Reasonable Faith Forums

Archived => Craig vs Kappel => Topic started by: Reasonable Faith on May 07, 2012, 01:48:00 pm

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Reasonable Faith on May 07, 2012, 01:48:00 pm
This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Klemens Kappel on October 18, 2011 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Video: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-kappel-copenhagen
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Blake1960 on May 10, 2012, 09:12:04 pm
That was tough to watch.  One can't help but feel sorry for Dr. Kappel.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on May 14, 2012, 12:43:42 am
Have to agree. He appeared totally unprepared. Not for the debate itself, but for the strength of the arguments themselves.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Colin Miles on June 08, 2012, 05:55:03 pm

Kappel was sitting on the fence smugly but appeared totally oblivious to his own "non-position" being a position in itself.

Disappointing to watch as there was no real meaty objections for Craig to counter.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Anthony on June 16, 2012, 06:10:46 pm
In this debate, Craig and Kappel seemed to be in two completely different boats in water with fog. But it comes to no surprise that Kappel, like all of Craig's other opponents, simply failed to refute his arguments which he presented in the opening speech. All Kappel kept on doing was stating that we can know that God does not exist without giving any good reasons why. Overall, Dr. Craig gave the better performance in the debate at a very secular country.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: David Summers on June 29, 2012, 06:47:22 pm
I'm aware that the gentlemen in which Dr. Craig engages in debates
are known to be intelligent in their own respective fields, but I'm
beginning to believe that for the most part they are unable to follow
his arguments. To me Dr. Craig is as clear as it gets with his
presentations and arguments.
I constantly find myself frustrated with the arguments from the
atheist side mainly because of the disjointed, unorganized thought
processes. This includes their main guy in Dr. Richard Dawkins,
among others.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: ktulu Apoca on July 04, 2012, 02:05:33 pm
I believe that the appearance of eloquence is equated in both the amount of experience and the qualifications.  Dr Craig is a highly experienced orator, philosopher and debater.  The majority of individuals that he debates are scientists.  Some are more eloquent then others, but very rarely are they all three.  In such a debate, sadly the debaters end up talking past themselves.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: James Glazier on July 05, 2012, 09:49:48 am
New to the forums here. Also new to apologetics. This is the first debate I have watched of Dr. Craig, but I plan on watching many more. Excellent and engaging. Thank you Mike Edwards for pointing me here.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: FNB - Former non-believer on July 07, 2012, 11:01:39 am
James wrote: New to the forums here. Also new to apologetics. This is the first debate I have watched of Dr. Craig, but I plan on watching many more. Excellent and engaging. Thank you Mike Edwards for pointing me here.

Welcome
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Reductio Ad Absurdum on July 31, 2012, 02:25:48 pm
Craig 'lost' the debate by not having anything to attack. His own position were untouched, and were left jobless.
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chase 200 mph on September 13, 2012, 10:16:02 am
Blake1960 wrote: That was tough to watch.  One can't help but feel sorry for Dr. Kappel.
Faith, an irrational belief in something that presents no evidence and this equates god? I've heard a lot of posturing done claiming evidence of and for god....it always ends the same way....someone always leaves claiming the feel sorry for the nonbeliever and never any evidence. Why do you think this is?ish
Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chase 200 mph on September 14, 2012, 08:31:17 pm
Disciple_of_Jesus wrote: Interesting debate. Denmark is a pretty secular country, just like much of Western Europe. But Dr. Kappel said we can know that God does not exist because we know that all the Gods in the ancient scriptures of other traditions do not exist. I think this argument fails, because Dr. Craig gave a good reason why the God of the Bible is true through historical argument --> The resurrection of Jesus Christ. As far as I remember, Kappel never really said anything about Jesus.

A plus B equals C, then C subtract B must equal A. Why or why not…..

