Why do the big names in atheism freeze up when debating William Lane Craig?

I recently watched William Lane Craig's debates with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and in both debates, it was easy to walk away with the feeling that Craig won. Hitchens just kept saying "I haven't heard any convincing evidence..." Without refuting Craig's arguments. Sam Harris did something similar - instead of addressing Craig's arguments, he ignored them for the entire debate. Also, Lawrence Krauss, when debating Craig about A Universe from Nothing, missed an opportunity to counter Craig's (correct) assertion that the primordial soup of the universe is not nothing.

Now, I've heard refutations for Craig's arguments but neither Hitchens, Harris, nor Krauss used them and so it could seem as though they lost their debates with him. Craig even invited Hitchens to become a Christian while onstage, and was justified in asking - given their performances in the debate. Any ideas why they froze up in their debates against him?

I also noticed that Craig got first word in those debates, in which he was able to define the terms used in the debate, giving him an edge.

Finally, why doesn't Dawkins debate Craig?

Views: 2642

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To me , it is the crucial question, what was the origin of the universe, life, and biodiversity. 

Abiogenesis, the big bang, and evolution, are categorized as historical sciences, and no of them can be tested, since these events  happened in the past, and cannot be repeated.

As said previously, abiogenesis is a  hypoteses that has failed to provide answers to how life arose by natural means. Leading scientists in the field admit they have no clue how life came to be. The problems are well known, and it is more than clear today, that chance, or physical need, the only alternatives to intelligent design, fail to be conceivable mechanisms to explain the arise of life. 

Leading scientists in the field admit they have no clue how life came to be.

Evidence, please.

the only alternatives to intelligent design, fail to be conceivable mechanisms to explain the arise of life.

Evidence, please.

You are quick to deny everything we provide you, without reading, it seems. Can you please show us any evidence to support your argument?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/02/28/pssst-do...

you have not provided me anything compelling, so far. just empty and superficial assertions. how about you ask yourself, if its not you, dismissing quickly, withouth puting any thought into what i am posting ?

or isnt it, that you are just not interested in the truth ?

I'm curious, Angelo, this is SO not in your phraseology: "The problems are well known, and it is more than clear today, that chance, or physical need, the only alternatives to intelligent design, fail to be conceivable mechanisms to explain the arise of life."

Which theist website did you copy and paste it from?

no copy and paste. 

As John Lennon said - "Imagine there's no heaven".I look at it the other way and try to imagine that there is. Nope  - makes no sense,

why not ? just because you do not want to ?

Probably because he doesn't want to waste his time!

a wast of time it is, if there is a meaning of human life, but you miss to know it, and live your life  outside of what it meant to be. 

Of COURSE "there is a meaning of human life," - the meaning we humans bring to it by how we live our lives, the things we do, the people we touch. It is not what you say, nor what you do, but how you leave people feeling about themselves that matters.

But as for life as, "what it meant to be," who or what decided what it was "meant to be"? And could we have some of your evidence to support that?

("Darn those atheists! Evidence, evidence, evidence - is that all they ever think about?!!")

if God does not exist, and our life ends when we die physicallty, then our life has no purpose . Everything will end in the grave. What you do good or bad today, will not matter at all. 

If God exists, and created men, than he had a reason to create us. 

The evidence of Gods existence is very clear. See around you. Do you really think all there is, has no cause ? how do you think your thinking and self awareness could arise by chance from inanimated matter ? thats simply irrational thinking.....

This sentiment is so sad to me. If everything ends when I die, then I am forgetting about this vast wonderful world and the people around me. It snd they will continue on after me. I look around and see an amazing, beautiful world full of life and think - why isn't this enough? I don't think that we arose by random chance alone - this, as I stated before, is an oversimplification of evolution.

RSS

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service