Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"

[Jacob Dotson]

Here's my question:

The fossil record clearly indicates humans have been on the earth 150,000 + years.  How can this relate to Adam and Eve?  Putting evolutionary theory aside, if there were ~2000 years between Adam and Abraham and ~2000 years between Abraham and Jesus, how might we account for people on the earth 100,000 years ago?

[David Foster]

jacob97 wrote: Here's my question:

The fossil record clearly indicates humans have been on the earth 150,000 + years.  How can this relate to Adam and Eve?  Putting evolutionary theory aside, if there were ~2000 years between Adam and Abraham and ~2000 years between Abraham and Jesus, how might we account for people on the earth 100,000 years ago?

[above]

revo74 wrote: I believe I have discovered a knock-down argument against the KCA. I have never heard this used before, although I have to believe someone has mentioned it before.

In order for us to realize that a conclusion is true, a philosophical arguments premises must be true. This applies to both deductive and inductive arguments.

Craig says that the Universe had a finite beginning in the past and that space, time and matter came into existence ex nihilo. As a result the transcending cause of the Universe must be spaceless (hinting omnipresent), timeless (hinting eternal) and immaterial (hinting a spirit or unembodied mind). He then usually stats that this cause must be extremely powerful to give rise to the Universe (hinting omnipotence).

Well, here is the problem. Yes, it is true that the cause transcends the space, time and matter of our Universe, but that doesn't mean that this cause transcends these same properties that may exist in another realm of existence. Craig is making an "assumption" here. For all we know there could be an eternal realm with these same properties or some of them from which our Universe derives from.

In order for us to recognize a premise is true a certain degree of certainty about it must be established. Craig's assumption doesn't qualify and therefore the argument is rendered invalid.

LOL.

What nonsense are you preaching? This is not even a coherent argument let alone a knock-down one.

[Rohit Trivedi]

I've just this debate, and here are some of my initial reflections:

I think that this the best debate I have seen. Both sides were thought provoking and interesting, and yes, courteous to each other (Although Millican was getting very touchy and agitated by the end).

However I think that this still ran in line with other debates I have seen Craig in. Millican didn't have any good arguments 'for' atheism. He was just skeptical about everything, to the point of saying "We can't trust our rational intuition" and even saying that we have to wait on science, because it will change in 100 years time etc. He was even skeptical the meaning of the word objective (despite obviously knowing what craig meant by objective) just so that he could be skeptical about it. This isn't empiricism, or scientism, it's just blind skeptisicm about everything. Which is no more powerful than the child in the playground who says "I know you are, but what am I?" to everything you say to him. And skeptism alone is not a good grounding for naturalism. He still needs good reasons (which he doesn't have, else he would have stated them)

I don't want to be ungratious, but, as nice as he is, he didn't really have anything positive or substantive to say at all. There were lots of objections that he raised, that Craig didn't respond to, or didn't have time to, but they weren't powerful at all.

[Daniel Pech]

Giford wrote:

Calling Craig's argument a "false dichotomy" is just wrong I think. He doesn't claim that "either you believe in God or you cannot believe in objective moral values" but rather that "Without God existing, there are no grounds for morallity to be objective".

Your wording is more accurate to Craig than mine, but I think my point stands.  There are other options for objective morality than a divine lawgiver.  So for Craig to insist that only two options are possible (God or subjective morality) is a false dichotomy.

I think what Graig is saying is that...

"First, for morality to be objective, it must be grounded in something which is more concrete, and more unchangeable, than our own changeable experience, but which also experiences. So, something which is:

1) the most concrete; and
2) unchanging; and
3) experiences

is God;"

and second, that...

"a particularly bad moral perspective does not automatically result from a false ground, in the sense that it cannot have all that much influence in face of the influence of the reality of the alternative: everyone normally functions on the same genuine ground;"

but, third, that...

"whichever ground (the genuine one, or a false/incomplete one) a person actually tries to abide tends to form their general system of rational and moral conduct;"

and, fourth, that...

"Biblical Theism is not equivalent to an arrogantly blind obedience to divine verbatim."

[Daniel Pech]

Millican says, of family-based religious education:

“If some method of acquiring beliefs leads to lots of different, and conflicting, beliefs, then that method obviously cannot be relied on.” 36: 14-23

Millican seems to have missed his own point, in that such 'religious education', the world over, already contains different and conflicting beliefs. Millican does not here even offer an hypothesis for the origin of those differences. It's as if he's saying "any kind of influence by parents on their own children, whether the religious or the non-religious kinds of influences, is to be rejected as false since it gives rise to the religious kind.' Theism is not a method, nor does theism presuppose a particular content in terms of how to interpret any kind of logical, physical, or psychological evidence.

[Great Pumpkin]

above wrote: LOL.

What nonsense are you preaching? This is not even a coherent argument let alone a knock-down one.

   I believe his thoughtful response deserves more than a childish rebuttal.

   

   His point, that quite a few philosophers argue, is that even granting the premises of the KCA, you don't get a god but only a few things that are necessary, but not entirely sufficient to actually be a god, but are necessary and sufficient to be a "supernatural" state of affairs that can create universes without any intelligence, moral properties or consciousness.

   

   The proper, irenic and substantive response would be to address this aspect of his argument.

[Anthony]

I can honestly say that of all the debates I've seen with William Lane Craig, this one had to be one of the best. Peter Millican is a worthy and scholarly opponent and an outstanding philosopher. In fact, I've never seen any atheist debater give more viable answers to Dr. Craig's arguments, like the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and the Moral argument. What I found even more astonishing was when Dr. Craig stated that he believed in extra-terrestrial life. As a Christian, I had always had a difficult time with that question, but after being shocked with Dr. Craig's explanation of that, I no longer fear that question! Congratulations to both debaters for a lively and friendly discussion!

[Timmy1988]

<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: georgia, palatino;">I can honestly say that of all the debates I've seen with William Lane Craig, this one had to be one of the best. Peter Millican is a worthy and scholarly opponent and an outstanding philosopher. In fact, I've never seen any atheist debater give more viable answers to Dr. Craig's arguments, like the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument, and the Moral argument. What I found even more astonishing was when Dr. Craig stated that he believed in extra-terrestrial life. As a Christian, I had always had a difficult time with that question, but after being shocked with Dr. Craig's explanation of that, I no longer fear that question! Congratulations to both debaters for a lively and friendly discussion! </span>

I agree and it is what drew me to join this board.
Its more then likely that we are not alone

[jayceeii]

Peter Millican said several times that there is "absolutely" no evidence that minds can exist independently of bodies.

This question of minds or souls existing separate from bodies having or not having evidence, is a key one illustrating there are degrees of truth, not all of which are accessible to everyone. The evidence the soul is separable from the body can be listed, but although plain language is used to describe it, it still cannot be seen by those without inner insight, which is to say without an ability to form an impression regarding quality in character. The trouble is even worse than this, because humans will deny with anger and violence, the conclusions drawn by mental processes that are beyond them. This is part of human hubris and foolishness, to deny what is beyond their power to be relevant to them, or even to recognize it as such. Men keep themselves at the center, even sacrificing truth.