The bible is not a historical reference, it authors are anonymous, historical Jesus was born when? You see, you don’t know now do you and the bible doesn’t really say now does it. Christian renderings give a 60 decade time span to when Jesus was born if we look at everything. The best case scenario is Paul, who could have been alive at the latter of these possible dates concerning Jesus crucifixion…but he would have been very old for that time. What dispels one religion dispel ones’ own in the simple logic equation above…it not my argument and deal with the OP….the equation is either valid and neither religion is vindicated, or it is invalid and both of them do….but in no way does the equation support the argument of the OP, so why take this foolish trek? It’s not like I created the argument, so what problems do you have with it I wonder? Faith is at the heart of Christianity, it is it’s one and only ally and I put forth the challenge “let the believer post evidence to the contrary or except the only thing this religion has to offer”. PS, warning, apologies cannot solve or contradict…..as they were not a part of the matrix according to your post…..

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chase 200 mph on September 14, 2012, 10:04:56 pm
Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:

A plus B equals C, then C subtract B must equal A. Why or why not…..

The bible is not a historical reference, it authors are anonymous, historical Jesus was born when? You see, you don’t know now do you and the bible doesn’t really say now does it. Christian renderings give a 60 decade time span to when Jesus was born if we look at everything. The best case scenario is Paul, who could have been alive at the latter of these possible dates concerning Jesus crucifixion…but he would have been very old for that time. What dispels one religion dispel ones’ own in the simple logic equation above…it not my argument and deal with the OP….the equation is either valid and neither religion is vindicated, or it is invalid and both of them do….but in no way does the equation support the argument of the OP, so why take this foolish trek? It’s not like I created the argument, so what problems do you have with it I wonder? Faith is at the heart of Christianity, it is it’s one and only ally and I put forth the challenge “let the believer post evidence to the contrary or except the only thing this religion has to offer”. PS, warning, apologies cannot solve or contradict…..as they were not a part of the matrix according to your post…..


I simply disagree with you The earliest Gospel is Mark, and it has been dated around 30 years after Jesus Death. The latest gospel was John which came about 60 years after Jesus death. there is a lot of evidence, both historical and archaeological to prove that the Gospels do contain many historical facts.

I simply disagree with you The earliest Gospel is Mark, and it has been dated around 30 years after Jesus Death.

Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

The latest gospel was John which came about 60 years after Jesus death. there is a lot of evidence, both historical and archaeological to prove that the Gospels do contain many historical facts.

Answer: I’ve heard plenty of doctrine making this claim…despite over forty active historians during the time you are about to claim is Jesus’ birthday, none ever heard of Jesus or his birth (or death). There is an absence of the multitudes claimed to have heard Jesus and no artifacts exist to date. But again, please post any evidence to the contrary and we will look at it together….if the mods allow us to that is.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chase 200 mph on September 15, 2012, 09:33:41 am
Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:
Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.

It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.

Answer: Except there are no personal claims now is there…unless you are aware of something I am not? Something not know to the accredited world historically.….

For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.

Answer: Yes…for all we know he may have never been born, the argument he was born is an argument of ignorance. That doesn’t mean anyone is ignorant, it just means there is nothing to go on and the argument stems from this ignorance. To use other words…faith. Who cares? Well if there is no evidence to examine, then no valid debate could have taken place since logic and debate can only example the tactile world and can never be used in an intellectual capacity to determine what one “feels” is  or should be ‘real or tactile” concerning any religion or anything else for that matter. A plus B equals C is what is claimed by the OP….and it simply doesn’t exist as seen by your last post, so in short you have overturned the OP all by yourself. What disprove ones religion disproves all, if this doesn’t seem fair, remember I did create the equation or its outcome, the author of this forum/thread did….

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chase 200 mph on September 15, 2012, 03:00:54 pm
Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:
Answer: Except there are no personal claims now is there…unless you are aware of something I am not? Something not know to the accredited world historically.….

