Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"

[Jagella]

What did Kappel touch on that you think was missing in Craig's presentation, Jagella?

Kappel defined atheism, for one thing.

Just for the record, I disagree with Kappel's definition. I define atheism as lack of belief in gods. As far as I know Craig does not accept that definition, and he then is out of synch with most atheists from the start. It would be like my defining Christianity as polytheistic!

Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods

[grosso]

What did Kappel touch on that you think was missing in Craig's presentation, Jagella?

Kappel defined atheism, for one thing.

Just for the record, I disagree with Kappel's definition. I define atheism as lack of belief in gods. As far as I know Craig does not accept that definition, and he then is out of synch with most atheists from the start. It would be like my defining Christianity as polytheistic!

Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods

Was Kappel's definition adequate? My understanding is that there are any number of definitions of atheism floating out there, depending on which definition is preferred by whom at which point in time.

[Jagella]

Was Kappel's definition adequate? My understanding is that there are any number of definitions of atheism floating out there, depending on which definition is preferred by whom at which point in time.

I prefer to think of atheism as a lack of belief in gods. Some people like Bill Craig define atheism as the belief that there are no gods. I would call that anti-theism rather than atheism. My definition works well because it can categorize people who simply don't believe in any gods yet don't deny their existence either. If we go with Craig's definition, then such people have no category that they fall into! They're neither theists nor atheists nor agnostics.

Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods

[grosso]

Was Kappel's definition adequate? My understanding is that there are any number of definitions of atheism floating out there, depending on which definition is preferred by whom at which point in time.

I prefer to think of atheism as a lack of belief in gods. Some people like Bill Craig define atheism as the belief that there are no gods. I would call that anti-theism rather than atheism. My definition works well because it can categorize people who simply don't believe in any gods yet don't deny their existence either. If we go with Craig's definition, then such people have no category that they fall into! They're neither theists nor atheists nor agnostics.

Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods

I don't buy the "lack of belief" definition.

It's not intellectually rigorous.

[Viennacon]

Oh, no! Craig assumes people know what 'God' means. What a big mistake. /sarc

[Steve Hopker]

Just come on here, so well after event. I am an atheist, so would naturally support Dr Kappel. Unfortunately (from my angle) I was not very impressed. In terms of presentation, Dr Craig was miles ahead - clear, structured, impressive delivery. By contrast poor Dr Kappel was far less structured, did not engage with the audience and seemed to admit he'd not had time to prepare  - though I think Dr Craig used a ploy to wrong foot Dr K by challenging him for specific responses to his case before anything else, when he would have known his opponent would have prepared his first speech beforehand without seeing Dr C's text. But even so, Dr K's style (and the content of the first half of his talk) did not impress.

However, I thought he did score against Dr C's case with the 'Magical Stars'. On the downside, I did not like his seemingly disingenuous non-challenge theism on account its usefulness - some might say this would be one person encouraging others to hold beliefs for some general benefit, despite the one  person being atheist (Sam Harris has attacked that view).

But I think Dr Kappel did provide an insightful view of such debates - that if protagonists cannot mutually agree premises (eg the necessity  of scientific evidence  - or (for theists) the possibility of direct revelation. This arguably shows the limits of these debates - though I think they are valuable.

[grosso]

Hey Steve, that's an interesting analysis. Can you tell me what the Magical Stars was about? I haven't watched the debate in a long time.

[Steve Hopker]

Hi Rossi

From memory (ie I might have this wrong), Kappel conjured up  three Magical Stars, something like the magical causal star, the magical design star and the magical ontological star. Each star was invisible and had never been directly detected by any astronomer. But the causal star was the first cause of all other stars, so explained the origin of the stars we can see: the design star had been the template for other stars, so that was why stars are so well designed to be stars: the ontological star was why the visible stars exist at all.

Kappel's point being that none of the above argument gives any direct evidence for such stars  - and of course the stars paralleled the arguments for God.

