Tag Archives: Universe

Podcasts

William Lane Craig discusses his panel debate with atheist Richard Dawkins

6 Comments

Justin Brierley’s latest Unbelievable show features William Lane Craig discussing the 3-on-3 debate with Richard Dawkins that occured in Mexico.

Details:

William Lane Craig is a philosopher, author and key defender of the Christian faith in debates around the world.

Although atheist Richard Dawkins had publicly said he will not debate Craig, he found himself on the same platform as him in November 2010.  Dawkins was on an atheist team, Craig on a theist team as they debated “Does the Universe have a purpose?” at a Mexico TED-style event.

With extracts from the debate, William (Bill) Lane Craig chats to Justin about the circumstances of their encounter and why he believes Dawkins and the atheist team changed their tactics mid way, were ununified and failed to address the arguments that were presented.

To watch the full debate http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/richard-dawkins-just-broke-his

The MP3 file is here.

Summary:

  • who organized the conference?
  • why was Craig invited to the event?
  • how did Dawkins get involved?
  • what happened when Craig and Dawkins met in the lobby?
  • what did Craig think of format of the debate?
  • clips of Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig
  • how the no-purpose side changed strategies in the debate
  • what did Dawkins lecture on the day before the debate?
  • how should Christians respond to the popularity of Dawkins?
  • how did Dawkins respond to Bill Craig’s arguments?
  • what does Dawkins think about the “Why” questions of life?
  • how did Dawkins respond to the kalam and fine-tuning arguments?
  • is there anything wrong with Dawkins’ epistemology?
  • what arguments were presented by each side?
  • which side’s case is rooted in emotion and wishing?

Here’s a clip showing some of the more memorable parts:

It turns out that Michael Shermer spoke up to the conference organizers to get Craig invited to the event. I have always had a good opinion of Shermer personally, and this just cements it. Shermer is an uncommonly fair atheist. He has no problem hearing from the other side. You can read a transcript of his debate with Greg Koukl, moderated by national radio show hose Hugh Hewitt.

I would like to see Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig one-on-one. I think it is interesting that Dawkins avoids debating Craig even though Hitchens has debated Craig and Sam Harris WILL BE debating Craig shortly. Why do so many atheists believe in Dawkins when he will not debate.

News

Video of the Geivett/Craig vs. Dawkins/Shermer debate from Mexico

8 Comments

Here is the full debate in English if you missed it.

Doug Geivett wrote a blog post about the recent 3-on-3 debate in Mexico on “Does the universe have a purpose?”.

Usually, a debate question features one side taking the affirmative and the other side taking the negative. Here, the question for debate was “Does the universe have a purpose?”It was obvious from the correspondence I received from the debate organizers that I was to team with two individuals who agreed in taking the affirmative, and that the other three would take the negative—that is, they would deny that the universe has a purpose.

Speakers:

The three of us on the affirmative side—William Lane Craig, David Wolpe, and Doug Geivett—all believe that whether the universe has a purpose depends on whether or not God exists. So we could argue that the universe does have a purpose if God exists, even if time did not allow for detailed arguments that God in fact exists. It would be up to the others—Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, and Richard Dawkins—to argue that the universe does not have a purpose. Presumably, they would have to include arguments that God does not exist, since that would be crucial to their claim that the universe does not have a purpose. Or, they might argue that even if God exists, the universe does not have a purpose.

Format:

Each of the six of us was allotted exactly six minutes for initial arguments. We were timed and stopped at six minutes. Strict enforcement of time limits is characteristic of debates, but not always understood by observers. I’ve noticed that some who’ve commented on the debate at various blogs have remarked that the moderator should not have interrupted debaters when they were about to make an important point. (The debate was part of a larger conference program.)

And here is a quote to make you click through and read all of Doug’s post:

Richard Dawkins is hero to many atheists today. So his participation and relation to the other two atheists deserves special notice. You’ll find that Dawkins made numerous assertions and almost no arguments. If you disagree, you should be able to reconstruct his arguments by identifying individual premises and specific conclusions. So far, those who have praised Dawkins’s performance in the debate, all of whom have been atheists themselves, have not attempted this reconstruction. I urge them to try. I will gladly address carefully reconstructed arguments in the comments section of this post. Dawkins called religious belief “pathetic” and accused Bill Craig of making an emotional argument. As I stated in my brief closing statement, it was Dawkins, more than anyone else, who made an “emotional argument.” First, he gave no arguments against the existence of God. Second, he offered no rebuttals of the arguments we presented, and third, he dismissed religious belief as pathetic without argument. If I’m wrong about any of this, I would be happy to see evidence of my error and respond to whatever arguments he did present.

I actually am not really paying much attention to this debate since I watched a little and it looked like a music video with a crazy moderator. The speakers made opening speeches of ONLY SIX MINUTES! I can’t watch a debate with speeches that short. You can’t say anything good in six minutes! But I have to post the video in case you guys are interested in it. I think what is worth your time is Doug Geivett’s summary of the debate. Doug is one of my three favorite philosophers, the others being Paul Copan and William Lane Craig.

Commentary

Why does God create people who he knows will choose Hell?

11 Comments

It’s Bill Craig’s question of the week, and I think this is a legitimate question.

Here’s the question:

In your debate with Victor Stenger, he advanced the argument that God could not logically be a perfect being and creator of the universe. In response you stated that God does not create because of anything lacking in Himself, but because the creation of the universe benefits man, because he can come to know God and have a loving relationship with Him. I was just wondering, how does this square with the Christian doctrine of Hell? If Christ is the only way to God, and unbelief is punished by eternity in Hell, it seems likely that the vast majority of people, or at least a good number, will end up in Hell. In what way could we say that creation benefited these people? The doctrine of Hell has always been one of my major problems with Christianity, and it was my main reason for becoming an atheist.

And you can click here for Bill’s answer.

And you can find the Craig vs. Stenger debate right here for free. I keep the DVD in my office, because it’s a good debate.

UPDATE:

Here is Matt Flannagan’s answer:

The question why does God create people who he knows will go to hell seems to me to make some mistakes.

It assumes that it’s wrong to do something which one foresees will result in ruin for another. But one does not have to think far to see this is a mistake. Suppose a person told me that if I did not have an affair with her she would kill herself. i refuse and she kills herself. Am I guilty of murder? It seems to me not for two reasons, first although I foresaw the result I did not cause it she caused it by her actions hence I did not kill her. Second, the alternative in this instance did involve me causing something evil, it involved me causing an act of adultery and disloyalty.

Take this to the hell case, God foresees that others will freely do something which results in their damnation that does not mean he causes this action and so is not culpable. Second, the alternative to this would be to not create this person or this world and the question is whether this would be a better state of affairs, its not obvious it would be.

Moreover I am inclined to think this argument proves too much. As a parent I know that my child will at some point lie, sin and do bad things, does it follow that parents should be held accountable for their children’s actions and can’t justly punish them? After all they could have refrained from having Kids.

He’s a prominent Christian debater from New Zealand who debates the same sort of people as William Lane Craig does.

Related posts