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