Christian philosopher William Lane Craig presents a talk on the topic: 5 Reasons God Exists and 3 Reasons It Makes A Difference. Original media found at Veritas.Full MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
5 Reasons God Exists MP3 Audio by William Lane Craig
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig presents a talk on the topic: 5 Reasons God Exists and 3 Reasons It Makes A Difference. Original media found at Veritas.Full MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
Topics:
audio
,
christianity
,
existence of God
,
mp3
,
Theism
,
William Lane Craig
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(336)
-
▼
June
(28)
- 100 Christian Apologists
- Sunday Quote: John Polkinghorne on Fine-Tuning
- Objective Moral Values Q&A with Ravi Zacharias MP3...
- Apologetics 315 Audio Junkie Feed
- Signature in the Cell MP3 Audio by Stephen Meyer
- Fatherhood and Atheism: Paul Vitz Interview MP3 Audio
- John Lennox Apologetics Audio MP3s
- All About Atheism: An Extensive Guide
- Apologetics Interview with Norman Geisler MP3 Audio
- Where is God in Failure? MP3 Audio by William Lane...
- Follow Apologetics 315 on Twitter
- Resources for Better Public Speaking
- The Importance of Defending the Faith MP3 by Charl...
- SBTS Conference Audio Resources
- Sunday Quote: Ravi Zacharias on the Problem of Evil
- Historical Apologists: MP3 Audio by Mike Reeves
- Reaching Out to Muslims MP3 Audio by Keith Small
- Atheism: Simply Lack of Belief in God? MP3 Audio b...
- Dead Sea Scrolls MP3 Audio by Probe
- Featured Podcast: Peter S. Williams
- Introduction to Worldviews: Greg Bahnsen MP3 Audio
- Sunday Quote: J.P. Moreland on God's Existence
- 3 Apologetics Books for Summer Reading
- Why Am I A Christian? MP3 Audio by James White
- Richard Dawkins and John Lennox: Has Science Burie...
- The Veracity of the New Testament MP3 Audio by Gar...
- 5 Reasons God Exists MP3 Audio by William Lane Craig
- Phil Fernandes vs. Eddie Tabash Debate: Does God E...
-
▼
June
(28)
6 comments :
I wonder how long I will have to listen before the first cause and fine tuning argument gets rolled out... oh, and absolute morals. Must not forget them (though they have never been shown to exist for some reason – just ‘felt deep down in our hearts that they must’
All special pleading and arguing from a position of ignorance.
Oh well, in for a penny - in for a pound. Maybe WLC says something new for a change… doubt it.
Lee
Lee,
Thanks for commenting.
Please let me know when he mentions absolute morals, because I didn't hear that. He does mention objective moral values - there is a distinction.
Also, this is a real hand-waving response to the audio. Is this pre-listening commentary?
You mention special pleading and arguing from ignorance. Instead of labeling fallacies, could you please demonstrate just how WLC is getting it wrong? Anyone can shout fallacy - but it would be nice to see some content analysis. Perhaps a little deeper elaboration/demonstration to justify the hand-waving. : )
You elude to the fact that WLC doesn't change his content. Should he? How many debates has he had with this content and how often have his opponents shot holes in it? It has stood the test of time, it seems to me.
Good hearing from you.
Hi Brian,
Is this pre-listening commentary?
Yes... I commented as I was downloading.
I will try and listen to it soon.
How many debates has he had with this content and how often have his opponents shot holes in it?
Rather a few times actually if I recall.
Have to go...
Lee
Hi Brian,
Finally got to listen to the podcast, but felt rubbish last night as I came down with a cold... winters don't you just love 'em.
ANYWAY... I think my predictions went rather well.
Nothing new was said by WLC and I think even I could make a good argument against his major points. I find it funny that WLC knows the objections to his arguments, raises them - but then does not address them head on. Just an opinion
So, before I go any further - what is the difference between what WLC calls 'objective moral values' and absolute in your opinion. As he describes them they really do seem the same thing.
As for everything else, he has been shown lacking several times in my view.
On the first cause and fine tuning argument - I think Victor Stenger is a good example of WLC getting put straight.
I think this is a link to the debate...
