tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post2252470653097624445..comments2023-10-15T08:36:48.841-07:00Comments on A Counter Apologist Blog: Cheering for Sean CarrollA Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-22880059409426809862014-07-14T04:58:25.018-07:002014-07-14T04:58:25.018-07:00I'd point to another debate which I think Crai...I'd point to another debate which I think Craig clearly lost - also due to a specific focus: His debate with Bart Ehrman ("Is There Evidence For the Historical Jesus?").<br />However, Craig has also been trying to make debates TOO narrow so as to exclude crucial and highly relevant issues, such as when he claimed in his debate with Richard Carrier ("Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?") that the issue of the historical reliability of the New Testament WASN'T the topic of the debate...<br />Eh, what?!?! The reliability of the ONLY sources that claim the resurrection actually happened is not a topic to be broached in a debate titled "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?".<br />However, what this illustrates is that even with a narrow format, any opponent of Craig must be prepared for such attempts to "lawyer" his way out of trouble. Just as any opponent must be on the lookout for Craig's constant attempts to misrepresent, conflate, equivocate and so on and so forth.<br />Fortunately, Dr. Carroll managed all of this with flying colours :-DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-73320075373811581622014-03-12T00:57:50.363-07:002014-03-12T00:57:50.363-07:00How did it go? Are you going to write a review?How did it go? Are you going to write a review?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-77298850175763665492014-02-16T13:17:56.201-08:002014-02-16T13:17:56.201-08:00Craig made the following admission: “Should a conf...Craig made the following admission: “Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa”. <br /><br />Does one need to know more about this character?Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00325742921137661641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-51272496646737967452014-02-13T08:54:29.293-08:002014-02-13T08:54:29.293-08:00Hey, this debate will be live-streamed on www.gree...Hey, this debate will be live-streamed on www.greerheard.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-9818473457828543762014-02-11T05:46:45.895-08:002014-02-11T05:46:45.895-08:00We have these debates because it's the lesser ...We have these debates because it's the lesser of two evils. <br /><br />Craig is not Ken Ham, he's far too nuanced to be called out on the problems, and he actually makes his theories compatible with the equations underlying the latest cosmological theories. <br /><br />Ultimately, he is starting on theological grounds and using that to justify his metaphysical framework to undermine models he doesn't like, but exposing that is hard (contra Ham).<br /><br />And because it's pure philosophy and metaphysics, it's not so clear cut to just say that he's "wrong" so much as saying his methods are unscientific and somewhat circular in the context of arguing for god's existence.<br /><br />So while debating does give them a platform, it isn't much of a concession on our part. Craig (and Ham) already have an audience. They spout their views on modern science and Craig at least is well educated enough that you can't say he's "wrong on science" he's wrong on "philosophy of science". <br /><br />By not debating them, we let them preach their stuff in our absence, they sound smart (in Craig's case it's because he is), and then they get to go on about how "scientists are afraid to debate me because I have the right and true views on science!" which just gives them all the more credibility with their flock.<br /><br />If you want people to get OUT of their religions, like I did, then we need the debates. It's one of the very few ways we have to get our ideas inside the bubble that exists around many evangelical people, especially their children (I grew up in that bubble).<br /><br />I agree that on some level the debates are terrible. They're largely about showmanship and rarely is there time to get to the arguments in detail to show the problems. However you can't tell me it doesn't work, because that's a good part of how I made it out.A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-53992735669082137112014-02-10T21:29:47.387-08:002014-02-10T21:29:47.387-08:00Why do we continue to have these "debates&quo...Why do we continue to have these "debates"? It merely lends credence to these crazies that think religion is science and that the Bible is the ultimate science book. No matter the content or argument, the debate will never convince the true believers, they are beyond redemption, but it gives the leaders more ammunition to claim theirs is somehow legitimate science. Good luck Sean, but I wish you weren't doing this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com