Reasonable Faith Forums

Archived => Craig vs Atkins => Topic started by: Reasonable Faith on October 28, 2011, 06:53:51 pm

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Reasonable Faith on October 28, 2011, 06:53:51 pm
This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Dr. Peter Atkins, former Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University.

26th October 2011, University Place Lecture Theatre, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester

Video: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-atkins-university-of-manchester
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: John Quin on October 29, 2011, 07:48:44 am

Now you're just teasing us. The audio/video hasn't even been released yet.

Oh well I guess the thread is ready and waiting.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Stephen WHC on November 11, 2011, 11:36:35 pm
Atkins was incredibly unprofessional and dogmatic. The moderator joked, Atkins serves as the devil's advocate: and I truly saw an image of the devil squirming on Judgement Day. He operated by insinuation, accusation, proclamation but never argumentation. What did he argue exactly? Something along the lines of: "be open-minded... be liberal... free yourself... and submit to the learned elders of Oxford! God is not permitted in the sciences-- Also Sprach Atkins." Yet regardless of his self-assurance of wisdom, he however was at a complete loss to address a single argument Dr. Craig gave.

What was even harder to watch was Dr. Craig gracefully taking this man seriously for the entire debate. I wondered, at what point will Dr. Craig break and mock the poor fool? I think in British circles this is the appropriate method. In German American circles, maybe not: so this never happened. I haven't really understood what a shill is until watching Dr. Craig reduce Atkins-Hitchens-Dawkins to sweet nothings. So if these men are paid shills (they are all making mucho denaro I'm sure, telling from obstinacy and lack of originality or preparation), why not call them out on it?

Dr. Craig may be too well-schooled or formalized to see the politics underneath the Oxford crew's attempt to socially engineer Christ out of Britain. Or it may simply not apply to the constraints of the debate, which is painful to watch only one party take in good faith. Again and again, though, the atheist is left wanting the most basic form of justification. Again and again, alas, an audience divided.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Pieter on November 24, 2011, 04:00:50 am
Corioa wrote: Atkins was incredibly unprofessional and dogmatic. The moderator joked, Atkins serves as the devil's advocate: and I truly saw an image of the devil squirming on Judgement Day. He operated by insinuation, accusation, proclamation but never argumentation. What did he argue exactly? Something along the lines of: "be open-minded... be liberal... free yourself... and submit to the learned elders of Oxford! God is not permitted in the sciences-- Also Sprach Atkins." Yet regardless of his self-assurance of wisdom, he however was at a complete loss to address a single argument Dr. Craig gave.

What was even harder to watch was Dr. Craig gracefully taking this man seriously for the entire debate. I wondered, at what point will Dr. Craig break and mock the poor fool? I think in British circles this is the appropriate method. In German American circles, maybe not: so this never happened. I haven't really understood what a shill is until watching Dr. Craig reduce Atkins-Hitchens-Dawkins to sweet nothings. So if these men are paid shills (they are all making mucho denaro I'm sure, telling from obstinacy and lack of originality or preparation), why not call them out on it?

Dr. Craig may be too well-schooled or formalized to see the politics underneath the Oxford crew's attempt to socially engineer Christ out of Britain. Or it may simply not apply to the constraints of the debate, which is painful to watch only one party take in good faith. Again and again, though, the atheist is left wanting the most basic form of justification. Again and again, alas, an audience divided.

Yep I have seen Atkins making such grand foolish assertions putting Christians down but not actually doing any attempt to defend this. It's just bluffing and appealing/abusing the general popular respect for science. The trouble is that in Britain, people don't really challange this, because it is generally assumed that you can't prove God's existence or that science and religion do not overlap (noma) and so this gives them just free reign.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Don Quixote on November 24, 2011, 04:00:01 pm
I was amazed to see him actually debate WLC again after the Bill Buckley moderated event where WLC obliterated Atkins. He made the same "we are really not here" argument then. Seems like Decart seems to have pretty much sealed this one off with his - I think therefore I am realization.
Interestingly Dawkins feels like Atkins should win the Nobel Prize.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: njdeputter on December 18, 2011, 12:47:11 am
Any audio/video available yet?
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: above on December 18, 2011, 05:40:38 pm
I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Alexander on December 30, 2011, 09:55:12 pm
above wrote: I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.


