http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/isuaas/

scroll to bottom for mp3 of the debate

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=hector%20...

related videos


NOTE: regarding the "self refuting epistemology" of rationalists as stated by william lane craig - i found a great post which summarizes it better than i can ever say it:

"I apologize if this is off-topic, but it is relevant to Craig's debating style. I think Craig uses some pretty lame arguments actually. They are like philosophical card tricks. The problem is that most opponents don't point them out. For example, I know most will disagree with me, but I did not think he won the Avolos debate, in substance. Maybe he won rhetorically, but it seemed pretty hollow to me. Because Dr. Avalos said repeatedly that Craig's four "facts" were not facts at all. And I thought Avalos gave good reasons. Craig's main recourse to try and reaffirm his "facts" were fallacious appeals to authority and majority, which should immediately have been pointed out. Then Craig used one of his favorite philosophical party tricks and said that Dr. Avalos' empirical rationalism is "overly restricitive and self-refuting". Craig loves that phrase and has used it before..it sounds so final and devastating but it is really just fatuous pretentious blather. On the "self-refuting" point, he said that it cannot affirm itself. And here is where it pays to know some philosophy..all he is doing is a verbal expression of Godel's proof that a theorem or system cannot proove its own axioms without contradiction. So it doesn't actually refute itself, he is just demonstrating a "self-referrential incoherence"- which turns out to be a universal truism. And the reason Dr. Craig claimed that Dr. Avolos' epistemic methodology was "overly restrictive" was because it doesn't explain how we know that something is morally good, beautiful, etc.. But here Craig is doing a slight-of-hand trick, because, as he surely knows, Dr. Avolos' stated epistemic methodology was in reference to determining historical truth. So it involves a different language-game (to borrow Wittgenstein's term) than aesthetic or moral judgments. So his claim that Avolos' methods were "self-refuting and overly restricitive" is pure B.S. Ironically, he complained about Avalos pulling some academic tricks on an "untrained audience"; but Craig depends on an untrained audience to pull off his nonsensical refutations. I expect I would discover the same kind of intellectual chicanery if I explored the cosmological arguments in depth as well. Anyway, just an observation." - Will77

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:je21lgzQ-BgJ:debunkin... (less info)