Um.. yes he did. All throughout the Gospels (which are historically reliable) Jesus claims to be the Song of Man, the Son of God and the savior of the world. Have you ever read John 14:6?

With very few exceptions, almost all professional historians and scholars think that Jesus was a real person. We actually have more than enough evidence that Jesus was a real man. Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian who is very well-respected even to this day, and he mentions Jesus in a number of his writings. I Josephus said that Jesus existed, then I think we can make a pretty good bet on it.

Um.. yes he did. All throughout the Gospels (which are historically reliable) Jesus claims to be the Song of Man, the Son of God and the savior of the world. Have you ever read John 14:6?

Answer: None of the gospels are historically reliable, relevant, accurate or otherwise. The simplest test for my claim or yours is this…while you can study the bible in any Public School, College or University but you cannot study from the bible. This kind of study is only for unaccredited schools pushing for recruitment for one of the 38000 Christian denominations of the world. If anything in the bible were accurate, or remaining non-contradicted then there would be one Christian religion only.

With very few exceptions, almost all professional historians and scholars think that Jesus was a real person.

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….

We actually have more than enough evidence that Jesus was a real man.

Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian who is very well-respected even to this day, and he mentions Jesus in a number of his writings. I Josephus said that Jesus existed, then I think we can make a pretty good bet on it.

Answer: How old would have Justine been during the Crucifixion? We cannot even name the date but even what can be verified by dated the writings you speak of makes this claim prohibitive. I am betting there was no real debate as there is no validity to the logic used.

Title: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Chase 200 mph on September 15, 2012, 05:54:15 pm
Disciple_of_Jesus wrote:
Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….

Now, you are just being unrealistic. I can name you one well-respected archaeologist who is not even a Christian, yet he accepts that fact that Jesus really existed: Shimon Gibson.

Archaeology actually confirms certain historical aspects of the gospels, such as the fact that funerals were performed differently in the province of Galilee than the province of Judea. Are you saying that there are absolutely no historical facts in the gospels? You really think people like Pontius Pilate never existed? You think that the town of Nazareth never existed? You think that the Jewish annual religious ceremony at Jerusalem never happened? Honestly, if the gospels were myth, why is there so much history in them?

I think that you have read too much Internet Infidel people like Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and others. They are not very good scholars. Check out Bart D. Ehrman's new book, Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman is not a Christian; He's an atheist.

Quote:

Answer: We know enough to know Jesus is the story of the son of Jupiter as the first self professed Christian historian claims, and that would be Justine Martyr…..

Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.

Answer: There is no evidence of Jesus ever having followers or else what you claim would make perfect sense.

Quote:

Answer: I am afraid you are incorrect here…no accredited Historian makes this claim, neither does any Archeologist. We are told differently in Church and by brethren, but they have lied to us….  

Now, you are just being unrealistic. I can name you one well-respected archaeologist who is not even a Christian, yet he accepts that fact that Jesus really existed: Shimon Gibson.

Answer: So if I simple claim he does not make this claim you would then post what as a source of your knowledge. I mean, if I am being so ridiculous here it would seem to me that the natural response would be providing a direct quote and citation would it not?

Archaeology actually confirms certain historical aspects of the gospels, such as the fact that funerals were performed differently in the province of Galilee than the province of Judea. Are you saying that there are absolutely no historical facts in the gospels?

Answer: Well there were days and nights, and rivers, and some regions were mentioned when they actually existed, but I rather say these kinds of traits are the exceptions.

You really think people like Pontius Pilate never existed? You think that the town of Nazareth never existed? You think that the Jewish annual religious ceremony at Jerusalem never happened? Honestly, if the gospels were myth, why is there so much history in them?

Answer: Superman mentions Obama and New York and more…is superman real?

I think that you have read too much Internet Infidel people like Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and others. They are not very good scholars. Check out Bart D. Ehrman's new book, Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman is not a Christian; He's an atheist.  

