Why won’t William Lane Craig debate Matt Dillahunty? Matt has debunked his arguments and is well prepared to take him on. Maybe Craig is hiding behind the excuse of Dillahunty not having a Doctorate degree to avoid the loss of face he would have to live with if he loses?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"Matt has debunked his arguments and is well prepared to take him on."
Aaaand... there's your answer.
Some people prefer not to take it beyond a certain level. I think a point-counter-point debate to reveal the depths of the personalities on either side is pretty useless to the pursuit of knowledge. I personally don't need, nor care to watch any ill-fostered expository chest thumping. It aids my limited knowledge of the origins of all things in what manner?
It's strictly entertainment and the atheists who engage in these cock-fights really are the oblivious antithesis of theists/clergy they mock. They are using debates to line their pockets and/or stroke their egos. There's no real public gain aside from a rather twisted sense of entertainment. I liken it to public execution.
I disagree; many people have watched debates over time and changed their beliefs. For example, Seth Andrews of The Thinking Atheist said listening to Christopher Hitchens influenced his change to atheism. The debaters rarely change their minds since the targets are the audience. The Atheist Experience television show from Austin,Texas receives calls all the time from people that watch the telephone call-in debates and no longer believe in Christianity. The hosts of the Atheist Experience are not paid. Some have been on the show more than ten years. Russel Glasser and Jeff Dee more than ten years and Dillahunty about ten years.
And what is it we do here?
Think about all the years we wasted saving stamps.
This debate is interesting. Somebody loses their temper at the end: http://www.scoop.it/t/atheism-in-the-modern-world/?tag=Dillahunty
I do not feel the need to debate someone who believes that it is OK to RAPE a child if god says so.
That is what Divine command theory is saying, that whatever god says is right is suddenly good.
That what ever our morality is, it is insignificant if god says otherwise.
William Lane Craig is a guy that has no respect for human morality and integrity.
He believes whatever his god commands as being better.
So when he orders to smash the kids head upon rocks, that is a good thing.
When god kills every living thing on earth just because he wants it, it is a good thing.
When he created the concept of rape and abuse, it is a good thing.
William Lane Craig is a deluded artificially made stupid person and I pity anyone who wishes to debated with such an idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Na_wcvqUOY
I agree he has a pathetic point of view but displaying that to an audience displays his deprived reasoning and hopefully convinces others not to believe such nonsense.
Most Christians live in constricted social circles. A debate is one way of getting them out of their restricted environments and challenge their indoctrinated beliefs. That is what Thunderf00t is doing with that video by countering Craig’s outlandish beliefs. That video probably convinced some people to change their belief in a god.
Yep.
Though he is a dishonest debater, he commits fallacies left right and centre and tries to pin fallacies on others, cought him several times doing it in official debates.
As once Hitchens said.
It is hard to debate someone like this.
He knows his weak arguments and tries to cover them up with fallacies.
Unfortunately this method is very effective with his flock, so debating with him really gets nowhere because it takes too much time and effort to explain those fallacies and if you do, he will just make a new fallacy to change subject.
You can see it with the debate he had with Hitchens, where Hitchens is smarter and ignores his fallacies and only sends a word or 2 in his closing statements, giving no chance for Craig to counter with more fallacies and outright lies.
One such example is the wrong definition of Craig for Deism, after Hitchens gave the definition, Craig just lies about it to support his argument and discredit Hitchens correct definition.
He is not an honest debater, but a debater that cares to win the debate with that current audience ignorance only.
In 1:00:00 in this debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxvalmFOgAc
"Deism is a form of theism"
LOL
Deism is the belief in any god,
and
Theism is the belief in just one type of god, a theistic god.
It is rather obvious that it is the other way round.
Theism is a form of Deism. which would agree with Hitchens that that you need extraordinary evidence to go from a Deist to a Theist.
This kind of out right lies are not acceptable in a mature debate.
I can hardly stand to watch William Lane Craig debate. He is dishonest and he seems quite aware of it. He doesn't seem to have any personal integrity. Win by any means, lie, cheat, obfuscate.
Dishonesty in a suit.
Exactly, and its not like people have not pointed out the errors in his arguments but he keeps using the same material.
As the mountains of evidence continue to grow larger theists are forced to depend on dishonesty and word games to keep their flock from straying. They know that most of the flock will take their word that people like Craig are telling the truth because they are too lazy or want to believe regardless.
You kidding right? You really should at least look up the basic definitions of words before you post anything. Please look up the word Theism. Now look up the word Deism. Now delete the last 11 lines in your post!!!
You kidding right? You really should at least look up the basic definitions of words before you post anything. Please look up the word Theism. Now look up the word Deism. Now delete the last 11 lines in your post!!!
I know of absolutely no argument that Matt Dillahunty has "debunked".
More shock of god lies and dishonesty:
Shockofgod's slanderous attack on the Atheist Experience Show and its fans part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zurBofNkigY
Shockofgod's slanderous attack on the Atheist Experience Show and its fans part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0v9zd7FLLI
That's not me.
