Great Pumpkin

  • ***
  • 1089 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:31:57 pm »
" Shelly Kagan looks like a nice guy, too bad he doesn't know much about the subject being addressed"

(And this after Craig was obviously out of his element)

This is how Christians dismiss anything that doesn't support their view.  Then, they elevate a guy like Craig to some demi-god by saying that he knows more than Professor at Yale (Kagan), or a Yale & Harvard Professor at Physics (Krauss)....

I'd encourage Christains to take heed of their Bible and take the beam out of their own eye.
God is not the Father. At least, he's not apparent to me.

1

Judah Savitt

  • **
  • 608 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2012, 04:24:18 pm »
Didn't Dr. Craig address that this was not actually a full on debate? I remember him saying multiple times that the people arranging the event did not want him to lay on any "knock down argument" but merely show his point of view. However Dr. Craig is very strong on the moral argument and has debated it numerous times and I believe if they were to have another debate WLC would certainly show his side to be superior since I do believe he is correct. Furthermore he did great in the debate with Krauss where you teach is of little importance just because Krauss knows a lot about physics and mathematical equations does not mean that he has anything substantive to say about the existence of God. If I remember int he debate krauss seemed to stay away from the physics side of things for the most part! I expected his case to be very strong in the science/physics side of things but instead he spent his time attacking logic and saying that 2+2=5 lol. It appeared to me that Krauss didnt want to dig to deep into the physics of things being held up on his mistaken idea of what nothing actually constitutes, could it be, perhaps that he was afraid of Dr. Craig unearthing the truth?

2

Great Pumpkin

  • ***
  • 1089 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2012, 09:51:37 am »
lionofjudah wrote: Didn't Dr. Craig address that this was not actually a full on debate? I remember him saying multiple times that the people arranging the event did not want him to lay on any "knock down argument" but merely show his point of view. However Dr. Craig is very strong on the moral argument and has debated it numerous times and I believe if they were to have another debate WLC would certainly show his side to be superior since I do believe he is correct.

This is the most absurd rationalle for Craig doing poorly - and he did poorly.  Kagan wiped the floor with him.

If it was a scholarly conversation with a leading professor in a subject that truly matters, why would Craig leave his best, strongest and most rigorous material home?

Come on, even you can see that.

Kagan showed that he simply knew more about the subject, and Craig had no responses, or tried to weasel his way towards apologetic weasel answers.

Craig is NOT very good on  the moral issue.  He has repeatedly shown that he knows his position, but does not grasp contrary positions.  The Kagan debate clearly exposed this.

Again, Craig may have been asked to keep his rhetorical debate tricks at home (and to him this means leaving his strongest stuff at home), but he would have been encouaraged to bring his best SCHOLARLY arguments to the debate.  He did, and they were lacking.

Even the questions he asked showed that he didn't understand Kagan's position, and he tried to pin words on Kagan as if they were bad words... "you're a determinist" (when he knew Kagan was a compatibalist..)


BTW, why bring up Krauss? trying to change the subject?
God is not the Father. At least, he's not apparent to me.

3

Randy Everist

  • ***
  • 1737 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Possible Worlds
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2012, 11:46:04 am »
GreatPumpkin wrote:
This is the most absurd rationalle for Craig doing poorly - and he did poorly.  Kagan wiped the floor with him.

If it was a scholarly conversation with a leading professor in a subject that truly matters, why would Craig leave his best, strongest and most rigorous material home?

Come on, even you can see that.

Kagan showed that he simply knew more about the subject, and Craig had no responses, or tried to weasel his way towards apologetic weasel answers.

Craig is NOT very good on  the moral issue.  He has repeatedly shown that he knows his position, but does not grasp contrary positions.  The Kagan debate clearly exposed this.

Again, Craig may have been asked to keep his rhetorical debate tricks at home (and to him this means leaving his strongest stuff at home), but he would have been encouaraged to bring his best SCHOLARLY arguments to the debate.  He did, and they were lacking.

Even the questions he asked showed that he didn't understand Kagan's position, and he tried to pin words on Kagan as if they were bad words... "you're a determinist" (when he knew Kagan was a compatibalist..)


BTW, why bring up Krauss? trying to change the subject?

First, in lion's defense, you brought up Krauss. Second, not even all atheists think Kagan wiped the floor with Craig, or even won (see Common Sense Atheism, if I remember correctly). Third, there's a bit of an irony here, as compatibilism just is determinism--that's what is supposed to be compatible! So, rather than Craig misunderstanding, it seems you have misunderstood. Fourth, you didn't really offer us anything of substance. I'm not sure anyone should take you seriously.

"Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane."

