tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post7589589605781668689..comments2024-03-22T07:16:35.188+00:00Comments on Against Heresies: Richard Dawkins won't debate William Lane Craig (updated)Martin Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-68433956754841827782012-06-20T20:46:39.273+01:002012-06-20T20:46:39.273+01:00As a freethinker, I think Dawkins just did it righ...As a freethinker, I think Dawkins just did it right not to debate William Lane Craig. Hmmmm, because if Dawkins did debate William Lane Craig, Dawkins would lose very badly; just a thought.<br /><br />Sandy from <a href="http://www.sciecloche.net" rel="nofollow">scie cloche pour carrelage</a> Sandyhttp://www.sciecloche.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-28803117108933926322011-09-04T20:46:19.626+01:002011-09-04T20:46:19.626+01:00Two comment: 1) One of the problems with internet ...Two comment: 1) One of the problems with internet atheists like anonymous is that they watch some debates with Craig and then judge his entire scholarship based upon this. It seems that they are unaware of the fact that in debates there is not enough time for Craig to even scratch the surface of his published works. But they don't care since they are often too lazy or do not have the intellectual wherewithal to dig into the scholarly material. 2) If Dawkins's real reason for not debating Craig is that he would be "bored" as someone said, why does he continually change his excuse for not debating? And why does he give excuses that demonstrate his deep ignorance of Craig and his work?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00350571981755853004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-84263253988696139582011-08-20T14:55:52.061+01:002011-08-20T14:55:52.061+01:00I've seen several debates by Lane Criag on You...I've seen several debates by Lane Criag on Youtube and it seems to me he just restates common Christian arguments for God and the problem of evil etc that have been rehashed a million times, in fairly articulate manner. But I don't find what he says especially interesting or original or convincing and neither is he very witty or entertaining. I expect Dawkins and Toybee just feel bored at the prospect and I am a bit bemused if this kind of stuff is sufficient to get you touted as the world's greatest Christian apologist. I can't see his talks convincing anyone but the already converted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-25381911429348527852011-07-01T03:55:14.457+01:002011-07-01T03:55:14.457+01:00William Lane Craig would eat Dawkins' lunch! D...William Lane Craig would eat Dawkins' lunch! Dawkins knows it, and I suppose we can say his only hope of "surviving" and making himself falsely appear to be the "fittest" is to run from the debate. He's terrified of Craig, so he resorts to mocking as a cover.<br /><br />The best comment was, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it." LOL.THEOparadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214982083585956095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-20570249079532367532011-06-17T11:09:51.325+01:002011-06-17T11:09:51.325+01:00"William Lane Craig is an idiot who is a Moli..."William Lane Craig is an idiot who is a Molinist."<br /><br />Good luck spreading the gospel by picking on trivial, in-house fights.<br /><br />For those of you who are interested in the REAL debate (or lack thereof), this viewing should be useful:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpEBirdieuponhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01337080662357591452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-5190397577381249582011-05-17T05:42:26.917+01:002011-05-17T05:42:26.917+01:00Ha, I liked that video of Craig and Atkins. Especi...Ha, I liked that video of Craig and Atkins. Especially since I haven't seen Craig with a beard before.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04232209481041145155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-2260706363775750932011-05-17T03:13:58.108+01:002011-05-17T03:13:58.108+01:00My word, Charlie. You seem to frequently post in a...My word, Charlie. You seem to frequently post in a lot of blogs I frequent. Maybe you should consider simply reading in silence rather than embarrassing yourself. Seriously, when you open with, "So and so is an idiot..."Robert Kundahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04795192698199602925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-66206185152120400602011-05-15T19:32:10.982+01:002011-05-15T19:32:10.982+01:00From 'Reasonable Faith'
"May I sugge...From 'Reasonable Faith'<br /><br />"May I suggest that, fundamentally, the way that we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit?" (p. 31)<br /><br />"Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith. For the believer, God is not the conclusion of a syllogism; he is the living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob dwelling within us. How then does the believer know that Christianity is true? He knows because of the self-authenticating witness of God's Spirit who lives within him." (p. 34)Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-2373543025576201292011-05-15T18:08:43.875+01:002011-05-15T18:08:43.875+01:00Does the Universe Have a Purpose?<a href="http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2010/11/youtube-debate-does-universe-have.html" rel="nofollow">Does the Universe Have a Purpose?</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-37237078267725637442011-05-15T18:07:56.218+01:002011-05-15T18:07:56.218+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-89199760023424113702011-05-15T18:06:49.007+01:002011-05-15T18:06:49.007+01:00thin air, that is.thin air, that is.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-13711854078712303142011-05-15T18:06:14.939+01:002011-05-15T18:06:14.939+01:00William Lane Craig is an idiot who is a Molinist. ...William Lane Craig is an idiot who is a Molinist. He believes that reason leads to faith. In other words, we don't begin with Scripture but with reason. Clue number one: unassisted reason always leads to atheism. Craig is simply a sophisticated version of Dawkins himself since Craig's basic view is that a sovereign God is inherently unjust. <br /><br />Craig is an enemy of the doctrines of grace and a semi-pelagian. After watching the debate Craig held against the atheists in Mexico or wherever it was, I had to ask myself, "WHAT?" Craig's answers were just rationalistic arguments out of then air. The ONLY arguments that mean anything are arguments from revelation in God's Word, Holy Scripture.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-44511435667333601352011-05-15T08:44:22.854+01:002011-05-15T08:44:22.854+01:00William Lane Craig has an excellent article on why...William Lane Craig has an excellent article on why children had to be killed at <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767" rel="nofollow"> Craig speaks </a>Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.com