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigStengerDebate.mp3
On the 'facts' of history of Jesus, why not try "The Biblegeek" himself Robert Price (You should try his podcast, very interesting)
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigPriceDebate.mp3
Or perhaps Bart Ehrman.
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigEhrmanDebate2006.mp3
Or how about morality - Ray Bradley is a classic debate (from 1994)
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigBradleyHellDebate.mp3
15 years on WLC still cannot answer the Hell question in my opinion.
A good all-round debate showing the errors in WLC logic is by Peter Slezak (which I got from your blog months ago - thanks)
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/Craig-Slezak-Debate.mp3
So, yes - I do think WLC has been shot down on more than one occasion and he still comes back with the same old arguments.
Still, I do like to listen to him for some reason - he is a very good debater.
As for personally showing WLC fallacies - sure, can you find me a transcript of this lecture and I will highlight as many as I can until I can bored. Much better working from the written word :-)
Take care
Lee
Lee,
Hope you are better from your cold!
First off, I apologize for the lateness of my response; I have been busy (like us all, right?)
Anyway, the first flaw in MY earlier comment I want to point out is my use of a vague phrase like "shoot holes in it." That is unclear and open to many ways of interpretation. The point I want to bring across is that WLC's arguments haven't changed much in his overall approach because they have stood the test of time. They have not been, in my opinion, demonstrated fallacious.
Which brings me to the point of my comment towards you before: when you say he is wrong, I am simply asking you to do more than just say (like you did in your first comment) that he committed such-and-such fallacy. Or (like in your second commend) list debates in which you thought someone did well against him). The reason I am asking more than this is because the theist, in the same way, could do the same thing in response by saying, for example, that the atheist made such-and-such fallacy; or that WLC answered your points in a list of debates provided. To me, this is not far from simply saying, "my guy is right and your guy is wrong" - and this can happen from either side of the issue.
My point is simply to say that if you think Craig made a special pleading, then say what exactly the special pleading was, why you thought it was a special pleading, and then set him straight by providing us with corrected reasoning. As they say, conclusions without reasons are just opinions. So, if Craig has made an argument from ignorance, what exactly is that argument? Could you "put it in paper" so we can look at it? Show us the reasons it is wrong and the right way we should be looking at things. We can compare reasons rather than just exchange opinions.
Does that make sense? Of course, I suppose if you had a very lengthy response to Craig's stuff you could elaborate fully and then provide a link to your blog, if you felt that would be more profitable than long elaboration in the comments - but I am not suggesting that you can't do it in the comments, of course.
Gotta go now... take care.
Hi Brian,
I’m feeling much better now thanks; I think I had a “mini-flu” or something. Only lasted a couple of days, but my whole body felt rubbish.
Anyhow, on with the more interesting stuff.
The reason I provided the links to debates was that in them people cleverer than me pointed out the errors in WLC’s arguments.
If you don’t believe me, take a listen :-)
I could repeat the points here myself (but maybe a blog post on my own place would be a better location.)
His arguments, in the debates provided, have been shown wanting.
Is that just my opinion? Well… can you find me a non-Christian philosopher that agrees with him on the important arguments? :-)
As for special pleading – I’ve already pointed one example out on your blog sometime ago I thought.
When WLC tries to ‘prove’ objective moral values, his argument rests on “deep down inside we all know it”.
If that isn’t special pleading – then maybe I just don’t know my logical fallacies (which could be the case)
WLC argument for the First Cause rests on the fallacy “the argument from ignorance”, false analogy, and it is, in the end, just an inductive argument anyway. His common sense cannot think how a universe could just come into existence, therefore it must be God. (Oh, and more special pleading since his God does not have to worry about such rules of course)
What else, the fine-tuning argument – the same lot of fallacies.
History – and the ‘facts of history’ as WLC puts it on the empty tomb and stuff - is just blame wrong (as I understand history).
History doesn’t prove ‘facts’, only likely possible occurrences. History, if forced to choose, must side on the most likely – and even then tentatively. A miracle, by definition, is the least likely occurrence. History does not, cannot prove WLC claims as facts.
Have I missed anything?
As I said – if you can provide me a link to a transcript to this or another debate - I will pick off WLC words point by point if you like (if I have time)
Have to go.
Take care
Lee
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.