Author Topic: Craig vs. Millican Review  (Read 2563 times)

Interest12345

  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
Craig vs. Millican Review
« on: May 25, 2015, 04:45:58 PM »
This is personally my favorite Craig debate. What I like most is that Milican never once showed any rudeness or ad hominem at any time. He simply gave strong points for his position that really made a lot more sense than what I was hearing from Craig. Unlike Craig, Milican had no evangelical agenda, and was factually objective as could possibly be. It was a great philosophical discussion to provoke thought in listeners. Milican destroyed the Kalam argument more effectively than I’ve seen anyone else. I took a lot of reflection from what I heard in this debate, and concluded quite confidently that Milican’s points were far more rational, and far more intelligent than Craig’s. At the end of Millican's second speech, he issued a moral challenge that Craig never addressed. Craig lost this debate hands down. 

LADZDAZL

  • Posts: 5892
    • View Profile
Re: Craig vs. Millican Review
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2015, 11:25:51 PM »
Yes I thought Millican was very good.

I liked his explanation of the composition fallacy inherent in premise 1 of the Kalam which was very clear.

He is also the only person I have heard question Dr Craig's definition of objective in the moral argument and the only person to note that the word objective has more than one usage.  I think the justification of the second premise of the OMV argument relies on an equivocation and Millican is the only opponent I've heard even hint at this problem.
Life is a box of chocolates!