A blog where I discuss intelligent issues and discuss rationality, logic, evidence and my non belief in sky daddies.
That was enjoyable to watch. Thanks for sharing, Mike, i don't usually go looking for debates to watch.would you explain why you think that W L Craig was being thrashed?My opinion was that neither had the upper hand.johnny
well for a start, he kept refuting his arguments. William lane craig didnt even understand that atheists dont have to give evidence for there lack of belief in a sky daddy
Mike, as much as you want to deny this, Wolpert did not refute anything. They both were playing "games". Wolpert was using a simplified version (e.g. his "special computer") of what is often claimed as the Christian response, in order to not address Craig's premise.The other thing, Mike, the presumption of atheism was not the point that Wolpert was making (at least as far as i can tell). What i actually think he was doing, was the same thing that Plantinga had done to Anthony Flew (which is the reason why the presumption of atheism is not pulled by atheistic philosophers anymore), and i would imagine that is why Craig may not have pressed the issue (it also could have been due to time available or maybe scope).In my opinion, that was a pretty good move by Wolpert, he still didn't address any of Craig's premises.Thanks for responding.johnny
Post a Comment