Catholics and William Lane Craig

[Estevao]

Speaking of frustration. The fact that you mention “theoretical physicist” Lawrence Krauss in positive terms would indicate a rather twisted view, on your part, concerning what ought to be properly considered objects of frustration. The descriptor “theoretical” when used to describe Krauss ought to be taken at its loosest possible definition - as in “wild forays into imaginative physics.”

Krauss’ last three debates with Craig in Australia and, even more so, his “conversation” with John Lennox on the Unbelievable? radio program show an intellect woefully lacking in civility and respect for anyone with a different point of view from his.

This is the audio of his time with John Lennox:
youtu.be/yotpTOKLZ00
Be prepared to be truly frustrated.

Note: Begin about the 10:00 mark on the timecode to skip preamble and introductions.

Lol I remember watching those “debates” with Craig and Krauss. At one point Krauss refers to Mother Teresa as “that awful woman”. Of course this was just another one of his numerous red herrings.

Also in response to the person who you’re responding too, I think Craig can hold his own fine when it comes to cosmology: he had a nice exchange with Krauss in the third debate over the fine tuning of the universe, which was the only interesting part of the whole series in my opinion.

 

[colliric]

He makes Richard Dawkins look REALLY bad…

Dawkins had this really silly idea that refusing to debate William Lane Craig is a good “look”. Maybe to his own fans, but I think most people would just think of that as being pompous, exceptionally rude, and even cowardly.

In a scored debate, for Dawkins refusing to turn up, Bill would automatically be declared the winner by default. And that’s how most of the public should view that particular situation. Craig wins because the other side refuses to give him some basic respect.

Dawkins loses every debate I’ve seen him in anyway… Why not take another one on the chin? then at least you can say “I turned up, and wasn’t acting cowardly”.

 

[The_Walrus_1]

This is the WLC versus Hitchens debate. I’ve set the link at the point during the debate where they cross-examined each other. After brushing away Hitchens’ standard new-atheist gotcha schlock, WLC needles Hitchens with questions that demonstrate the atheist champion has no logical argument to support his position. This is the most uncomfortable I’ve ever seen Hitchens, may his soul rest in peace, during a public speaking event.

youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8#t=90m00s

 

[The_Walrus_1]

Oh, wait, WLC’s question time is here:

youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8#t=79m00s

 

[seagal]

Oh, wait, WLC’s question time is here:

youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8#t=79m00s

I’ve seen this a few times, it always seems to me that Hitchens is filibustering - rambling on in his answers in order to use up Craig’s question time. I get a kick out of Hitchens’ own question, whether Craig would rather a baby being born in Saudi Arabia today was a muslim baby or Hitchens himself. Hitchens has a little grin, makes me think he realizes how silly his question is.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’ve seen this a few times,** it always seems to me that Hitchens is filibustering - rambling on in his answers in order to use up Craig’s question time.** I get a kick out of Hitchens’ own question, whether Craig would rather a baby being born in Saudi Arabia today was a muslim baby or Hitchens himself. Hitchens has a little grin, makes me think he realizes how silly his question is.

I’ve only seen it once, but that’s exactly what I thought - Hitchens was Filibustering, and taking advantage of the debate format which made it difficult for Craig to interject. It was quite embarrassing for Hitchens when Craig reminded him of his first question.