I watched up to Part 12, so maybe there was more on this later. WLC kept switching back and forth from deistic to the Biblical God as if nobody would notice. There was a portion where he uses the word God, and God only. Then a minute or two later he adds in the phrase Biblical before God.

The whole time I was watching it I was thinking to myself about a God who had "set it and forget it". Then at the end of the arguement he adds in Biblical God. Well that just changed everything.

To be fair though, WLC is a Christian apologist, so maybe he thinks the Biblical part is assumed.

Totally agree, the format was painfully bad. Both sides were sub-par.

Finally finished. I agree that the format was terrible. But I was generally entertained, I just don't think there was too much that anyone will get out of it. I found the debate to be wonderfully ironic though.

lol This entire debate is so comical... not the arguments or anything, just the entire format of it. The boxing ring, the chairs on different sides, Michio Kaku randomly sitting on some steps above everybody, the mixture of Spanish and English, etc.

I think the why questions are relevant, they're just a different kind of question - one we will rarely (if ever) know the answer to in my view. I don't think the correct scientific response is to declare these questions silly or valueless - I think the correct response is to ensure that the answers to why questions don't transform into the answers to how questions by stealth (God made the world, therefore evolution doesnt happen). One further problem with religious questions is you can't really stipulate what the answer has to look like - by ruling out an error-checking process you lose the ability to declare some particular answer invalid. Science does allow us to evaluate different, competing answers - but also places more constraints on our own answers.

To continue your analogy, I think "I don't have a pet elf" is a fine answer to your why question. If someone insists I do they've now moved from religious claims/questions to scientific ones. (Though I'm sure they'll shift back when I ask them where it is and why I can't see it).

For arguments sake, let's assume that this is sound logic. How does one make the leap that God = the Christian God? That's what I don't understand about any theists argument for the existence of God. There are sooo many possibilities of what "God" could be if in fact one does indeed exist.

the arguments of their god over any others is not all that compelling to anyone who doesn't already follow that god.

This is why we atheists constantly scratch our head with theists propose reasons for their beliefs that just as easily justify the many religions/gods they don't follow.

If he thinks it is assumes, he is wrong because the arguments he was presenting were for god in general, not for the Christian god. But he uses all kinds of fallacies when talking all the time, so it's not surprising at all.

That's what I thought would happen with Ayala but he completely dropped the ball. I think Harris will fixate on the Inquisition and the Crusades and won't respond in any way to Craig's answer to that charge. Krauss is unlikely to understand any of the philosophical arguments and I don't expect him to prepare. Rack up 2 more easy ones for Craig.

Notice that Dawkins didn't respond at all when Craig totally ripped his statement that why questions are silly. That statement by Dawkins is so ridiculous on so many levels it's hard to even express. I've come to view these debates as mostly entertainment.

Well, then the exact same answer could be given to the religious "why" questions. "Why are we here?" - "There is no reason why we are here". If the theist keeps insisting, then he is asserting that there is, in fact, a purpose, we just don't know it. Well, by the same token, I can keep insisting that you do actually have a pet elf, you just don't know about it.

Yeah I know. I think "There is no reason why we are here" is a perfectly fine answer.

The topic of the debate was whether or not the universe has a purpose, not the existence of the specifically Christian God. Craig has tons of material of why we go past a bare theistic God to the God of the Bible, he just didn't present it here. Check out his website or his books.

Off of Craig's recap of the debate, his encounter with Dawkins. I would have loved to have seen this, lol.

sounds like a dick...

From NotReady's link:

Does anyone else get the feeling he's just going through the motions now? I mean, comparing "religious knowledge" to scientific knowledge? Is there even one uncontentious example of a true fact that humanity has obtained from religion? One example? Anybody?

I'll easily spend most of my life just trying to get a deep grasp on on the facts known about several complex variables. That's one sub-field of a sub-field of a single scientific discipline: plenty of facts to occupy your life.

How can anyone compare these categories with a straight face?

lol, Dawkins is an ass but I really like "his tone suddenly became icy cold." Well yeah, you just kinda called him a pussy, so there's that.

When you find all those facts what will you do with them?

lol, yeah Craig was definitely taking a shot at him with that comment.

lol, which one?

dawkins mainly...but WLC definitely has his moments...

Yeah totally. You know I love WLC, but he definitely can come off really arrogant. I don't think that he realizes that a lot of what he says is really condescending.

I just think that would have been a really funny encounter to see.

CAN come off really arrogant? I'd be hard pressed to find someone else so dripping with arrogance and condescension, unless maybe I can dig up William F. Buckley.

My main motivation in studying math is to hopefully become sophisticated enough to interest the sort of people I find interesting. (For better or worse, this is a rather small group.)

The point of my post: religion has not provided humanity with even one (1) uncontentious fact, whereas science has generated essentially every known truth. Hence the inanity of Craig's comparison.

Debates are not meant to serve as entertainment. Focus on the arguments made by both sides.

House, clothe and feed people?