The Case for God (page 12)

leavingwt

Most philosophers would need about a 30 second debate with him, at which point they would conclude both parties have mutually incompatible non-falsifiable assumptions.

BurnTheShips

If debates prove nothing but the skill of the debater, why are these uber-rational atheists so eager to engage in them? If they win, it proves nothing, but if they lose, it proves nothing either.

BTS

BurnTheShips

"...atheists often attack Christianity by pointing out the many problems with the Bible. Such a line of argument can be effective with Christians who believe in the primacy of Biblical authority, or Biblical inerrancy, but is less compelling to those who hold more liberal versions of Christianity."

Yes. Hitchens was beaten pretty bad by Al Sharpton, Hitch set out to disprove God by attacking the Bible, and Sharpton had hardly to do any intellectual heavy lifting. He would justsay, "but that's not God." Hitchens seemed to have his attack pretty planned out, and kept swining at empty air with that line of attack.

BTS

Spook

Burn, I don't understand why you'd ask that question. Debates can prove more than the skill of the debator, for starters. Even if it does not we have many other reasons:

1. People enjoy debating, or else are drawn to it compulsively (why are we here?)

2. Speakers receive honorariums, sell books and expand their resume.

Any others?

I think it's important to realize with Craig that the position he is defending is different than how people understand this issue in the commons. He is defending

The theist is justified in maintaining his belief. Especially if he has personal reason to do so.

He is not defending that

Probably, God exists or

It is true that God exists

I get mad because his arguments, though sound, become extrapolated to conclusions which they do not support by the popular audience.

One reason he is so strong in debate is partially because he is defending so little territory.

Homerovah the Almighty

Its pretty hard to make a case for god solely on hearsay alone !

An unanswerable equation

BurnTheShips

Well Spook, it seems trivial to me. And really both sides do the same thing. If the debate goes well, it is confirmation, if it goes poorly, it is just a debate, which proves nothing.

One reason he is so strong in debate is partially because he is defending so little territory.

And really, that is the only territory that is truly defensible, for either side.

BTS

BurnTheShips

Well Spook, it seems trivial to me. And really both sides do the same thing. If the debate goes well, it is confirmation, if it goes poorly, it is just a debate, which proves nothing.

One reason he is so strong in debate is partially because he is defending so little territory.

And really, that is the only territory that is truly defensible, for either side.

BTS

leavingwt

And really, that is the only territory that is truly defensible, for either side.

Spook

I might add the question "Trivial in comparison to what?" to BTS. I probably share your asessment of the debates. Many people lionize the professional philosophers or debators and abdicate a sense of personal confidence to their performance in debate.

This seems natural, though irrational, to me. Although so do competitive sports.

BurnTheShips

Yeah but sports is fun. ;-)

Is Christianity more probable than atheism?

I am still chuckling over this. The desired subject right above sums up the impasse. Instead of arguing for the correctness of a view (and going for the throat of the opposing view), the contenders are reduced to speaking of probabilities. This is the equivalent of a stalemate. Pretty weak regardless of which competitor puts this particular debate subject forward. If this is what Craig hath wrought, he must be a damned good debater.

BTS

The Case for God

Share this