Archived

Debates: Miscellaneous

Read 19399 times

Maverick Christian

  • ***
  • 1417 Posts
  • I'm also a nerd.
    • View Profile
    • Maverick Christian
Where to find the debate
« on: August 02, 2009, 02:19:24 pm »

Since there is no link (that I could see) on the reasonable faith website for Dr. Craig's debate with Shelly Kagan on "Is God Necessary for Morality?" I'd like to point out that the debate can be found at http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/693.


1

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
Where to find the debate
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2012, 10:52:00 pm »

I am having difficulty locating an MP3 format for this debate if anyone knows of a legal, currently working (2012) download link I would be very grateful.

Or if you have such a file that you can email me.

The Veritas video views OK but I dont have time to stop and listen to it.

I know ripping it is possible and I could but.....  



Edit - 8/30/12
Registration at Veritas.org went through then downloaded. A great debate.

This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.

2

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
Where to find the debate
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2012, 11:16:20 pm »
The moral argument is one of the best and easiest to defend IMHO.

That's because it is attended by the obvious logic that;

A moral law (or any other law for that matter) which is not or can not be enforced, can hardly be called a law at all
 - let alone called an objectively ''moral'' law.

In other words, if nobody punishes the sinner then the notion of sin is meaningless.

And we can see how subjective atheist morality is by observing how easily a person can selectively avoid punishment
simply by moving from one jurisdiction to another...from the moralty "A" jurisdiction to the morality "B" jurisdiction.  

This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.

3

brent arnesen

  • **
  • 953 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where to find the debate
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2013, 09:50:17 pm »
The moral argument is one of the best and easiest to defend IMHO.

That's because it is attended by the obvious logic that;

A moral law (or any other law for that matter) which is not or can not be enforced, can hardly be called a law at all
 - let alone called an objectively ''moral'' law.

In other words, if nobody punishes the sinner then the notion of sin is meaningless.

And we can see how <strong>subjective</strong> atheist morality is by observing how easily a person can selectively avoid punishment
simply by moving from one jurisdiction to another...from the moralty "A" jurisdiction to the morality "B" jurisdiction.

It seems you didn't hear the debate. You may have listened, but you didn't hear.
I really don't even know what your objection has to do with the debate.
The implication that morals could change doesn't change the fact that atheism may be true.

After all, I look at the world and see people doing exactly what you say they could do under atheism, whereas I have not seen one person sent to Heaven or Hell.