Reasonable Faith Forums

Archived => Craig vs Enqvist => Topic started by: Reasonable Faith on May 07, 2012, 01:43:20 pm

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Reasonable Faith on May 07, 2012, 01:43:20 pm
This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with cosmologist Kari Enqvist at the University of Helsinki, Finland on 16/04/2012.

Video: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-enqvist-helsinki

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on May 08, 2012, 01:38:48 pm
I'm noticing that atheists on stage are beginning to avoid engaging the subject matter directly more and more. I found Enqvist was not arguing the actual topic of debate, but simply trying to assert that the subject of the debate was meaningless to discuss. I found this to be a very disingenuous stance to take, and one that was adopted by both Kappal and Atkins. Why do the atheists sound more and more like they're preaching?
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Brandon R. on May 09, 2012, 12:24:50 am
I agree with Dr. Craig on a lot of what he has to say, but did anyone else find it interesting (and odd) how Craig, in presenting his kalam cosmological argument to Dr. Enqvist, a cosmologist, did not discuss the cosmological evidence for the beginning of the universe, but only put forth one of his philosophical arguments? In debates Craig usually skips his philosophical arguments for a finite past in favor of the evidence from isotropic expansion. My guess is that Craig, knowing he is up against a cosmologist, did not want to "put himself out there" on Enqvist's playing field.

No objection here. Just a remark on Craig's interesting debating techniques. (Further evidence of these techniques may be found in his debate with epistemologist Dr. Kappel, where Craig switched from a deductive form of his kalam cosmological argument to an abductive or inference-to-the-best-explanation argument.)
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on May 09, 2012, 08:08:13 am
He changes the style of his debate depending on both the topic of the debate, and the literature he's read on his opponent. If he's found that his opponent uses a certain line of reasoning in their work he'll adapt his opening statement to cover that aspect of their work before the rebuttal period, thus freeing up more time for proper rebuttals later. You'll note he sometimes gets time during his rebuttal periods to even present more arguments for God's existence. This streamlining of his debate style is the reason why he can do that.

In the debate with Enqvist the question wasn't "does God exist" but rather "can the universe exist without God". To present the Kalam as proof of God's existence would mean Dr. Craig was debating a different topic. You'll note throughout the debate he continually tried to prevent the derailing of the conversation and tried to keep things on topic.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on May 09, 2012, 08:38:17 am
What truly disturbed me was when I heard Enqvist saying we ought to abandon reason and rationality because of Quantum Mechanics. I've heard Kappal, Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins spout the same thing. They keep saying philosophy is dead, don't listen to philosophers, stop trying to reason with your mind, only listen to scientists and even then only the scientists that are atheists.

What I'm seeing is reprehensible anti-intellectualism. They're saying, "Thinking leads to God, so stop thinking, let scientists do your thinking for you."
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Brandon R. on May 09, 2012, 09:14:11 am
"In the debate with Enqvist the question wasn't "does God exist" but rather "can the universe exist without God". To present the Kalam as proof of God's existence would mean Dr. Craig was debating a different topic. You'll note throughout the debate he continually tried to prevent the derailing of the conversation and tried to keep things on topic."

I too observe that Craig always pulls the debate back to the question or topic, but what I am getting at is beside this point. In his debate with Enqvist, Craig did present the kalam proof for God. He just didn't use the cosmological evidence from isotropic expansion to argue premise (2) that the universe began to exist. Rather, he used his argument from the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things. My question then was why this switch from the unusual presentation? It can't be because the topic was a different question (since Craig still presented his usual syllogism). The only difference is that between a philosophical argument and scientific evidence for establishing (2). I suggested that this may be because Enqvist, as a cosmologist, would go into some highly technical and speculative physics that would be beyond the audience (if not Craig).

So I see what you are saying, but it does not answer my question. And don't get me wrong; if I were debating academics, I too would switch-up my presentations depending on the persons involved to avoid objections--as Craig appears to have done in this debate.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Brandon R. on May 09, 2012, 09:19:38 am
"What truly disturbed me was when I heard Enqvist saying we ought to abandon reason and rationality because of Quantum Mechanics. I've heard Kappal, Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins spout the same thing. They keep saying philosophy is dead, don't listen to philosophers, stop trying to reason with your mind, only listen to scientists and even then only the scientists that are atheists.