Answer: Sorry, but his (Bart D. Ehrman's) (University doesn’t seem to instruct from
   the bible…..and I find nothing that claims the bible is a collection of historical documents. In other words it doesn’t seem to substantiate your claim, perhaps I missed something, could you quote him and cite the location?

Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: brent arnesen on January 11, 2013, 10:00:15 pm
Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.</span>

It would have mattered greatly to the people living during the time. They would have scoured the world for information on a real person.  Mary was, allegedly, living for years after Jesus's death. They could have gone to her.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Asherah-deceased on January 23, 2013, 06:04:24 pm
Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.</span>

It would have mattered greatly to the people living during the time. They would have scoured the world for information on a real person.  Mary was, allegedly, living for years after Jesus's death. They could have gone to her.
The  could have, but did they?  If they did,  why do you suppose Luke and Matthew pegged his birth in different years?
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: brent arnesen on January 24, 2013, 09:08:15 am
Answer: Then all one would have to do is subtract 33 years and you would know Jesus birthday…but you cannot make this claim can you…you use the bible and say Mark says this, the anonymous Mark does NOT give the date for Jesus birth. But far be it for me to argue with you on this…can you please show me where Mark tell us when Jesus was born.

<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn't matter when Jesus was born. What matters is his personal claims and his divinity. For all we know, he could have been born in July, not December. Who cares. That doesn't effect Christian doctrine at all.</span>

It would have mattered greatly to the people living during the time. They would have scoured the world for information on a real person.  Mary was, allegedly, living for years after Jesus's death. They could have gone to her.
The  could have, but did they?  If they did,  why do you suppose Luke and Matthew pegged his birth in different years?

I think we are in agreement.  Indeed, why are there so many discrepancies about Jesus and so little information about him as a man, or his family, etc?

The quick answer is that he didn't exist, or didn't exist as described in the Bible, but was a victim of legendary development.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: brent arnesen on January 24, 2013, 10:21:26 am
I just saw the debate and was quite impressed by Kappel.  I thought he, more than most (except Tabash & Kagan perhaps) cracked the facade of Craig's arguments.

Craig's arguments all require a host of priors that are simply not settled by any stretch of the imagination.

It's becoming rather apparent that Craig's "good explanations" are only good to him and others who think likewise, but not good to anyone who doesn't believe a God exists.

After all, he says the explanation of Christianity makes perfect sense if there is a God.

He seems to ignore that without that prior assumption it makes no sense.

His response, as always, is "well I feel I have good ideas for God".

He may feel that way, but that isn't an argument. His arguments require us to ignore the full weight of modern philosophy that either rejects or questions all of his arguments.


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

Well, if it's not true, it's not.  Or, if there is a plant, if ingested, that can extend our life and make us Gods then the discovery of such a plant is the most important thing we can do.

We can create all kinds of imagined important things.  This is not an argument, it's an emotional appeal.

The irony with Craig is that as he debates more and more people, there is a larger and larger record of his inability to meet the demands of his claims. I respect that he continues to do it, but I'm a little more than concerned that he seems to not learn from his interaction with philosophers and scientists that his arguments are so heavily dependent on priors that simply aren't automatic.

Just because he feels some things are settled, despite the philsoophical community not agreeing with him, is a stark reminder his position is - as he always ends his debates - an emotional appeal to believers to keep believing and not a philosophical argument meant to weed out truths from the chafe.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on January 24, 2013, 03:56:46 pm
I find it strange that people claim that, Brent.

But when it comes to proving that his prior beliefs are unwarranted, they all fail. They fail to prove his "priors" are false. Fail to even prove them unlikely.

That shows his arguments are quite strong.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: col_lok on January 25, 2013, 05:17:29 pm
I find it strange that people claim that, Brent.

But when it comes to proving that his prior beliefs are unwarranted, they all fail. They fail to prove his "priors" are false. Fail to even prove them unlikely.

That shows his arguments are quite strong.

