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: 3687

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Emperor Milos on November 18, 2012 at 11:36am
Well, clearly you are unfamiliar with evolution, since there is no "pure chance" involved.
Also, we cannot conceive god because it is an extremely far fetched imaginary friend that goes against the evidence this world presents us with.
Permalink Reply by Angelo on November 18, 2012 at 11:42am

sorry, the theory of evolution cannot be applied to the origin of the universe, and life. There you have only the alternatives i mentioned. so what evidence are you talking about ?

Permalink Reply by Emperor Milos on November 18, 2012 at 11:49am
Permalink Reply by Angelo on November 18, 2012 at 11:56am

your cited webpage gives evasive answers and makes superficial assertions</p for example :Where did the first cell come from? Many believers will argue that God magically created the first living cell. This, of course, is silly. The scientific principle that describes the origin of life is called abiogenesis. so what

archaeopteryxPermalink Reply by archaeopteryx on November 18, 2012 at 12:57pm

@Angelo - RE: "your cited webpage gives evasive answers and makes superficial assertions" - I saw 60 proofs offered, how many did you read? Be honest now --

RE: "The scientific principle that describes the origin of life is called abiogenesis. so what" - let me finish that sentence for you, "so what has that to do with a magic god?"

No thanks necessary --

Permalink Reply by Angelo on November 18, 2012 at 5:39pm

yes, the brother grimms also made up nice little fantasy stories for children. so what does that have to do with reality. just because someone came up with a fantasy story called abiogenesis, it does not mean that hypoteses is true. you need to learn a littlebit critical thinking. nobody has proven abiogenesis to be true. and there are many reasons to believe, life cannot arise  by chance. despite of this you believe it. why.

archaeopteryxPermalink Reply by archaeopteryx on November 18, 2012 at 7:53pm

I notice you avoided my question: "I saw 60 proofs offered, how many did you read? Be honest now --"

The good Brothers Grimm were not the only ones who concocted fairy tales - others made up ones they called, "Genesis," "Exodus," "Leviticus," "Numbers" and "Deuteronomy," while still others invented ones they called, "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John." All, the products of fertile human imagination.

Of course there is evidence that supports abiogenesis, whereas there is none for the other nine.

archaeopteryxPermalink Reply by archaeopteryx on November 18, 2012 at 12:45pm

@Angelo, you're asking whether I would prefer to believe, "we are the result of pure chance, or physical necessity," as allowed by the laws of physics and the principles of Natural Selection, or would I rather believe in magic.

I can't imagine, given those options, that an answer is even necessary, but, the former, definitely!

BTW - say "Hi" to Michael for me and tell him I said, stay on the meds!

Permalink Reply by James Cox on November 19, 2012 at 2:05am

I don't think it was 'pure chance' for me. My parents 'knew' each other 7 months before I was born. I was a wanted child, or atleast a pleasant accident...;p) 

Permalink Reply by Angelo on November 19, 2012 at 11:20pm

i am not proposing magic, but a intelligent mind. even more awesome than magic would be just pure chance or physical necessity, your only alternative options. i can tell you , these are completely irrational and impossible alternatives. Similar being irrational  to believe, Shakespeares Hamlet could have been written by chance, so cannot the stored information in DNA, which is much more complex, essential for all life. 

archaeopteryxPermalink Reply by archaeopteryx on November 19, 2012 at 11:52pm

Angelito - RE: "Shakespeares Hamlet could have been written by chance"

But it wasn't, it was written by the great creative talent of the Human mind, using the same kind of fertile imagination that created your god with the "intelligent mind."

BTW, if no magic was involved, how did this, "intelligent mind. even more awesome than magic" create the enormous universe? Where did he live before it was created?

Permalink Reply by Angelo on November 20, 2012 at 11:40am

so you admit hamlet could have not been written by chance, but by a great creative mind. But you believe, dna, which contains much more complex information, could ?

We do not know HOW God created the universe. Where he lived, is a non sense question. A spirit does not need physical space to exist. Where does your thoughts live ? could you point out the physical space, they occupy ?

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service