Check out my blog, "Possible Worlds," at http://www.randyeverist.com

4

Chris Dotson

  • **
  • 500 Posts
  • Aww shnap!
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2012, 02:36:14 pm »
Don't bother responding guys, all this little boy knows how to do is troll.
God, let your will be done. Amen.

5

Great Pumpkin

  • ***
  • 1089 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2012, 08:28:49 pm »
RandyE wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
This is the most absurd rationalle for Craig doing poorly - and he did poorly.  Kagan wiped the floor with him.

If it was a scholarly conversation with a leading professor in a subject that truly matters, why would Craig leave his best, strongest and most rigorous material home?

Come on, even you can see that.

Kagan showed that he simply knew more about the subject, and Craig had no responses, or tried to weasel his way towards apologetic weasel answers.

Craig is NOT very good on  the moral issue.  He has repeatedly shown that he knows his position, but does not grasp contrary positions.  The Kagan debate clearly exposed this.

Again, Craig may have been asked to keep his rhetorical debate tricks at home (and to him this means leaving his strongest stuff at home), but he would have been encouaraged to bring his best SCHOLARLY arguments to the debate.  He did, and they were lacking.

Even the questions he asked showed that he didn't understand Kagan's position, and he tried to pin words on Kagan as if they were bad words... "you're a determinist" (when he knew Kagan was a compatibalist..)


BTW, why bring up Krauss? trying to change the subject?

First, in lion's defense, you brought up Krauss. Second, not even all atheists think Kagan wiped the floor with Craig, or even won (see Common Sense Atheism, if I remember correctly). Third, there's a bit of an irony here, as compatibilism just is determinism--that's what is supposed to be compatible! So, rather than Craig misunderstanding, it seems you have misunderstood. Fourth, you didn't really offer us anything of substance. I'm not sure anyone should take you seriously.


I brought up the name, but not the substance of the debate.  See it in context.

Craig tried to make it sound that Kagan was a strict Determinist, which is not the same as a Compatibilist.  You know this and so does Craig, so now you are just continuing the disingenuous debate tactics.

I did bring something of substance.  The substance is that people on this very thread claim that Craig himself said that he "backed off" because he was supposed to have a scholarly discussion not a debate.

I know you have trouble seeing the difference, and the importance, but in a scholarly discussion, there is no reason to leave your best material at home, only your debate tactics and tricks.

Craig is not the same level of scholar as Kagan, and would be lost in any scholarly discussion in which he actually had to have a grasp on any view other than his own.
Kinda like you, actually.  I've seen your blog and notice you learn other positions enough to make snide attacks but leave our massive amount of substance.

anything to bolster the faith, eh?
God is not the Father. At least, he's not apparent to me.

6

Judah Savitt

  • **
  • 608 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2012, 09:31:38 am »
Woa a lot of ad homs here. Dr. Craig said that the veritas forum said they wanted a discussion not a debate. I have no reason to think he is not telling the truth due to his commitment to living a moral life but more importantly because I have not heard any different.  Dr. Kagan nor the veritas forum has said any different so your merely asserting he is lying without any proof. Furthermore,  I think Dr. Craig is actually quite strong with the moral argument ive seen him literally tear peoples arguments apart. (Harris) And he has done won all his *debates* on the moral argument, arguably. He may be stronger in the kalam and resurrection  but I would say the moral is probably his third strongest argument. And I never brought up Krauss am I missing a joke?



7

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2012, 08:52:21 pm »
lionofjudah wrote: Woa a lot of ad homs here. Dr. Craig said that the veritas forum said they wanted a discussion not a debate. I have no reason to think he is not telling the truth due to his commitment to living a moral life but more importantly because I have not heard any different.  Dr. Kagan nor the veritas forum has said any different so your merely asserting he is lying without any proof. Furthermore,  I think Dr. Craig is actually quite strong with the moral argument ive seen him literally tear peoples arguments apart. (Harris) And he has done won all his *debates* on the moral argument, arguably. He may be stronger in the kalam and resurrection  but I would say the moral is probably his third strongest argument. And I never brought up Krauss am I missing a joke?



If Craig had a strong moral argument we would have seen it by now. we haven't, despite your assertion that he tore Harris apart, it doesn't change the fact that he is very weak in anything other than sound bite apologetics.

I know he is known for his philosophy on Time, but largely because people reference it for one option that when brought to the conclusion Craig does, isn't convincing (see the Stanford site).

Of course, the apologist simply reverts to, "well, of course the secular world doesn't agree with Craig, because of their materialist presuppositions".

Forget that other theists disagree with Craig, etc..............
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

8

Judah Savitt

  • **
  • 608 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2012, 09:38:36 pm »
I do think that he has a strong moral argument. He does in fact do very little or none sound bite apologetics. And can you reference where exactly in the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it states that Craigs conclusions are unconvincing? Ive noticed you buddy, you like to assert things without giving any kind of justification or proof. You sir, are a troll. How old are you, 16?