So true!

I also find it annoying how people keep bringing up the age of the arguments ('those arguments are thousands of years old, before we had modern science'), but I know they keep doing that because of their modernist assumptions.

...His arguments require us to ignore the full weight of modern philosophy that either rejects or questions all of his arguments....despite the philsoophical community not agreeing with him

The full weight of the modern philosophy of religion grants a good deal of support to all of his arguments. Why are you disregarding philosophy of religion that is not modern? Modern does not mean better, 'how can you believe this stuff, it is 2013' is not a valid objection, temporal progression does not equate to greater understanding, or anything like that. Obesity levels are an example: in 2013 we have very high levels of obesity, in 1913 these levels were much lower.

By the philosophical community are you talking about Alvin Plantinga, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Peter J. Williams, Peter S. Williams, Chad Meister etc... If so, then I don't so how the philosophical community is not agreeing with him.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Fallan on February 28, 2013, 10:25:47 am
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4">In this debate, Craig and Kappel seemed to be in two completely different boats in water with fog. But it comes to no surprise that Kappel, like all of Craig's other opponents, simply failed to refute his arguments which he presented in the opening speech. All Kappel kept on doing was stating that we can know that God does not exist without giving any good reasons why. Overall, Dr. Craig gave the better performance in the debate at a very secular country.</font> <img border="0" align="absmiddle" src="http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/wave.gif"> </font>

 I havent seen this debate but seen many others by Dr Craig...Ive noticed that there seems to be an agreement by his opponents that the best defense is not to engage in debate of the topic but to become personal by attacking Craigs intelligence. This is a very good indication of their desperation in trying to stem the tide of belief in a created Universe and why they dont debate the issues which they continually keep losing.Now you have the atheist Professor Vilenkin chastising those who look for a way out of the Universe having a beginning because they have to give the answer HOW!
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Curt J. O'Brian on March 02, 2013, 12:47:56 pm
I think we are in agreement.  Indeed, why are there so many discrepancies about Jesus and so little information about him as a man, or his family, etc?

The quick answer is that he didn't exist, or didn't exist as described in the Bible, but was a victim of legendary development.

Quick answers are, in general, the least trustworthy of all. Deep analysis is required on important subjects such as this.

I just saw the debate and was quite impressed by Kappel.  I thought he, more than most (except Tabash & Kagan perhaps) cracked the facade of Craig's arguments.

Craig's arguments all require a host of priors that are simply not settled by any stretch of the imagination.

It's becoming rather apparent that Craig's "good explanations" are only good to him and others who think likewise, but not good to anyone who doesn't believe a God exists.

After all, he says the explanation of Christianity makes perfect sense if there is a God.

He seems to ignore that without that prior assumption it makes no sense.

His response, as always, is "well I feel I have good ideas for God".

He may feel that way, but that isn't an argument. His arguments require us to ignore the full weight of modern philosophy that either rejects or questions all of his arguments.

Atheists disagree with Christian claims? I think if we're all being honest, we can all agree that changing a person's opinion is really difficult in general. Thus, I should think it's obvious that Craig's explanations fall short for non-Christians. That doesn't necessarily suggest that Craig's arguments are bad. In fact, what you're suggesting is that they lack the ability to convince. An argument can be unconvincing, yet still be a strong argument (and vice versa).

Notice that Craig repeatedly mentions in private discussions or lectures that he feels that the moral argument is the most convincing, and that the ontological argument isn't terribly convincing because people are "apt to consider it trickery"? The ontological argument is actually fairly strong and simple, most rejections to it have been dealt with for a long time. Whereas the moral argument is still very much up for debate even to this day, subjective morality is possibly true (though less likely) and many people believe in other forms of objective morality. An argument's ability to convince is not the same as how good it is, it's a package.

