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: 3922

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

RE: "Where does your thoughts live ? could you point out the physical space, they occupy ?"

Yes, inside my head - they are created by chemical interactions and delivered by electrical impulses within my brain.

RE: "Where he lived, is a non sense question. A spirit does not need physical space to exist."

Only because your god is a nonsense god - there are no such things as spirits, but if they were, and didn't need a physical space to exist, then it follows that they couldn't manipulate physical material. Unless, of course, they used magic, and as you've already stated, "i am not proposing magic."

And, re: "A spirit does not need physical space to exist." - do you have evidence to support this, or are you just making it up as you go along? Please provide scientific evidence for the existence of spirits and substantiation of their existence requirements.

So here's what I get - by far the majority of scientists, in their appropriate fields, support, and have evidence to support, both the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe, and of abiogenesis, while you may be able to cite a handful of theists, who may or may not be scientists qualified in the appropriate fields, who maintain it's not possible.

Yet you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence of "spirits," the existence of your "creative intelligence" or that the universe was created in any other way.

Is that a fair summation?

how about we keep in track, and you provide just one example of complex information as contained in shakespeares hamlet, and so same in  dna, that has not a intelligent mind as origin ? as long as you cannot do that, you have nothing reasonable on hand as alternative of a intelligent mind as origin of life. 

Angie - that's just one of the many, MANY ways in which your logic is flawed.

Let's say, for a moment, that I cannot specifically say how DNA is formed (not necessarily because there isn't such information  out there, just that I'm notg sufficiently expert in the field to testify in it's behalf), therefor, I can say, I don't know.

On the other hand, you are proposing an "alternative of a intelligent mind as origin of life," - it becomes then your responsibility to provide evidence of this.

Please do so with your next post.

The problem Angelo is that "chance" is a poor oversimplified description of how information in the gene pool changes over time. This argument relies on analogies and poor ones at that. I wonder if this designer is so intelligent then why does it write in mutations that result in deformities, disorders, and in the case of some species extinction?

I also wonder if you consider these computers intelligent designers:

Arch has a spider infestation
Manfrotto makes spiders
Manfrotto hates Arch

(waves from a fly-by posting in the UK)

Sounds like someone is full of room-temperature beer --

You are proposing magic.

By adding a creator to the equation, you are not answering the "how," you are adding a "what" which answers nothing.

Abiogenesis, the big bang and evolution are all testable theories that have proof to back them up, and they help answer the "how we got there." Your creator has no testable evidence, or any evidence at all, it just adds an unnecessary, and according to the beliefs of the people who agree with a creator, unexplainable, element to the question.

Saying "it is complicated, therefore a creator did it," doesn't explain how it was done.

I know theists love using the automobile as an explanation to support design, so here we go.
Say that I ask you how an automobile is made... Would you point me to a video or a book explaining the process of manufacturing, and show evidence that this is the process to make a car, or would you say "Henry Ford," and just leave it at that.

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?


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. 


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service