As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on December 31, 2011, 11:58:53 pm
Alexander wrote:
Quote from: above
I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.


As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.


How does that follow?
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Sandspirit on January 02, 2012, 08:40:24 am
How does that follow?


perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.

Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.

Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty. Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this? You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on January 02, 2012, 12:20:29 pm
How does that follow?

perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.

Just because you believe one side has the better arguments doesn't mean this.

Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.

I think it would be as scary to the atheist as the Christian, and I think we do, in fact know things for sure, or at least can be very confident that they are true. I don't buy this whole philosophically induced skepticism about knowledge.

Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty. Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this? You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.

I wouldn't call this ambiguous, I would call it amazing. Your right, people don't do enough. I thank God for the example of Jesus who calls me to follow him and change the world.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Alexander on January 02, 2012, 08:17:36 pm
emailestthoume wrote:
Quote from: Alexander
Quote from: above
I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.


As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.


How does that follow?


Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on January 03, 2012, 12:46:39 am
Alexander wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: Alexander
Quote from: above
I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.


As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.


How does that follow?


Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."

Your right that this can happen, but it doesn't have to.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Alexander on January 03, 2012, 01:22:53 am
emailestthoume wrote:
Quote from: Alexander
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: Alexander
Quote from: above
I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.


As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.


How does that follow?


Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."

Your right that this can happen, but it doesn't have to.


Hence me saying "likely," and not "for sure."
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on January 03, 2012, 02:11:31 am
Alexander wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: Alexander
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: Alexander
Quote from: above
I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.


As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.


How does that follow?


Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."

Your right that this can happen, but it doesn't have to.


Hence me saying "likely," and not "for sure."

Well I did see "almost always," as  well. And I was a little surprised to see that you responded to someone who was giving an opinion about a debate you probably haven't even seen yet with these comments, which is why I said something. But to continue with your sports analogy, if one team has a significantly better record or lineup, people usually know that one side has the better team (in the analogy this would represent the better arguments) even if they are hardcore fans of the other team. I know all about it, I am a Bears fan but I realize they suck.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Alexander on January 15, 2012, 04:38:41 pm
emailestthoume wrote:
Well I did see "almost always," as  well. And I was a little surprised to see that you responded to someone who was giving an opinion about a debate you probably haven't even seen yet with these comments, which is why I said something.


The post I responded to was not just about the one debate that this topic is about, but about all of Dr. Craig's debates with atheists. I have not seen this debate but there have been several times in the past where I read on these forums what Dr. Craig's supporters have said about a debate and then I go to watch the debate for myself and find it to be vastly different than what they described. My point applies generally, and not to just one debate.


But to continue with your sports analogy, if one team has a significantly better record or lineup, people usually know that one side has the better team (in the analogy this would represent the better arguments) even if they are hardcore fans of the other team. I know all about it, I am a Bears fan but I realize they suck.


My analogy wasn't about which team is better, but who 'should have' won the game. If an unranked college football team plays a team in the top 25 fans might be able to admit that their team (the unranked team) isn't as good as their opponent (the top 25 team). But what I am talking about is when fans say after the game that they should have won. They will remember the bad calls against their team, the dropped passes that would have set up TDs, the missed FGs, etc. While doing this they accept the mistakes of their opponent as being due to their team's performance. You remember the hits and forget the misses.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on January 15, 2012, 10:13:09 pm
Alexander wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Well I did see "almost always," as  well. And I was a little surprised to see that you responded to someone who was giving an opinion about a debate you probably haven't even seen yet with these comments, which is why I said something.