9

skeptic88

  • **
  • 265 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2012, 08:13:44 am »
Lion, if you have ever taken a course in ethical theory (and my bet is that you haven't), you would notice that most authors hold that ethical relativism is not sustainable, and that the jump to an objective morality can, and indeed is, be accomplished by secular means.

Apart from perhaps a quick detour into why divine command theory is wrong, most ethical theory texts work precisely without appeal to god. Yet according to Craig, this couldn't possibly be.

The conclusion: Craig's argument, that objective morality requires a supernatural being, is so wrong that it is completely ignored in academia.


10

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2012, 08:51:03 am »
lionofjudah wrote: I do think that he has a strong moral argument. He does in fact do very little or none sound bite apologetics. And can you reference where exactly in the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it states that Craigs conclusions are unconvincing? Ive noticed you buddy, you like to assert things without giving any kind of justification or proof. You sir, are a troll. How old are you, 16?

So, if I post the part where it says it, what do you do?  Apologize, or simply wave it off and act as if you are still somehow right in your impression of me.  After all, you have Faith, right?  How wrong can you ever be with the power of the Lord on your side?

Craig uses a similar, intuitive notion of "smaller than" in his argument concerning the library. It appears that the set B of red books in the library is smaller than the set A of all the books in the library, even though both have the same (infinite) size. Craig concludes that it is absurd to suppose that such a library is possible in actuality, since the set of red books would simultaneously have to be smaller than the set of all books and yet equal in size.

Critics fail to be convinced by these paradoxes of infinity.

In effect, whether Craig's response to the quantum objection succeeds depends upon deeper issues, in particular, the epistemic and ontological status of quantum indeterminacy and the nature of the Big Bang as a quantum phenomenon.

This is the conclusion of the section on the Cosmological arguments as a whole.

Finally, even if the Cosmological Argument is sound or cogent, the difficult task remains to show that the necessary being to which the cosmological argument concludes is the God of religion, and if so, of what religion. Rowe suggests that the cosmological argument has two parts, one to establish the existence of a first cause or necessary being, the other that this necessary being is God (1975, 6). It is not clear, however, that the second contention is an essential part of the cosmological argument. Although Aquinas was quick to make the identification between God and the first mover or first cause, such identification goes beyond the causal reasoning that informs the argument. Instead, to give any religious substance to the concept of a necessary being requires lengthy discussion of the supreme beings found in the diverse religions and careful correlation of the properties of a necessary being with those of a religious being, to discern compatibilities and incompatibilities (Attfield). Defenders of the cosmological argument point to the subsequent relevance of such a task; critics find themselves freed from such endeavors.

You can read it yourself and see how Craig's claims are responded to.  They are not accepted as convincing.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/



On Time/Eternity:

Third, some hold that nothing that existed outside of time could be the cause of temporal changes, and therefore, since God is a causal agent who brings about changes in the world, he must be in time. This is the view of William Lane Craig who says

Imagine God existing changelessly alone without creation, with a changeless and eternal determination to create a temporal world. Since God is omnipotent, his will is done, and a temporal world begins to exist…. Once time begins at the moment of creation, God either becomes temporal in virtue of his real, causal relation to time and the world or else he exists as timelessly with creation as he does sans creation. But this second alternative seems quite impossible. At the first moment of time, God stands in a new relation in which he did not stand before…this is a real, causal relation which is at that moment new to God and which he does not have in the state of existing sans creation. (Craig, 1998, 222)

Craig argues against the idea of divine timelessness on the grounds that, since the creation is contingent, God must have relations with his creation that he would not have had had there been no creation. As Craig understands matters there are two alternatives. One is that at the moment of creation, God becomes temporal in virtue of coming to possess a real, causal relation to his creation of the world, a relation that previously he did not have. Alternatively, God exists as timelessly with creation as he does sans creation. But, says Craig, this second alternative seems quite impossible. This is because he believes that it is impossible for what is timelessly eternal to bring about temporal changes.

The chief problem with this hybrid view is over the way in which the argument is set up, the coming into existence of the world being represented as an A-series temporal event for God. Craig has the idea that it is possible that God exists in a timelessly eternal fashion and then enters time upon creating a temporal universe. But this seems confused. There can be no temporal ‘and then’ for a timelessly eternal God. Even if the universe is created in time, and even if a timelessly eternal God eternally creates the universe by willing a temporal succession of events without changing his will, he has a timeless relation to each of these.

Another objection to timeless divine eternity is that these ideas, of God outside time and the universe as created with time, are crude and pre-scientific. The modern physical view of the universe is that time and space are linked in fundamental ways. There is therefore no such thing as absolute time, and the debate as to whether God is in time or timeless is over an outdated issue. But the theory of relativity is generally taken to support the idea that the universe is a 4-dimensional space-time block, that time is a matter of perspective and that an ideal knower outside the universe would observe it ‘all at once’.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/



So, while you spend your time accusing people of trolling, I'm actually reading about philosophy.

