Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Here is a debate between an atheist and an Intelligent Design advocate. Very well done. The interesting twist is that the ID advocate was a theistic evolutionist that now believes that science is demonstrating evidence for a design inference. It contains an example of how atheists use the "God did it" response as a red herring in the debate. The atheist also leans on the classic "God of the gaps" scare tactic, which is premised on the fact that science has total explanatory power. Unfounded faith.
Here is a debate between an atheist and an Intelligent Design advocate. Very well done. The interesting twist is that the ID advocate was a theistic evolutionist that now believes that science is demonstrating evidence for a design inference. It contains an example of how atheists use the "God did it" response as a red herring in the debate. The atheist also leans on the classic "God of the gaps" scare tactic, which is premised on the fact that science has total explanatory power. Unfounded faith.
I will give my time to listen to the debate you want me to hear. I'm hoping that in exchange you will listen to a video series that has been posted on this forum several times (so you may have already seen it). It is 16 parts.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I haven't listened to it all yet but he keeps referring to a show they did where they debated with Bart Ehram on his book Misquoting Jesus. I'd like to find that, can u help me?
edit - nevermind found it
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I will give my time to listen to the debate you want me to hear. I'm hoping that in exchange you will listen to a video series that has been posted on this forum several times (so you may have already seen it). It is 16 parts.
I haven't listened to it all yet but he keeps referring to a show they did where they debated with Bart Ehram on his book Misquoting Jesus. I'd like to find that, can u help me?
If you are interested in NT scholarship surrounding the ressurrection you should also listen to Habermas.
I saw a debate between Craig and Hitchens. I applaud Craigs effort but I don't think he did a very good job. (This doesn't mean I think hitchens did a good job.)
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I saw a debate between Craig and Hitchens. I applaud Craigs effort but I don't think he did a very good job. (This doesn't mean I think hitchens did a good job.)
Thats because you assume Craig is using the same arguments as people on forums because you hear the same premise and terms. You also treat philosophy as science, which, even when its dealing with science, is very different in its method and approach.
He also only has 20 minutes to give an opening argument for his side. So he gives a general overview then goes into more detail where his opponent finds issue. In the hitchens debate, hitchens didn't really have anything to respond so craig never had to go into more detail.
If you think your objections to Craig's arguments are so valid, why don't you think any of the professionals he goes up against use them?
__________________ "An agnostic is an athiest without balls." - Stephen Colbert
Thats because you assume Craig is using the same arguments as people on forums because you hear the same premise and terms. You also treat philosophy as science, which, even when its dealing with science, is very different in its method and approach.
He also only has 20 minutes to give an opening argument for his side. So he gives a general overview then goes into more detail where his opponent finds issue. In the hitchens debate, hitchens didn't really have anything to respond so craig never had to go into more detail.
So which argument did he use that's so 1337 that I missed out on because I don't have a degree in theology?
Originally Posted by Siyha
If you think your objections to Craig's arguments are so valid, why don't you think any of the professionals he goes up against use them?
The professionals he goes up against such as... Hitchens?
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I saw a debate between Craig and Hitchens. I applaud Craigs effort but I don't think he did a very good job. (This doesn't mean I think hitchens did a good job.)
Craig's opponents "fear" him I can assure you. Dawkins refused to debate him.
So what did Craig do wrong? Did you understand his arguments?
So which argument did he use that's so 1337 that I missed out on because I don't have a degree in theology?
His arguments are not all theological. They are more philosophical with strong scientific backings. His specialties are cosmological arguments. He debates physicists just fine.
The professionals he goes up against such as... Hitchens?
Linear Mode