I knew, I wanted to illustrate the connection of your obvious admiration for the name choice and an example of Dillahunty doing what you denied.
Here he debunks Shock of God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t9p5T6lbsc
Titled: Shock of God's Moronic Question
Nice explanation by matt, thanks for sharing
Once again, that is not me.
we know, :)
you are far worse :P
shockofgod is not a role model to aspire to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmKhEgeo54
Phishing is not a reputable example of one's character.
Notice that video was made in 2008. When did you choose to use the name shockofgod?
I used to think William Lane Craig was a good debater, even after I started giving up my faith. Eventually I came to realize that Craig is mostly just good at creating little philosophical mazes and smokescreens. Last year I attended a debate he had with Sean Carroll. Although it was over my head, it was an amazing experience. Sean Carroll was brilliant and he stumped Craig, who was clearly out of his element (and his league) in trying to debate cosmology. Carroll's been something of a hero of mine ever since.
Carroll's only argument against Craig was "that's not how cosmologists do their work". He did not actually counter any of the arguments Craig presented. He attempted to argue away the fine-tuning of the Universe, but was presented with a few problems he did not address.
Craig presented no argument that was not addressed, maybe you understood nothing.
All Craig arguments fall apart the moment his claims based on the assumption that the universe is not eternal was exposed for what it is, an assumption.
If you really believe that it is an assumption that the Universe is not eternal, then you're blatantly ignorant of contemporary cosmology.
"he big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang."
(SOURCE: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/)
"We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility
that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity:
eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first
two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus
cannot describe a universe without a beginning. The third, although it
is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum
mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past."
(SOURCE: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf)
You're denying the fact in light of the evidence. Craig pressed Carroll to provide a model of the Universe which explaisn away the beginning, but he could not do it. All he did was argue that "that's not how cosmologists do their work".
"Carroll's only argument against Craig was "that's not how cosmologists do their work"."
If I remember correctly, that was in regards to Craig starting with his preferred conclusion, and cherry picking any and all disparate pieces to support it. He is actually right in that regard, as science dictates one always start with the null hypothesis, and then work their way forward based on evidence alone.
"He did not actually counter any of the arguments Craig presented."
Well, that isn't exactly true, is it. He quite clearly destroyed the cosmological argument, as it is predicated on a false dichotomy. He offered options not held within the argument, thereby obviating it, and destroying the cornerstone of Craigs' argument.
"He attempted to argue away the fine-tuning of the Universe, but was presented with a few problems he did not address."
Actually, he did. He quite clearly explained that life only evolves in universes in which it can evolve in, so the fact that the universe that happens to have life in it is capable of life, should not only be woefully unsurprising, but completely and obviously expected. The "fine-tuning" argument is a supreme example of a rather backasswards ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, in that it falsely assumes that capability of life is the reason for "fine-tuning", instead of the far more reasonable reverse.
"If I remember correctly, that was in regards to Craig starting with his preferred conclusion, and cherry picking any and all disparate pieces to support it. He is actually right in that regard, as science dictates one always start with the null hypothesis, and then work their way forward based on evidence alone."
Well, you're not remembering correctly. That was the only argument Carroll presented; "that's not how cosmologists do their work". Secondly, I don't know how Craig could cherry-pick when ALL of the evidence says that the Universe began to exist. There is literally ZERO evidence for anything otherwise. None, what-so-ever. Present it if you think it's there, and I don't be speculative models with no basis in reality, I want models which are being seriously considered and that stand up to the data.
"Well, that isn't exactly true, is it. He quite clearly destroyed the cosmological argument, as it is predicated on a false dichotomy. He offered options not held within the argument, thereby obviating it, and destroying the cornerstone of Craigs' argument."
Well, it is true. He didn't refute the cosmological argument at all, becuase he didn't provide any evidence that the Universe didn't have a beginning. All Carroll did was present models which are highly speculative and which have not, thus far, fit the data that we're collecting.
Secondly, what false dichotomy does the cosmological argument rest on? I wouldn't know what it is, because it really does. I can already tell that you're straw-manning the argument to ascribe a fallacy to it.
"Actually, he did. He quite clearly explained that life only evolves in universes in which it can evolve in, so the fact that the universe that happens to have life in it is capable of life, should not only be woefully unsurprising, but completely and obviously expected."
Exactly, and this is why he failed because this is a complete misrepresentation of the teleological argument as well as the argument Craig presented. He argued that the costants *which allow for life* are so infinitesimally narrow, and the chances of those constants falling into that range by pure chance alone is *so* small that they become unreasonable. Carroll tried to revive the chance hypothesis but was presented with problems that would arise if the mutliverse hypothesis were true. He didn't address the Boltzmann "Brain" problem... at all. He simply said "some universes would have brain at all", but didn't demonstrate how.
Yep this debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8
I was actually impressed that he presented the eternal universe theory.(which is in my opinion the best one)
Sean Carroll clearly knows what he is talking about.
Thanks for sharing, did not know about this guy before.
Pages