Dr Craig vs Dr Alex Rosenberg

[Logos]

This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Dr Alex Rosenberg on "Is Faith In God Reasonable?"

The debate took place at Purdue University on February 1, 2013.

Logos.

Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable?
Does Epistemological Naturalism Imply Metaphysical Naturalism?
Is Faith In God Reasonable?

[arayhay]

I don't really care much about the debate. But I do care about the question "Is it reasonable to have faith and trust in YAH?'

I do.

This question probly wouldn't be asked if christianity had the guts to look at themselfs in a cridical manor. They might finally find out - if their ears are not completly shut, and their eyes completly darkined yet, that the system they hold so dear is completly corrupt and impossible to substanciate bibliclly.

I don't think christians realize that there is more evidance that christianity is a forum of sun god worship, than a biblical exstention of and fulfilment of God's plan of salvation.


Just look at the encyclopdia and referance christmas or easter, or sun rise service; its all pagan sun god worship.

AND I DON'T THINK YAH IS PLEASED TO HAVE IS REAL SON - not the christian polytheistic christ they offer - TIED TO any PAGAN HOLIDAY.

[wghturbostar]

I was present in the audience at Purdue University when I became aware of and saw Dr. Craig for the first time.

I was impressed with the organization of his thought. Most of his ideas were presented using classic syllogistic argument, an extraordinarily transparent method. In other words, if, in retrospect, Dr. Rosenberg, or anyone for that matter, wanted to take the time and attack Dr. Craig point-by-point, then Dr. Craig has made that opportunity for the critical thinker to do so in the clearest way possible, in my opinion.

What was equally impressive was Dr. Rosenberg's seeming lack of organization. I agree with previous posters to this forum that he almost immediately attacked Dr. Craig in an ad hominem fashion. Where Dr. Craig was direct, linear, and clear, Dr. Rosenberg was scattered, vague, and reaching for a foothold.

Dr. Craig won the debate in several categories: a) using a system of impartial judges, he won the debate on the merits of the process b) Dr. Craig won the debate from votes in the audience and c) Dr. Craig won the debate from voting online. That's a triple win.

I certainly hope that this doesn't represent Dr. Rosenberg's best work, but one would think that it should, since Dr. Craig spent a considerable amount of time disarticulating the arguments from Dr. Rosenberg's own book.

Dr. Alexander Rosenberg is the Department Chair and the R Taylor Cole Professor of Philosophy at Duke University. According to Duke's website, he has secondary positions in the department of biology and political science. In other words, a committee has selected Dr. Rosenberg for his position and the endowed chair means that a foundation or family has given money to be paid to Dr. Rosenberg as extra money for assuming this position. As such, he has declared himself an expert on the use of language in presenting his arguments.

As an example of Dr. Alexander Rosenberg's work, I would give Dr. Alexander Rosenberg a failing grade, and were I a member of the committee which makes decisions on whether he is to remain as department chair, I would begin the process to have him removed from that position.

[baranbaran]

well done for this nice post

[jayceeii]

I don't really care much about the debate. But I do care about the question "Is it reasonable to have faith and trust in YAH?'

I do.

This question probly wouldn't be asked if christianity had the guts to look at themselfs in a cridical manor. They might finally find out - if their ears are not completly shut, and their eyes completly darkined yet, that the system they hold so dear is completly corrupt and impossible to substanciate bibliclly.

I don't think christians realize that there is more evidance that christianity is a forum of sun god worship, than a biblical exstention of and fulfilment of God's plan of salvation.


Just look at the encyclopdia and referance christmas or easter, or sun rise service; its all pagan sun god worship.

AND I DON'T THINK YAH IS PLEASED TO HAVE IS REAL SON - not the christian polytheistic christ they offer - TIED TO any PAGAN HOLIDAY.

The (roughly) correct charges are laid here, but little evidence to sustain the charges. Christianity can only be correctly overthrown from a higher perspective of God’s real standards for beings of intelligence, which include true friendliness and the actual good of all. That Christ’s birth is linked to a pagan holiday is minimally significant, but the fact this birth is celebrated by the worst attacks on God’s resources every year, is critical. Ostensibly they celebrate the Creator’s birth, but they do so while assaulting the Creator.

The Bible is also not a place where one can rest one’s head, convinced he has satisfied the Creator. It’s a treacherous book portraying a false deity made after the self-serving human imagination. God is not a racist, drawing up covenants with groups based on their lineage. He is not a warmonger, offering victory against other nations (and the suffering of their people) as a sign of His favor. He is also not a free ticket offering salvation by grace. The real God is almost completely hidden in the Bible, or any route to please Him.