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

We can create all kinds of imagined important things.  This is not an argument, it's an emotional appeal

Well, if it's not true, it's not.  Or, if there is a plant, if ingested, that can extend our life and make us Gods then the discovery of such a plant is the most important thing we can do.[/quote]

This is a good analogy for demonstrating your point, but your point doesn't take the full situation into account.

1. Over 30% of the planet does not believe in your plant.
2. You have no evidence for your plant whatsoever, whereas there is--though debatable--good evidence for a god.
3. This isn't an argument for the existence of God, or even an argument to begin with. He's saying that the topic of God is important, not that the topic of God is important, and therefore He exists.

Quote
The irony with Craig is that as he debates more and more people, there is a larger and larger record of his inability to meet the demands of his claims. I respect that he continues to do it, but I'm a little more than concerned that he seems to not learn from his interaction with philosophers and scientists that his arguments are so heavily dependent on priors that simply aren't automatic.

What demands? Most of the time I hear atheists say how Craig's claims fail, but they never give any good examples when they make that claim. Take for example your previous point, you essentially attacks a straw man. You destroyed an argument that wasn't an argument...

Quote
Just because he feels some things are settled, despite the philsoophical community not agreeing with him, is a stark reminder his position is - as he always ends his debates - an emotional appeal to believers to keep believing and not a philosophical argument meant to weed out truths from the chafe.

The philosophical community doesn't agree with what priors, exactly? Most philosophers would agree that the topic of God is extremely important. If there is a deity out there that created the universe, that knowledge is highly important. If there's any evidence for your plant, then that topic is also highly important.

I know since you're an atheist you like to claim that there's no evidence for God whatsoever, but it's irresponsible and unreasonable. There is a lot of it, some good and some not-so-good. Even incorrect positions often have good supporting evidence, so it's quite unreasonable for people to act like there can't be any for theism because they think theism is false.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Timmy1988 on April 22, 2013, 04:59:59 pm
mr craig is a great man and I would enjoy meeting him in person, does he frequent these forums?
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on May 02, 2013, 01:59:40 am
I doubt he visits these forums. But I'm sure you can send him an email thanking him.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Roger Wasson on May 27, 2013, 09:55:51 am
<strong>Blake1960 wrote:</strong> That was tough to watch.  One can't help but feel sorry for Dr. Kappel.
Faith, an irrational belief in something that presents no evidence and this equates god? I've heard a lot of posturing done claiming evidence of and for god....it always ends the same way....someone always leaves claiming the feel sorry for the nonbeliever and never any evidence. Why do you think this is?ish

Always? Why do you think that universal claim is true? What's the criteria? Is reason a crypto-theistic MindGod that supervises the evaluation of universals? How could you ever know, since reason itself is a set of universals?

http://www.ultimateobject.com/
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: TheJackel on June 10, 2013, 08:59:08 pm
<font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4">In this debate, Craig and Kappel seemed to be in two completely different boats in water with fog. But it comes to no surprise that Kappel, like all of Craig's other opponents, simply failed to refute his arguments which he presented in the opening speech. All Kappel kept on doing was stating that we can know that God does not exist without giving any good reasons why. Overall, Dr. Craig gave the better performance in the debate at a very secular country.</font> <img border="0" align="absmiddle" src="http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/wave.gif"> </font>

Actually it's rather easy to disprove the concept of GOD, or render it technically moot..  I can do it by citing Pantheism and asking 3 simple questions, or posting the paradox of the power of opinion.  I am actually amazed that nobody can see what's wrong with William's own arguments. 