The post I responded to was not just about the one debate that this topic is about, but about all of Dr. Craig's debates with atheists. I have not seen this debate but there have been several times in the past where I read on these forums what Dr. Craig's supporters have said about a debate and then I go to watch the debate for myself and find it to be vastly different than what they described. My point applies generally, and not to just one debate.


But to continue with your sports analogy, if one team has a significantly better record or lineup, people usually know that one side has the better team (in the analogy this would represent the better arguments) even if they are hardcore fans of the other team. I know all about it, I am a Bears fan but I realize they suck.


My analogy wasn't about which team is better, but who 'should have' won the game. If an unranked college football team plays a team in the top 25 fans might be able to admit that their team (the unranked team) isn't as good as their opponent (the top 25 team). But what I am talking about is when fans say after the game that they should have won. They will remember the bad calls against their team, the dropped passes that would have set up TDs, the missed FGs, etc. While doing this they accept the mistakes of their opponent as being due to their team's performance. You remember the hits and forget the misses.

Your right that people have a tendency to focus on the positives of their side and overlook the negatives. But I have no interest in bickering about what you said. I'm just looking forward to hearing the debate myself and seeing what really happened.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chris Dotson on February 05, 2012, 01:46:03 pm
Where is the video for this debate?
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on February 05, 2012, 02:43:29 pm
Chris9809 wrote: Where is the video for this debate?

It hasn't been released yet.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: thetheistexperience on March 01, 2012, 10:30:52 am

Is Craig getting in the ring with Atkins again? Boy, Atkins doesn't know when to quit does he? He lost in '98 by a land slide (see the youtube vid. for details) and he's going to again. Any idea where it is going to be held?

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Anthony Wijaya on April 05, 2012, 02:12:52 am
Hi. Check . im newbie
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Aaron Massey on April 13, 2012, 04:47:44 am
Debate dosnt seem to be linked yet...  here:
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Stephen on April 24, 2012, 07:04:58 am

I was really dissappointed with Atkins performance here.  I would have thought, being a chemist and all, Atkins would be more than prepared to take on these arguments- Craig seemed to invite it by selecting those 3 particular arguments out his typical 5!  Instead, Atkins chooses to attack philosophy in general, purporting how useless it is?  Isn't that a philosophical stance on its own?

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on April 27, 2012, 01:31:11 pm
I agree I just finished this and Atkins was massively unprofessional. He was just talking down to believers and never engaging the arguments. "I can say that there will possibly be eventually an answer to the questions given by science." Seriously? We're supposed to discard your opponents arguments because you're saying that there might one day possibly be proof they're wrong?
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Pieter on May 01, 2012, 03:52:49 am
I only watched half way through and I was just shocked how Atkins STILL holds to the idea that "Nothingness is separated into opposites". Easily rebutted: Nothingness has no properties to do anything or to produce anything. Atkins: Well we should not use philosophical arguments, but only observation and science. Really? You mean, do not use philosophical arguments when it is inconvenient for atheism. Arguing that using philosphical arguments are invalid is a philosophical statement as the truth of this assertion cannot be observed by science.

I think Atkins is often very rude and patronising towards Christians, but actually being taken under proper scrutiny himself, he has nothing to offer other than rethorical banter.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Pieter on May 01, 2012, 03:54:51 am
I have much more respect of the likes of Peter Millican and Stephen Law who actually make me think.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chris Dotson on May 05, 2012, 01:43:00 am
That was hilarious.

Edit: If I were Dr. Craig, I'd have likely walked over and poked Dr. Atkins on the shoulder to prove my point.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: clarkgriswold on May 06, 2012, 08:16:28 pm
Corioa wrote: Yet regardless of his self-assurance of wisdom, he however was at a complete loss to address a single argument Dr. Craig gave.

That is an interesting and cogent observation.  I have heard Dr. Craig remark on several occasions how many of his atheist debate opponents appear not to be schooled in the art, style, or rules of debate, or that they are sufficiently trained in philosophy to present in debate a coherent argument.  Yet, in some cases, as with atheist author and apologist Sam Harris, at least some of his opponents have at least some formal training and debate experience.