But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

11

Satarack

  • **
  • 427 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2012, 10:52:47 pm »
cartersmith, In reading your reference to the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy, I noticed that its criticism of Craig`s timeless God prior to the creation are not substantiated.  It asserts that such an idea is confused, but offers no reason why we should reject the concept of a state that is absent of time.

Additionally, it attacks the notion of absolute time that Craig also defends, but what is left unsaid is that its attack is predicated on logical positivism.  Prior to Einstein`s work on relativity, the dominant view of time had been Newtonian; which was a view of absolute time.  With the advent of relativity, the only possible reference plane that could have absolute time would be a reference plane at complete rest; but according to relativity it is in principal impossible for an observer to determine if reference plane is moving or at rest (since all observations are relative).  As a result, Einstein and early 20th century Physcists and Philosophers rejected the existence of an absolute reference plane, because according to logical positivism only verifiable things are meaningful knowledge.

But given the collapse of positivism in philosophy (logical positivism itself cannot be verified by its own standards, thus it self destructs), there remains no reason why we should reject the idea of an absolute time.

12

Damon

  • **
  • 30 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2012, 10:31:34 am »
Satarack wrote: cartersmith, In reading your reference to the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy, I noticed that its criticism of Craig`s timeless God prior to the creation are not substantiated.  It asserts that such an idea is confused, but offers no reason why we should reject the concept of a state that is absent of time.

Additionally, it attacks the notion of absolute time that Craig also defends, but what is left unsaid is that its attack is predicated on logical positivism.  Prior to Einstein`s work on relativity, the dominant view of time had been Newtonian; which was a view of absolute time.  With the advent of relativity, the only possible reference plane that could have absolute time would be a reference plane at complete rest; but according to relativity it is in principal impossible for an observer to determine if reference plane is moving or at rest (since all observations are relative).  As a result, Einstein and early 20th century Physcists and Philosophers rejected the existence of an absolute reference plane, because according to logical positivism only verifiable things are meaningful knowledge.

But given the collapse of positivism in philosophy (logical positivism itself cannot be verified by its own standards, thus it self destructs), there remains no reason why we should reject the idea of an absolute time.

Lol. Sorry I know I have nothing positive (no pun intended) to contribute to the conversation but this just made me laugh..for it being correct of course.

13

Anthony

  • **
  • 64 Posts
    • View Profile
Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2012, 01:23:18 pm »
At this point, I honestly believe that this whole subject of Ethics, and what is the ultimate source of them is pretty much a waste of time. We all know that if God exists, then objective moral values exist, and if God does not exist, then objective moral values also do not exist. But simply asserting that it seems like there are objective moral values does not constitute any evidence that there really are. If there was anything good that Stephen Law said in his debate with William Lane Craig in October 2011, it was that it seems like the Earth is not moving, yet it is. The same goes for why the Moral argument simply fails. It's not an argument, but rather, it can show people the difference it makes if God exists.
My account name, 'Copleston' is named after the famous Jesuit Philosopher, Frederick Copleston, who famously debated atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell on BBC Radio in 1948.

14

DrewMazanec

  • Guest
Re: Typical Christian response to Kagan
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2012, 08:52:43 pm »
This is not the first time I have seen Dr. Craig befuddled like this. He gets this way in Defenders, generally when he is discussing issues with cranks. These discussions generally do not make it to the podcast (because they are usually before or after class), but they are weird to listen to.

I remember one Jesus myther named Ron who went after Dr. Craig with all sorts of confident assertions, made up statistics, inferences disguised as facts, and the like. Dr. Craig questioned him respectfully, but for the most part, he just seemed puzzled by the whole thing. How do you argue with someone who will bite any bullet rather than admit a weakness in his position?

Kagan spends the entire debate throwing out bald-faced assertions regarding the intrinsic value of human beings. He repeatedly derives an ought from an is. He denies that if everything we accomplished would be completely and permanently undone in the future, it would not make a difference regarding the value of the work. I have argued with Calvinists and young-Earth creationists who argue the way Kagan does. It is really, really demoralizing.

So if you are willing to redefine "winning" a debate to mean "being louder, more abrasive, and more forceful than your opponent" then yes, Kagan won. But that would also mean that Kent Hovind is the undisputed champion of debate.

But to answer the question about whether this is or is not a debate, it is not. It is a dialogue. Debates require opening statements, formal rebuttals, and concluding statements at the podium. A dialogue is where two people give opening statements, ask questions back and forth, and then answer questions from the audience.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 08:55:32 pm by DrewMazanec »