Now quoting someone else:
Quote

1. Over 30% of the planet does not believe in your plant.
2. You have no evidence for your plant whatsoever, whereas there is--though debatable--good evidence for a god.
3. This isn't an argument for the existence of God, or even an argument to begin with. He's saying that the topic of God is important, not that the topic of God is important, and therefore He exists.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy argument and isn't evidence... Difference here is that he can empirically demonstrate the existence of his plant to which includes allowing you to see it, touch it, and actually observe its actual existence. It doesn't require "faith".  But we can't say the same when it comes to someone providing evidence of GOD.. Hence, they rest their argument on pointing to existence and things of existence and making the claim GOD done it without providing any actual evidence.. They make positive claims in which they can't substantiate what-so-ever.  Thus the evidence you provide is only evidence of what you are observing, or the universe itself. At no point are you able to provide direct empirical evidence like the kid with the plant can regarding the existence of his plant.  And an importance level of some topic doesn't mean the object of that topic magically exists either.  That falls under the fallacy if you just believe, it somehow magically means it's "true".. That level of dishonesty is very typical...

Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: TheJackel on June 10, 2013, 09:51:00 pm
Quote
<span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Given that all of Jesus' early followers were Orthodox religious Jews, it is very unlikely that they would use pagan myths to construct a fictional character called Jesus.</span>

Wrong, Judaism is Pagan in origin. In fact, the prophecy of Immanuel is a prophecy concerning the Canaanite god EL as a son of EL.. Immanuel means "El is with us" and is referred to as the land of Cannan. Even the Psalms are most likely the hyms of EL (http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm) in which would be consistent with the Amorite deity EL Shaddai, the god of Abraham, a deity associated to the Cannanite GOD EL. You would know this GOD as Amurru :
Quote
    Shaddai is a derivation of a [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiticl]Semitic[/url] stem that appears in the Akkadian shadû ("mountain") and shaddā`û or shaddû`a ("mountain-dweller"), one of the names of Amurru.

    Amurru/Martu was probably a western Semitic god originally. He is sometimes described as a 'shepherd' or as a storm god, and as a son of the sky-god Anu. He is sometimes called bêlu šadī or bêl šadê, 'lord of the mountain'; dúr-hur-sag-gá sikil-a-ke, 'He who dwells on the pure mountain'; and kur-za-gan ti-[la], 'who inhabits the shining mountain'. In Cappadocian Zinčirli inscriptions he is called ì-li a-bi-a, 'the god of my father'.[1] Accordingly, it has been suggested by L. R. Bailey (1968) and Jean Ouelette (1969), that this Bêl Šadê might be the same as the Biblical ’Ēl Šaddāi who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the "Priestly source" of narrative, according to the documentary hypothesis. Amurru also has storm-god features. Like Adad, Amurru bears the epithet ramān 'thunderer', and he is even called bāriqu 'hurler of the thunderbolt' and Adad ša a-bu-be 'Adad of the deluge'. Yet his iconography is distinct from that of Adad, and he sometimes appears alongside Adad with a baton of power or throwstick, while Adad bears a conventional thunderbolt.

    Amurru's wife is sometimes the goddess Ašratum (see Asherah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah)) who in northwest Semitic tradition and Hittite tradition appears as wife of the god Ēl which suggests that Amurru may indeed have been a variation of that god. If Amurru was identical with Ēl, it would explain why so few Amorite names are compounded with the name Amurru, but so many are compounded with Il; that is, with Ēl.

    Sources:

    * The Targum from the Beginnings: "Tablet 1." Retrieved on September 12, 2010
    * Bailey, L. R. (1968). "Israelite ’Ēl šadday and Amorite Bêl šadê", Journal of Biblical Literature 87, 434–38.
    * Cross, Frank Moore (1973). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 10, 57–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-09176-0. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0674091760)
    * Jordon, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods, Kyle Cathie Limited, 2002
    * Ouellette, Jean (1969). "More on ’Ēl Šadday and Bêl Šadê", Journal of Biblical Literature 88, 470f.
    * ETSCL: Narratives featuring deities: Other deities, including "The Marriage of Martu" in Unicode and ASCII.
    * Iconography of Amurru (PDF-article) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch%2Fidd%2Fprepublications%2Fe_idd_amurru.pdf&ei=FrQZUYHSJoTy0wGepoCYBw&usg=AFQjCNH882zciZoHBoUqTx98vDgnOGSbWw&bvm=bv.42261806,d.dmQ)
    * Amurru in Encyclopedia (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tutorgigpedia.com%2FAmurru_es.html&ei=FrQZUYHSJoTy0wGepoCYBw&usg=AFQjCNHiN28mvIzdBfnZcLtYJV7OCJU3pA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.dmQ&cad=rja)