I am coming to the belief that these atheists use the forum as nothing more than a foil, a sounding board, a bully pulpit, with emphasis on the bully.  They also attempt to stack the audience with rhetorical bullies, as well.  This I believe is regarded as merely a free opportunity to rail in public against theism in general and against Christianity in particular.  They certainly have a religion (atheism), but use the debate forum as an ersatz Sunday congregational gathering.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Leonardo Oliveira on May 08, 2012, 12:55:27 pm
And Craig called Atkins "Richard Dawkins" twice or three times, it made the public laugh and made me very very embarrassed. Then he in fact quoted Dawkins, showing that he was with his name in mind because he had this quotation to do.

But Atkins, who was nervous but more prepared than in the first time, made a point that should be explored: the application of causation notion in a time that we don't know how it works. And again, as in many debates, the opponent shows that doesn't understand how metaphysical argumentation can be true and refer to reality. I miss some showing of this important lesson when they do it.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Kostas Spiliotopoulos on May 30, 2012, 09:05:37 am
Mr Craig proved that infinite God does not exist as infinity as he suggested is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing that means nothing should have qualities as modern science and quantum mechanics suggest. God is a more complicated problem than the solution it applies and don't solve anything as the question remains how God came from nothing. Morality is very clear that is not objective and alter depending on the physiology of humans, culture, environment the illusion of objectiveness on morality comes from morality being the evolution of our the two basic instincts ho are essential for every species to exist.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Anthony on June 18, 2012, 10:21:09 pm
Peter Atkins stated in this debate that Philosophy was a complete waste of time. Big mistake. What about his fellow atheist philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Stephen Law, and Shelly Kagan? Are they wasting their time, or are they not because they are atheists. Like the 1998 debate with Dr. Craig, Peter Atkins once again did not refute the arguments and simply asserted that science and religion are incompatible. Sorry Atkins, you failed.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: ixthus116 on September 28, 2013, 05:25:58 pm
Mr Craig proved that infinite God does not exist as infinity as he suggested is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing that means nothing should have qualities as modern science and quantum mechanics suggest. God is a more complicated problem than the solution it applies and don't solve anything as the question remains how God came from nothing. Morality is very clear that is not objective and alter depending on the physiology of humans, culture, environment the illusion of objectiveness on morality comes from morality being the evolution of our the two basic instincts ho are essential for every species to exist.

1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.

2. Quite often more complicated problems result from simple conundrums- an apple falling is simple. Gravity? Whoa- very not simple!

3. God is a necessary being, that is to say his existence is uncaused. If he was caused the thing which caused him would be God- at least try and attack the God based on a shared definition. A created god is by definition a false god. Asking what created God is like asking what the number 7 smells like. God just is in the way that numbers just exist.

4. you're here committing the genetic fallacy- attempting to say that because objective moral views were developed by society they are therefore false.  Just because you can explain a belief's origin does nothing to falsify that belief. I'm sure you once thought something because your parents told you so- does that make the thing your parents told you false? Not at all!

5. Objective morals are needed for species to exist

No animals except humans have (or even 'have developed') morality! Fish eat each other, animals regularly kill each other, have incest, all kinds of things that are both morally wrong from our point of view and detrimental to their collective survival. Dawkins showed in the Selfish Gene how only individual DNA matters, the survival of the group is only incidental. (You know you're flawed when I'm even citing Dawkins against you!)  So if you think that harming other humans for pleasure is wrong whether the harm-er and harm-ee think so or not then you observe objective morals. Even if you say 'I think people should act in the way their culture says is right" you're still affirming a way of acting that is binding in all circumstances and on all contrary views- an objective moral law.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: hatsoff on October 03, 2013, 10:18:41 am
1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.

Craig believes that God has no parts, and so he is not infinite in the sense of being composed of infinitely many actually existing objects, which is what Craig argues is impossible.  But one might say in a nonliteral sense that God has infinite knowledge, and this does not imply infinitely many existing objects.