[grosso]

Hi Rossi

From memory (ie I might have this wrong), Kappel conjured up  three Magical Stars, something like the magical causal star, the magical design star and the magical ontological star. Each star was invisible and had never been directly detected by any astronomer. But the causal star was the first cause of all other stars, so explained the origin of the stars we can see: the design star had been the template for other stars, so that was why stars are so well designed to be stars: the ontological star was why the visible stars exist at all.

Kappel's point being that none of the above argument gives any direct evidence for such stars  - and of course the stars paralleled the arguments for God.

I see. That's an interesting response.

Is Kappel saying "the existence of the three stars does not give any direct evidence for real stars"?

Or "the existence of real stars don't provide any evidence for the existence of the three magical stars"?

[ixthus116]

Hi Rossi

From memory (ie I might have this wrong), Kappel conjured up  three Magical Stars, something like the magical causal star, the magical design star and the magical ontological star. Each star was invisible and had never been directly detected by any astronomer. But the causal star was the first cause of all other stars, so explained the origin of the stars we can see: the design star had been the template for other stars, so that was why stars are so well designed to be stars: the ontological star was why the visible stars exist at all.

Kappel's point being that none of the above argument gives any direct evidence for such stars  - and of course the stars paralleled the arguments for God.

The ontological argument justifies the existence of one maximally great being AND forbids the existence of more than one maximally great being, because otherwise two omnipotent beings trying to do different things would be a logical contradiction (possible in no possible world). As a result, if the ontological argument succeeds there is 1 MGB. This, however, does not mean that say the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of "God created the Angel Jesus, Jesus created the world" (Don't ask me how they read Genesis 1:1- or the rest of the bible for that matter!) cannot be refuted by the KCA. However, even in this sense, if an angel created the world then we can ask "what caused the angel" and so on to get back to the MGB defined by the ontological argument with the property of necessary existence. The case for the biblical God is cumulative, and while the moral, KCA and ontological can prove there are not many MGBs to get to Yahweh you need to see the success of the argument for the resurrection of Jesus. If you post a 'bringing back Jesus' star, then you're just being silly and refusing to look at what the evidence points to.

[jayceeii]

Let's start with his assertion that the question of God is the most important question we can ask - if Christianity is true.

Yes, Christianity appears as a threat against the other religions, “Follow our ways or go to hell,” as the Bible warns repeatedly of the worst fate for unbelievers. “The ways” of Christians amount to an indirect interpretation by Paul and committees, to assertions by Jesus that should have been understood to be vague from the very beginning. Indeed, the first century Christians should have noticed immediately that if Jesus was God then He deliberately chose to give a weak, noninvasive teaching, not genuine, careful guidance.

Everyone who denies Christianity, insofar as they are aware of the threat this religion makes against all other religions, should notice they are standing against the settled opinion of two billion Christians. Of course also, many Christian sects believe the other sects are damned. In fact this becomes one of the proofs that the two billion are wrong, that this idea “the others are damned” is somehow being generated from native human hatred. The Christians are not united against the other religions, and whatever Jesus said, the humans are not able to come together behind Him, without damning other Christians.

To stand against the edifice of the religions and feel secure is not easy, if you have awareness of the myriad humans you stand against, and some respect for the human intellect. In general those opposing the religions are not seeing what they are opposing, telling themselves merely “those other people are worthless,” ignoring the teeming masses of doctors, lawyers, scientists and professors, who adopt religion. Yet a secure position can be found if these teeming masses are indeed found worthless, though not in the sense anyone is expecting. Human technology is ferocious; personality not so much.

It’s possible God could set up a religion saying, “Follow it or perish in everlasting fire.” To neutralize the threat of the Christians, it can be shown Christianity is not such a religion. The key is that Jesus set up no meaningful standards, only very vague ones. You can’t disobey if God didn’t tell you what He wanted (at least) and the reasons for it (at best). Nobody can follow Jesus, because He didn’t say anything that has a clear and obvious interpretation. If Jesus was leading nowhere, then His was not a saving religion.