Link for Tabash is here as the old one has been taken down I think. http://video.google.nl/videoplay?doc...6259607745595#

debates with Hector Avalos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeRTB4zxeo4

and Bart Ehrman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk

For me he dodges and fails to answer the questions posed to him, sorry if you thought I misrepresented the debate but this was a summary from another website. I'm not sure if it is to far from the truth though

Im not sure NR why you say he doesn't mention the bible much when against Alvos he begins his debate with the Bible. Craig seems to want to stand in the middle of issues and say 'In christanity thats fine we don't have poof'.

Why should Alvos have a burden of proof to say Jesus resurrected when its doubtful he even existed

I also thought you misrepresented the debate. I've seen several of his debates and he doesn't make arguments like "The Bible says it so Christianity must be true." If that's what you thought he was saying, then it looks like you didn't understand his arguments.

I don't recall Ehrman trying to refute the main points that Craig brought up. I think Ehrman just made a case for his own position and ignored Craig's arguments in favor of the resurrection.

When I should have said. The Bible says so according to Mark (an independent source according to Craig) and also alot of Christian New Testament scholars. If I dont 'get it' please enlighten me. Also why is it on us to disprove the resurrection?

If it is on the non-believers to disprove please disprove for me that Micheal Jackson is Dead.

The Avalos debate was an obvious exception because the topic was the resurrection. However, as I recall, Craig insisted that for this topic, he was not claiming the Bible as the infallible word of God but was treating it as any other ancient, historical document and subject to the same rules as historians apply to those documents.

The definition of "eternity" is extremely fuzzy in that statement, as though he's implying that eternity refers to a time period longer than 15 billion years. A more accurate statement would be that the Big Bang model describes a universe which is eternal in the past and which came into being a finite time ago. Or in other words, the big bang describes a universe that is as old as time itself, and has existed for all time. Eternity is a finite period of time in our universe.

Your use of eternal is also extremely fuzzy. If eternity means timeless then the phrase "eternal in the past" mixes the ideas of time and timelessness. There are problems when discussing concepts like infinity and eternity. Craig has written extensively on time and its relationship to God and the universe. I haven't read those books but I expect you can't raise any objections he hasn't dealt with somewhere in his work.

I think the thread is being derailed somewhat, Krauss has to be applauded about his method of communicating what the origins of the Big Bang may have been. Im not sure how Craig fits in to this as he is mearly speculating that a God started it as it came from nothing. If we find out the multiverse theory is correct his argument will change from 'the big bang could not have come from nothing to the multiverse could not have come from nothing"

The truth is conceptualizing these ideas is near to impossible for the greatest minds of our time, so its entirely possible that we are unable to fully comprehend it, never mind suggest we know the relationship between 'Nothing' and our universe.

Craig is familiar with all the major cosmological theories. He has stated most if not all of the content Krauss did in that video, as have the RTB guys. Frankly, Krauss said nothing in that video I haven't heard from Craig and RTB.

If I'm not mistaken, the current theory is that ANY reality that involves inflation is past-incomplete, meaning it had a beginning, which I think was formulated by Borde-Guth-Valenkin. My knowledge here is very superficial but that is what I understand. So yes, Craig would claim the multiverse had a beginning, based on current cosmology.

*edit* You know what, I wrote a reply but I have no interest in this BS so forget it.

I didn't say it was on non-Christians to disprove the resurrection. I just said that I didn't recall Ehrman trying to refute the main points that Craig brought up. By 'main points' I was talking about things like the empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances.

Also, it's just not true that he only uses Mark, and that he only supports his arguments with the opinions of Christian New Testament scholars. There are skeptical New Testament scholars that support some of the facts that make the case for the resurrection, and they still deny that the resurrection happened.

I'm going to guess, they'll mis-translate whatever tablets we send them into ten or so suggestions for proper living, then build a system of living around it until one of their people says it's messed up, gets nailed to a tree for it, and is then held up as the original creator of those tablets.

Not exactly. That thread was to make your best argument that the existence of God is obvious from rational inquiry. In my first post, I pointed out a number of ways that the argument fails - not just to make God's existence obvious, but to offer a proof at all. You didn't want to address that post, so I asked for support for a single premise. That would have been the first in a series, but the first was never addressed.

To be clear, I do not admit that the universe has a cause. I simply granted a number of premises for the sake of argument. And I did point out more than once that assuming the universe has a cause does not imply it was created from nothing.

Your Craig link, as I already posted, refers to nothing from our universe. If Barrow and Tipler, or anyone else, has made a positive claim with support that nothing exists outside our universe, I would love to see it. And it would be even better if that nothing contributed to a proof of God's existence - and better still if that existence was obvious. While I wait, I'll stand over by my earlier prediction.

B & T said this, as I previously quoted:

So I guess your argument is with them. Write a paper or something.

Any response to my earlier question? A quantum vacuum is not absolutely nothing, right?

I have no argument with Barrow and Tipler. From what I have read, they agree with me. I suspect that you do, too, but as with so many related topics, you are simply unwilling to admit it. As predicted.

Presupposing that God exists and these arguments are valid I would love to see somebody try to logically deduce that Jesus is the son of god.

here is craig vs shelly kagan...

kagan is philosophy professor at yale (from the death lecture)...im watching it now...its very different than when craig debates the regular atheist types...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7acm-...aynext_from=PL

edit: sorry, the link is to part 5 not part 1...cuz thats the one im watching now...

This is a bit off topic and I'm not necessarily even directing this at NotReady:

In what sense would the future scientists be incorrect? As far as I know, the universe is basically by definition everything that can be observed. If something is unobservable, then in what sense could it be considered part of the universe?

A related question: is there any meaningful difference between that which is unobservable and that which does not exist?

Interesting. Will watch later. I watched an entire course by Kagan online a few months ago, The Philosophy of Death.

That was an excellent debate. Not really theism vs atheism (well, not exactly) like most debates linked here. Worth it's own thread imo

cliffs: WLC is distraught at the concept of the heat death of the universe, therefore God exists.

The debate wasn't about the existence of God.

I know. Just thought it was amusing that to me it seems like WLC primary reason for believing in God is the cosmic insignificance of our behavior without one. As for the question debated it seemed to boil down to WLC demanding cosmic meaning and Kagan not seeing what this has to do with anything. Kagan concedes that there is no objective cosmic meaning to our actions with regards to heat death of the universe. It seems to me that WLC is so deeply disturbed at the concept of there being no ultimate justice in the universe that this alone is his reason for believing... since he concedes atheists can act morally, etc.

This was an interesting debate.

FYI, someone sent in a written question to Craig about the debate which he discussed here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=7259

Some interesting stuff in his answer.

Edit: Kagan is most definitely not a "new" atheist. Those guys could learn a lot just from his approach.

Because something is unobservable doesn't mean it cannot exist.

I don't see what this has to do with the question you quoted.