Of course, if you will permit me to harp on this point, Craig's argument against an actual infinite is totally ridiculous.  Sobel, Oppy, and others have already explained why.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: ontologicalme on October 03, 2013, 10:41:02 am
1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.

Craig believes that God has no parts, and so he is not infinite in the sense of being composed of infinitely many actually existing objects, which is what Craig argues is impossible.  But one might say in a nonliteral sense that God has infinite knowledge, and this does not imply infinitely many existing objects.

Of course, if you will permit me to harp on this point, Craig's argument against an actual infinite is totally ridiculous.  Sobel, Oppy, and others have already explained why.

Could you share what is Oppy´s argument in favor of the infinite?

what is their argument against Craig´s? Is it shown to be ridiculous or just wrong?

Do you have a referece book or article I can check?

thanks.


Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: hatsoff on October 03, 2013, 05:52:20 pm
1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.

Craig believes that God has no parts, and so he is not infinite in the sense of being composed of infinitely many actually existing objects, which is what Craig argues is impossible.  But one might say in a nonliteral sense that God has infinite knowledge, and this does not imply infinitely many existing objects.

Of course, if you will permit me to harp on this point, Craig's argument against an actual infinite is totally ridiculous.  Sobel, Oppy, and others have already explained why.

Could you share what is Oppy´s argument in favor of the infinite?

what is their argument against Craig´s? Is it shown to be ridiculous or just wrong?

Do you have a referece book or article I can check?

thanks.

Sobel attacks Craig's argument from Hilbert's hotel, noting that Craig has failed to establish a contradiction or incoherence in what goes on with its guests checking in/out.  He observes that we require an additional assumption in order to get the contradiction Craig requires.  In Blackwell Craig agrees with Sobel's critique except to say that he thinks we are justified in making that additional assumption.  But the reasoning he gives consists in claiming it is "innocuous."  Needless to say, Craig thinking it innocuous does not constitute justification.

Oppy attacks Craig's claim that an infinite cannot be formed through successive addition.  He points out that Craig does not actually give an argument for this claim.  As Oppy puts it, Craig merely expresses a prejudice against infinity.  You can Google to find Oppy's paper---I'm not sure exactly which one it is.  Craig did respond to some of the points in that paper, but not to my recollection the crucial one about his prejudice against the infinite.

For my own part, I would add that even if we grant Craig his prejudice, that's still not enough, since a past-infinite timeline is not formed (in the sense Craig needs) through successive addition anyway.  This seems to me an obvious criticism so it probably appears in the literature somewhere.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: samberry on April 26, 2017, 01:26:57 am
Any audio/video available yet?
I think yes.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: jayceeii on March 06, 2020, 08:08:36 am
How does that follow?


perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.

Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.

Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty. Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this? You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.
ss: perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.

jc: Christian closed-mindedness is just a subset of general human closed-mindedness. Humans claim to have an open mind, but really they are just open to more selfish desire. In a human, desire moves first and then reason makes excuses for it, never the other way.

ss: Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.

jc: You can’t open a door to open-mindedness and expect people to step through that door! There are degrees of knowledge, and all minds are limited to a certain degree. Specifically, all metaphysical knowledge is blocked off to minds physically entangled.

ss: Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty.

jc: As I have said, Jesus was the King of Vague, and Master of Unfinished Sentences. All depends upon one’s audience. I’m sure to caring persons, Jesus could speak more openly. To finish the sentences of Jesus condemns man, exposing the actual nature of original sin.

ss: Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this?

jc: Actually this is an invitation to a state of power and bliss. The family and possessions fall away naturally from the pure and powerful. These are replaced by the community of souls and value taken in relationships, even relationships that are expected to last forever.

ss: You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.

jc: Wow! Isn’t this an echo of the prophets? There’s only one error, but it’s the usual error made by a mind not seeing the real alternative in a world which choked this off. The wise lead comfortable lives, but without private homes, cars, or dreams of sterile heaven.