What I'm seeing is reprehensible anti-intellectualism. They're saying, "Thinking leads to God, so stop thinking, let scientists do your thinking for you.""

Agreed. Scientists--as good as they can be--typically make for terrible philosophers. They don't understand the vast number of assumptions they make when they speak on philosophy, nor the vast number of assumptions they tend to make when doing good science. This is why I think theist philosophers like Craig and philosophers of science are very healthy for the philosophical-scientific community. They help set straight the presumptuous overstepping of science left over from the logical positivist era.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on May 09, 2012, 09:21:48 am
You also have to consider time constraint, the quality of the audience, and yes the opponent being debated with. Avoiding getting into a cosmological discussion with Enqvist would be smart because the debate would devolve into nothing more than highly technical phrases being thrown around, with no one in the audience really understanding what was being said. If you watch Craig debate with Richard Carrier you'll notice he actually openly stated that he would not devolve the debate into point by point refutations of each historical event because the debate would both devolve into nonsense, and the audience wouldn't be able to understand what was being said.

The models of cosmological expansion are sound in the Kalam, and Craig has presented them to physicists before, however bringing that up as a case during a debate with a cosmologist would likely lead to things devolving quickly in to technical discussion that would go over the heads of the entire audience. It isn't that the science Craig rests hits arguments on isn't sound and that a true cosmologist would be able to defeat it on stage, it's that having two people who have delved very deeply into the subject debate it in technical detail on stage would cause the debate to burn down into incomprehensibility.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: RCS on May 11, 2012, 08:24:22 pm

“. . .I heard Enqvist saying we ought to abandon reason and rationality because of Quantum Mechanics. I've heard Kappal, Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins spout the same thing. They keep saying philosophy is dead, don't listen to philosophers, stop trying to reason with your mind, only listen to scientists and even then only the scientists that are atheists.”

               I don't know that is what Enqvist was arguing.  He was not arguing logic was invalid, but only that it breaks down at the quantum level.  I believe he was quite clear that he does not believe this happens at our level of existence where the quantum rules of probability smooth out cause and effect to create logical coherence.  

Nevertheless, if Enqvist argument were correct about the problem with logic at the quantum level it does create a problem for questions about the “cause” of the Universe.  Specifically, it appears that the Big Bang and quantum states are intimately connected.  Therefore, if in fact logic does break down at the quantum level then it would likely be meaningless to attempt to talk about a God being the “logical cause” of the Universe.

            It seems doubtful that this is a proof that God does not exist.  But it certainly would make agnosticism the best position - at least scientifically and at least for now.  

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Blake1960 on May 12, 2012, 10:31:05 am
>>> He just didn't use the cosmological  evidence from isotropic expansion to argue premise (2) that the universe  began to exist. Rather, he used his argument from the impossibility of  an actually infinite number of things.

Didn't Dr. Craig mention the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin proof?  If so, that is absolutely recognizing the expansion of the universe.


It just isn't true that probability equates to logic.  As Dr. Craig repeatedly made clear, the rules of logic do indeed still hold at the quantum level.  If logic breaks down anywhere in the universe, then it is rendered invalid everywhere.  Maybe that could support an argument for atheism, that there is no absolute truth for instance.  But then we have the old problem of self-refutation.  LOL.  
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Laura Grove on May 15, 2012, 04:23:56 pm

Speaking of debate style, I was watching Enqvist proceed in each of his time slots, from "What are the weak points of your position" to "What would be an alternative position to yours, a 'second-best' theory", to "What could make you abandon your position", a trick I vaguely remember from college of getting one's opponent to debate against himself only. It made me pity him more than any other opponents Dr Craig has faced, and I was glad Dr. C did not point it out till the last rebuttal.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Leonardo Oliveira on May 15, 2012, 11:03:29 pm
rs026,

I also think this is a good question about causation, but I saw it being partially answered by Craig in his last Q&A here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-causal-principle.

It could also be said that the notion of causation applied to the Big Bang isn't of something temporatilly prior to it, when there were no physical laws, etc., but of something temporally simultaneous to it (when time itself comes into being), prior only in a causal sense.

But this last Q&A also says something about how the causality in quantum level doesn't abolish the logic of events and things depending of other things, but only of events and things depending of other events. That's why things don't come into being from "nothing" in quantum physics, but from some conditions that make it possible to happen.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Jeffrey on May 20, 2012, 09:15:58 pm

The arguments for God can be found in extant (current)biological processes as well as Singularity (causation) arguments.  We can seeGod's handiwork within heuristic-biased stochastic processes.  In other words, there are law-like"rules of thumb" that are applied at the quantum level (as withphotosynthesis) as well as the molecular level (through epigenetics and thegenome) and neurogenesis and neurological ontogenesis (development) -- as withhuman language acquisition.  At firstglance, these biases may seem loose, but they are as effective as thegravitational attraction of large masses discovered by Newton.  Our apologetical arguments for God need notbe confined to prehistory.  They arewritten across the natural world even at this moment.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Blake1960 on May 21, 2012, 03:59:35 am
Dr. Craig elaborates on the issue:

   

   http://www.reasonablefaith.org/atheistic-physicists-repudiation-of-logic-and-probability-theory

   

   A clear bias from religious faith seems to be infecting science more now than ever.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Damoksta on May 22, 2012, 04:26:07 am
From ^^^

Well, fortunately, after our debate Enqvist and I went out to lunch together


Luckily I wasn't drinking coffee when I was reading this otherwise my computer screen would risk certain coffee stain.

I find it incredible that Craig can have a strong, rigorous intellectual debate  with someone one night... and go out for lunch the next day with the same guy. Sometimes it's hard to believe he was genuinely being an earnest nice guy: WLC can sound condescending at times.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Jeffrey A. Miller on May 24, 2012, 11:42:21 am

Speaking of debate style, I was watching Enqvist proceed in each of his time
slots, from "What are the weak points of your position" to "What would be an
alternative position to yours, a 'second-best' theory", to "What could make you
abandon your position", a trick I vaguely remember from college of getting one's
opponent to debate against himself only. It made me pity him more than any other
opponents Dr Craig has faced, and I was glad Dr. C did not point it out till the
last rebuttal.

Agreed--the entire time I was thinking, "man, this guy wants Dr. Craig to do his job for him!"  He didn't seem to have any arguments for the positive side of the question and asked Dr. Craig to come up with those rather than formulating a proper argument.  It was really a sad thing to see.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Kostas Spiliotopoulos on May 29, 2012, 01:54:05 pm
DynamicXdesign wrote:

The arguments for God can be found in extant (current)biological processes as well as Singularity (causation) arguments.  We can seeGod's handiwork within heuristic-biased stochastic processes.  In other words, there are law-like"rules of thumb" that are applied at the quantum level (as withphotosynthesis) as well as the molecular level (through epigenetics and thegenome) and neurogenesis and neurological ontogenesis (development) -- as withhuman language acquisition.  At firstglance, these biases may seem loose, but they are as effective as thegravitational attraction of large masses discovered by Newton.  Our apologetical arguments for God need notbe confined to prehistory.  They arewritten across the natural world even at this moment.

The fact that there are fixed rules in nature doesn't promotes the argument of God. The director seems to be very predictable and don't apply important(key) factors of religious cosmic theory as ethics and Gods justice. On the other hand all the evidence of how nature work starting from simple and evolve as complicated as the procedure seems there seem to be no space for rational interference.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Kostas Spiliotopoulos on May 29, 2012, 02:40:10 pm
The question "why the Universe is as it is" should be "why the Universe shouldn't be as it is" so the real argument of Theist can emerge which is "because it does not feel good". "Why" as Dawkins said in a silly question, when that "Why"concludes the human psychological factor and not the scientific neutral observation this "Why" seems like a mean to an end. Our mind is limited and is in constant communication with our senses and physiology. Science gives us a new perspective of the cosmos that has a wider Universal view, we have to go above our physiological convictions and needs and realize that nature doesn't wander around humans.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: sequence46 on June 30, 2012, 05:34:38 pm
Overall all Dr. Craig's has been debunked several times so at this point its not about who wins or loses because we know now the Dr. Craig is something just wrong. Plain and Simple. Its very funny that people forget Dr. Craig has NO science background but yet he continues to try to answer scientific question with secular suggestions. How long can Dr. Craig keep debating when science is increasingly answering all the questions Dr. Craig is posing. When Dr.Craig is proven wrong on any given point he just gets back on stage and says the same thing over and the science flys right over his head.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on June 30, 2012, 06:15:17 pm
Since when has causality, cosmology, fine tuning, and the historical Jesus been debunked? Craig is quoting from current mainstream science, dude, you should really brush up if you think that his arguments have at some point been debunked in the past.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: sequence46 on June 30, 2012, 07:03:51 pm

In the Krauss debate the fine tuning arguement is debunked. So that alone shows that Craigs re-uses debunked arguements, period but ill continue. YOUR WELCOME. Jesus has not been debunked been neither has mohamend. As for the cosmology arguement; "Something cant come come from nothing", I think we both seen in the krauss debate OVER AND OVER again that something can come from nothing. Although jesus MAY have lived, his story of travel and miracles has been debunked by being written off as mostly mythological regardless of whether or not he lived. I still find it funny that you think the scientific questions you ask cant be solved by scientist in said field. Any time Dr. Craig makes a claim about anything scientific be reminded he has no science knowledge of any kind.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on July 01, 2012, 12:41:01 am
Although jesus MAY have lived, his story of travel and miracles has been debunked by being written off as mostly mythological regardless of whether or not he lived.

Historians are pretty unanimous that Jesus lived and traveled around preaching, though certainly non-Christian historians will not admit that he did miracles.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: sequence46 on July 01, 2012, 02:10:13 am
yes this is true SOME historians do confirmed that he traveled but NONE have confirmed Jesus miracles. We also confirmed Mohammed existed!!!
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on July 01, 2012, 09:30:38 am
sequence46 wrote: yes this is true SOME historians do confirmed that he traveled but NONE have confirmed Jesus miracles. We also confirmed Mohammed existed!!!

It is not some historians, it is more like all. If it is not 100 percent, it is 99%. I am not aware of a single historian in the US or Britian with a teaching job that says he didn't exist.

As for the miracles,  I don't see why one must have historical proof that Jesus did miracles.



Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: sequence46 on July 01, 2012, 09:46:54 am
I love how you can only reply to "whether or not Jesus existed" but not anything else I raised. Dont you know mohamed has been confimed to also exist too. Does this not pose a problem. They cant both be the only truth, the way, and the light.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: sequence46 on July 01, 2012, 09:48:35 am

Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University

These are historians that dont belive jesus existed. Just goes to show that not %100 of historians are convinced.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on July 01, 2012, 10:37:33 am
Dude you should really do some objectivestuffy into thesubject before declaring the battle won a long time ago. For one Krauss is being massively dishonest when he says the universe came fromtoting. He's present a Vacuum Fluctuation Model which presupposes the existence of space, time, energy, laws of physics, and the quantum vacuum, none of which are "nothing". His theory imposes that 4/5 of the univer pre-exists matter and work to create it.

Secondly if you honestly are going to hold to the Jesus myth theory then you obviously haven't bothered to even google this subject before hopping onto an apologetics board and mashing both caps lock and exclamation points. There's more than half a dozen non-Biblical ancient historians who speak about Jesus such as Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, Mara Bar Sarpion, and others. Anyone who claims Jesus never existed is either uneducated on the matter, or deliberately presenting misinformation.

Also try to avoid presenting the case that somehow these arguments were defeated in the past. They really haven't been defeated, and typically the only people I'm quoted as having done so are vitriolic YouTube atheists who don't have a real grasp on the subject. Thunderfoot, or Amazingatheist as examples.

If you've got questions there's a bunch of people who'd love to answer them here, but if you're going to pre-maturely declare victory off misinformation I'm going to have to suggest you study more into the subject.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: sequence46 on July 01, 2012, 03:37:20 pm
Not only did you misrepresent my thoughts on Jesus but you misreprsent Krauss's "something from nothing theory". Also nice way to cherry pick what I said. Fact, Dr. Craig claims the universe is fine tune. Fact, the universe is not fine tune. Fact, Dr Craigs re-uses a debunked arguement. This is what my post was about. I wont waste my time slashing through you ignorant response for the sake of length because my point still stands. Dr. Craigs re-uses debunked arguements. Secondily, I am NOT holding to a jesus myth theory. What i kept trying to point out is that Jesus existented(according to some historians) but historians also say Mohammed existed so what does that mean?  That means absolutely nothing because their existence is not the problem its false claim of miracles (the same miracles people claim to do today). You also talked about objective research and this is where you show your true ignorance. There is no objective research of any kind for any truth of any religion ever. there is only fact and fiction and thats all. Something cant be both true and false (research is research). btw Dr. Craig has also suggest in two debtes that morals come from God and this is simply not true no matter how you spin it yet he continues to spread these lies.. praise be to allah lol.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: sequence46 on July 01, 2012, 03:37:22 pm
Not only did you misrepresent my thoughts on Jesus but you misreprsent Krauss's "something from nothing theory". Also nice way to cherry pick what I said. Fact, Dr. Craig claims the universe is fine tune. Fact, the universe is not fine tune. Fact, Dr Craigs re-uses a debunked arguement. This is what my post was about. I wont waste my time slashing through you ignorant response for the sake of length because my point still stands. Dr. Craigs re-uses debunked arguements. Secondily, I am NOT holding to a jesus myth theory. What i kept trying to point out is that Jesus existented(according to some historians) but historians also say Mohammed existed so what does that mean?  That means absolutely nothing because their existence is not the problem its false claim of miracles (the same miracles people claim to do today). You also talked about objective research and this is where you show your true ignorance. There is no objective research of any kind for any truth of any religion ever. there is only fact and fiction and thats all. Something cant be both true and false (research is research). btw Dr. Craig has also suggest in two debtes that morals come from God and this is simply not true no matter how you spin it yet he continues to spread these lies.. praise be to allah lol.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on July 02, 2012, 11:38:37 am
sequence46 wrote: I love how you can only reply to "whether or not Jesus existed" but not anything else I raised. Dont you know mohamed has been confimed to also exist too. Does this not pose a problem. They cant both be the only truth, the way, and the light.

I don't believe God intends us to believe he exists based on arguments, this is why I didn't respond to the other stuff. I don't agree with a lot of things Dr. Craig says such as his use of probability theory in the Krauss debate. As for the miracles, as I don't argue that Jesus is the son of God because his miracles can be historically proven. If you say that the miracle stories are plagiarized from other myths, I would ask you to provide evidence. I think you are speaking from a past generation of historical Jesus scholarship. Now people realize that the right way to see Jesus is through first century Judaism, and not greek mythology. I also was not arguing that Jesus existed therefore he is the son of God.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Lawlessone777 on July 03, 2012, 07:21:32 am
Fact, Dr. Craig claims the universe is fine tune. Fact, the universe is not fine tune. Fact, Dr Craigs re-uses a debunked arguement. This is what my post was about.

Now that I can post on something other than my phone I think it'll be easier for me to be clear. Here, Sequence, I think you're running into a bit of confusion. The universe actually is fine tuned for life. This isn't some kind of theistic conspiracy, the discovery of the fine tuned constants and quantities was an independent discovery by secular science. In fact if you read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time he lays this out quite plainly, as does almost every modern day physicist.

The fact is, they're crafting cosmological models which include this fine tuning in its' design so that we can explain it, they're not at all denying the existence of it. Theories of Cosmology which have been largely abandoned such as loop quantum gravity, quantum vacuum fluctuation, or cyclical models have fine tuning in mind, that's why they expand the probabilistic nature of randomly ordered universes in order to account for ours. They try for the "anything + infinity = anything" style of logic. Currently the darling theory is the multiverse hypothesis and superstring theory, which still posits 10 to the power of 500 varying universes on the cosmic landscape, not even close to doing away with fine tuning, and is largely unproven. On some grounds it's unprovable, so I really don't see where you're deriving this statement that Craig is using a "debunked" theory. At most atheists have tried to do away with the Fine Tuning Argument by either appealing to the anthropic principle, which is frankly just lazy philosophy, or this new attempt by Hawking to marry the quantum wave collapse with "top down" history into a sort of weird anthropic quantum principle which has been largely admonished as a philosophical argument, not scientific, and a bad one at that.

So again...don't really know where you're getting this idea from beyond your own need to attack Craig for his belief system.

Also your claim that there is no objective research that's been done into religions and their claims of miracles is plainly false, I honestly think you just haven't bothered to study this subject objectively. I highly recommend Lee Strobel's work as a good jumping off point, such as the Case for Christ, or the Case for a Creator. Also if you're looking into continuing to make the claim that there has been no objective historical study into the miracles of Christ I recommend the work of Mike Licona, or C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. These are all good jumping off points for study, which I suggest you do, as it seems you're hopping onto an apologetic board with a great deal of vitriol and condescension, but not much substance or study.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: Anthony on July 07, 2012, 05:51:41 pm
Like the debate with Klemens Kappel, this one seemed like both speakers were on two different boats in fog. But I think the most radical position taken by Dr. Kari Enqvist was that the very question of the debate is meaningless. It seems like many atheist scientists simply hate philosophy. At least Dr. Enqvist and Peter Atkins do. No wonder for the past 50 or so years, there has been a large increase in Theist philosophers, and we are moving away from the old ways of Bertrand Russell and his gang of atheists who ruled Philosophy departments for the first half of the 20th century. I think Dr. Craig needs to seriously have a one-on-one debate with Daniel Dennett who is a philosopher and is trained in logic.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on July 11, 2012, 03:54:41 pm
Copleston wrote: Like the debate with Klemens Kappel, this one seemed like both speakers were on two different boats in fog. But I think the most radical position taken by Dr. Kari Enqvist was that the very question of the debate is meaningless. It seems like many atheist scientists simply hate philosophy. At least Dr. Enqvist and Peter Atkins do. No wonder for the past 50 or so years, there has been a large increase in Theist philosophers, and we are moving away from the old ways of Bertrand Russell and his gang of atheists who ruled Philosophy departments for the first half of the 20th century. I think Dr. Craig needs to seriously have a one-on-one debate with Daniel Dennett who is a philosopher and is trained in logic.

Though Dr. Craig has debated many philosophers trained in logic, but he did also have an exchange with Dennett, though it wasn't a traditional debate. The link for the audio is here, http://apologeticsorg.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lane-craig-vs-daniel-dennett-on.html
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: baranbaran on June 07, 2015, 02:30:24 am
hell no.....
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Kari Enqvist: "Can the Universe Exist Without God?"
Post by: jayceeii on January 08, 2020, 02:57:31 pm
What truly disturbed me was when I heard Enqvist saying we ought to abandon reason and rationality because of Quantum Mechanics. I've heard Kappal, Krauss, Hawking and Dawkins spout the same thing. They keep saying philosophy is dead, don't listen to philosophers, stop trying to reason with your mind, only listen to scientists and even then only the scientists that are atheists. What I'm seeing is reprehensible anti-intellectualism. They're saying, "Thinking leads to God, so stop thinking, let scientists do your thinking for you."
This is actually extremely interesting, because you have identified “controlling” behavior, that connotes poor mental models for the others in the world. It’s a general human fault hence going unnoticed, and the religions certainly gave no instruction regarding it! The controlling mentality can be seen especially easily in the theories of utopian schemers, whose systems in the end are treating the masses like automatons who will follow their individual will, instead of living persons who think and make their own decisions. In this case spotting a controlling mentality in Enqvist throws the rest of his thinking into question. When the mind forms poor mental models for others, in this case expecting them to stop thinking and only listen to scientists, it proves it is not a very logical mind.