ID Debate - audio

OrdinaryClay · #1 25th July 2009, 12:12 PM

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.

philadiddle · #2 25th July 2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay

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.

BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT Science and Christian Education

philadiddle · #3 25th July 2009, 03:52 PM

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

OrdinaryClay · #4 25th July 2009, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by philadiddle

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.

BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT Science and Christian Education

I watched this when mallon first posted it. My comments and disagreements were posted to his youtube channel comments section. Overall very good.

OrdinaryClay · #5 25th July 2009, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by philadiddle

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

Here is a better debate between Ehrman and William Lane Craig. Craig is a top notch Christian apologist.

If you are interested in NT scholarship surrounding the ressurrection you should also listen to Habermas.

philadiddle · #6 25th July 2009, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay

Here is a better debate between Ehrman and William Lane Craig. Craig is a top notch Christian apologist.

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.)

Siyha · #7 25th July 2009, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by philadiddle

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?

philadiddle · #8 25th July 2009, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Siyha

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?

OrdinaryClay · #9 25th July 2009, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by philadiddle

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?

OrdinaryClay · #10 25th July 2009, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by philadiddle

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?

He debates the most prominent atheist philosophers in the world. Hitchens is just a guy with a big mouth who sells books. He debates Hitchens because of his popularity. Here is a good list of his debates. By far most are professionals. Here are some good videos online.