This is a pretty good idea where El Shaddai comes from, and it's relationship with the "God of the Mountains", and "God Almighty". Not only is this Ammorite deity associated with common "GOD of my Father" in the bible,  Also attested explicitly to the GOD of Abraham, and the city of Shaddai.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaddai) We know it's Pagan in origin, and we know Yahweh was equated with the Canaanite GOD EL to which includes being associated with El's wife Asherah..  This god was a mountain GOD, and most likely a Volcano GOD.. You can read a more in depth overview of this here to which is heavily backed by academic sources.  It's a 3 part series to which goes over a ton of information on the subject:

1. Yahweh: The Worshiping Of A Volcano Fire God Of War? (http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=10&action=edit)

2. Mountain GOD Worship: Yahweh, God of the Mountains. (http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=60&action=edit)

3. Yahweh: The Rock of Israel (http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=117&action=edit)

It's also important to note that Exodus was first written in the time of the Therah Eruption to which triggered the collapse of the Bronze age, and the eviction of the Hysksos from Egypt. An eruptions that would account for the narrative of Exodus, Psalms, Daniel, Deuteronomy, and even Revelations.  An eruption that caused a volcanic winter, disease, the burial of much of Egypt in volcanic rock and ash ect.. An event that would have been visible to the entire region of Levant, and that includes as far as the Nile Delta and Israel. It's the single most notable event to which seem to have the largest impact on the evolution of religion. This to which likely lead to monotheism of a Mountain volcano GOD. 





Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: whycatholic on June 25, 2013, 11:41:40 pm
Sad to watch I couldn't even make it through the whole thing.

Craig should have been a better Christian , called it at night after about an hour and taken Kappel to dinner.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Jagella on July 08, 2013, 08:03:52 am
This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Klemens Kappel on October 18, 2011 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

I've only watched the opening presentations so far, but it seems to me that Kappel is doing a much better job than Craig at laying out the groundwork for the discussion. Craig just dives right into the debate evidently assuming that everybody knows what atheism and "God" is. I don't recall Craig even bothering to say much about what his god is or what atheism is. That's sloppy scholarship.

I will give Craig the nod regarding presentation, though. He seems more relaxed and focused than Kappel. None of us should be surprised at Bill Craig's poise  because he is a professional debater, after all.

Jagella--HAPPILY FREED from all the gods
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on July 08, 2013, 08:08:17 am
What did Kappel touch on that you think was missing in Craig's presentation, Jagella?
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Jagella on July 08, 2013, 05:02:47 pm
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
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on July 08, 2013, 05:35:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Asking_A_Question on July 08, 2013, 05:41:55 pm
I've never understood the whole define God thing. First, literally everybody knows what the term means even if there are disagreements. Second, Craig even points out what attributes follow from what arguments.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Jagella on July 09, 2013, 09:55:46 am
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
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on July 10, 2013, 06:28:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Viennacon on July 21, 2013, 11:11:37 pm
Oh, no! Craig assumes people know what 'God' means. What a big mistake. /sarc
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Steve Hopker on September 18, 2013, 04:36:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on September 19, 2013, 12:08:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: Steve Hopker on September 19, 2013, 03:08:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: grosso on September 19, 2013, 10:00:12 am
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"?
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: ixthus116 on September 29, 2013, 03:28:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Dr. Craig vs. Klemens Kappel: "Does God Exist?"
Post by: jayceeii on January 08, 2020, 02:48:50 pm
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.