gasps* Are you a mind-reader?

            Like

          3. I think you can take it a step further. These are shots at theism, not positive arguments for atheism. For example, it is at least possible that a person could could reject theism based on most of these arguments and embrace something like pantheism rather than “defaulting” to atheism as they like to claim.

            Like

  4. Just want to point out that you guys seem to be confused on a few points, so let me see if I can help you out:
    The word atheism refers to the denial of or lack of belief in a god concept. So for example, virtually every human on the planet is an atheist if the defined god concept is, say, Zeus or Mithra. Moreover, all newborn babies are atheists by definition because they do not believe in any god concepts (these tribesman would be as well, since they don’t even have a word for god in their vocabulary: http://youtu.be/dr3q6Cid1po).

    Therefore, atheism is the default position (as is “aUFOism” or “aSantaClausism”). The burden of proof is on the individual(s) making the assertion that their is a god. You guys seem to get tripped up on that. If you come across someone that is an anti-theist (e.g. someone that asserts that there definitely is no god) then you can ask them to argue their point, or better yet, provide empirical evidence.

    Also, it’s worth pointing out that atheism is really just a byproduct of evidential skepticism, which itself is a core critical thinking skill and one that is necessary in order to engage in the scientific method.

    Before you spend too much time discussing atheism, I’d suggest that you spend some time grasping the part that empirical, peer-reviewed evidence (as well as skepticism) plays in the scientific method. Maybe then you’d understand why intelligent design isn’t science and evolution is. One has virtually zero peer-reviewed papers to its credit. The other has hundreds of thousands from a variety of different scientific fields.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Um, this is probably the least intelligent comment ever entered on this blog in 3.5 years and over 2 million page views.

      Here is a dictionary of philosophical terms from Stanford University:
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

      And I quote:

      ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

      A denial is a claim to know that something is not the case. Claims to know something about the external world must generally be defended with logical arguments and evidence.

      I am able to point to evidence, especially scientific peer-reviewed evidence like this:
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/j66361146539wh38/?MUD=MP

      Full text of the article here for free:
      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

      I didn’t notice any links to philosophically-rigorous definitions of atheism in your comment, nor did I see any links to peer-reviewed scientific literature. All I saw was ignorance tightly coupled to arrogance.

      Like

      Reply

      2. This attempt to “redefine” atheism is getting old. Recently someone said “We are all born atheists because we all lack a belief in God.” To which I replied “By that logic, we are all born nudists because we are all born without clothes.”

        Like

        Reply

        1. Firstly, I want to say I am an atheist. I am also a weak atheist in that I don’t claim that there is no God, but I believe there is no God for several reasons. But a lot of atheists on youtube/herd etc. are positive atheists in which case the burden of proof is on them. Also the whole point about “we are all born atheists.” is not really true, it boils down to the whole nature vs. nature debate. I believe that
          a) there is something innate within us(not all of course) that predisposes us to believe in a God/Gods. Now that doesn’t indicate whether God exists or not…just that we are predisposed to believe. Why is this? If you subscribe to the atheist point of view, it has to be because of evolutionary reasons. One reason I can think of is this:
          Human beings are pattern seekers and as such see patterns everywhere even in stuff that is completely random. Also, in the past, if you see a bush that rustles in the wind, you tend to be wary of it for fear that a lion or something is behind it…the point here is that danger is personified.
          What would be the explanation of rain, thunder, lightning etc.
          Well since people tend to personify things, it is natural to assume that in the distant past, people would personify it as some agent behind it. So they pray to it, and since humans are pattern seekers and people tend to remember successes more than failures, and if the rain ceases or whatever, then they will tend to think that it was their prayer to this rain God that caused the rain to stop and so you can see how the idea of God can start. Of course my analysis not only applies to beings that are recognizably human, but proto humans as well.
          b)it is also true that people born to religious parents, or parents with strong beliefs in the supernatural or God/Gods tend to follow the religion or views of their parents.(I don’t know where I saw this, I think it was in a map of the world color coded by people’s religious affiliations vs. where they lived. Bad english here but who cares?)
          c)now this is an unsubstantiated claim, but I can only speak for myself and people I know(anecdotal evidence but there it is..)
          people born to atheistic/agnostic/secular humanist etc. parents tend to be atheistic/agnostic/secular humanist etc. however this correlation perhaps may not be as strong because:
          i) of a,
          ii) societal pressures. I mean pressure from uncles, aunts and people in society around you.
          Someone said “we are all born nudists because we are born naked.” Well it is obvious that if you are born into a tribal culture where to our eyes, everybody is a nudist(tribes in Africa, and aborigines in Australia, you will wear the same type of clothing(or lack of). There nudity is not such a big deal. In fact when I was studying anthropology, I was taught that there were tribes where even sex (public or even between children) was not such a big deal. I understand that this claim may be hard to believe..but a simple google search would yield results to prove or disprove this claim. So what makes nudity a big deal in the U.S.(not so much in Europe, but it is changing)? Boils down to nature vs. nature debate again.
          So I guess the question is:
          How much of the belief in God/Gods is innate, and how much is due to society? I would say it’s probably 50/50…because there has always been an atheistic tradition even in the most religious of societies.(e.g. the Greeks, and even in Ancient India with the Carvaka tradition). And examples like the piraha tribe linked above. I didn’t see the link before I started typing and it substantiates c) more. But it also gives credence to a) because they believe in spirits and things which are personified. Anyway I have to read up more on this tribe before I start commenting on their beliefs etc. but it is intriguing.

          Like

          Reply

    3. I can concur with Mr Wintery Knight, that that is one of the least intelligent comments I’ve seen outside of YouTube.

      It’s interesting how the internet seems to have bred a generation of atheists who are utterly ignorant of philosophy (despite the many superb atheist philosophers who preceded them), and self-righteously hold all these psuedo-philosophical concepts which have no basis in good philosophy. The other classic one you see is, “You can’t prove a negative!”

      Incidentally, I believe in evolution; I just don’t believe in bad reasoning.

      Like

      Reply

      1. There are lots of good atheist scholars, but I have no patience for people who cannot even define atheism and who refuse to make any positive arguments or claims to knowledge. It is a waste of time to deal with people who, by their own admission, know nothing about the subject at hand and are not prepared to discuss reasons and evidence. Why would I care to discuss anything with someone who has no knowledge and who cites no arguments or evidence? It’s a waste of my time.

        But they get very very angry about being dismissed as idiots.

        Like

        Reply

  6. So let me get this straight: Kappel asserts that Theists bear the burden of proof, not atheists…yet he ignored all of Craig’s arguments for Theism because we should not give them so much credit? I’m guessing he didn’t arrive at Atheism through any sort of intellectual means.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment