Craig vs. Rosenberg - Page 3 - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

Craig vs. Rosenberg

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

02-01-2013 , 08:51 PM

#51

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

I lost internet for about a minute so missed a bit myself.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 08:52 PM

#52

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Sooooo happy to hear him giving genuine alternatives to objective morals than divine command theory.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 08:54 PM

#53

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Yeah it's weird coming from a moral nihilist though. Craig might have an easy rebuttal on that point.

Good argument that WLC needs to actually demonstrate the failure of every secular moral system for his moral argument to hold.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 08:55 PM

#54

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

While I personally like that Rosenberg is going into such detail, I feel like the audience is probably glazing over at this point. Not to insult Purdue, I know they are elite and everything. Just saying.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 08:56 PM

#55

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumby

Yeah it's weird coming from a moral nihilist though. Craig might have an easy rebuttal on that point.

By pointing out that Rosenberg rejects his own argument?

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:00 PM

#56

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Aye. But to be fair, I was making tea during most of that bit, so I don't know if R preempted that

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:00 PM

#57

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Did... did he just equate scientism to naturalism? ?!?!?!?!

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:04 PM

#58

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Yeah, but Rosenberg explicitly does the same in his book (one of the reasons I think R is a net negative for atheism)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosenberg

[...] we’ll call the worldview that all us atheists (and even some agnostics) share “scientism.” This is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when “complete,” what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:06 PM

#59

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Facepalm.jpg

Also not happy that the rebuttal section is thus far a rebuttal of arguments the audience hasn't heard the opponent make rather than actually rebutting what the opponent said in the debate.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:07 PM

#60

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Hooray intuition!

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:09 PM

#61

Husker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 12,977

Quote:

Originally Posted by BustoRhymes

I was just thinking that. Came in half way through Rosenberg's arguments and was wondering if I missed the parts that Craig seems to be arguing against. He seems to be responding to Rosenberg's book I think.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:09 PM

#62

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Craig now defending determinism. Wait... doesn't "everything has a cause" refute libertarian free will? Bleurgh, arguing against apologists is like playing Whack-A-Mole

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:11 PM

#63

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

I think it's great that both are so familiar with each other's work, but this is a debate. The opening statements need not connect, but the rebuttal is supposed to counter what the opponent actually said. Sheesh.

Okay, Craig actually countering Rosenberg's points now. Good show.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:12 PM

#64

Pokerlogist

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,318

Watching. It's like the Superbowl only without the commercials and the halftime show! (needs cheerleaders).

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:12 PM

#65

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumby

Craig now defending determinism. Wait... doesn't "everything has a cause" refute libertarian free will? Bleurgh, arguing against apologists is like playing Whack-A-Mole

Yeah, this is a potential mistake that I wonder if Rosenberg will pick up on. You can't disprove something with something you think is false.

Well, you can, but... You know.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:15 PM

#66

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

People don't say "callow" often enough imo

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:16 PM

#67

Pokerlogist

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,318

TV not showing his book . lol

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:17 PM

#68

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumby

People don't say "callow" often enough imo

Metaphysical callowism FTW?

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:18 PM

#69

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

LOL Rosenberg. "I'm done with my rebuttal, but since I've still got 8 minutes, I'm just gonna brainstorm. Hang on for a wild ride!"

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:23 PM

#70

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Hmm, I will be interested to hear if Craig gives the response to why God would allow such intense suffering that I've seen him give in non-debate talks.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:25 PM

#71

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Agree with Craig that Logical Argument From Evil is weak. Putting theists in the position where they only need to show possibility rather than plausibility essentially validates their poor grasp of what makes a belief rational.

Quote

02-01-2013 , 09:30 PM

#72

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Got a feeling that, as usual, Craig's coherence will make his arguments carry more weight with the audience than his opponent's. Rosenberg said some fine things, but it's not as clearly connected or summarized as Craig. Tough to tell if you agree with something you don't follow.