William Lane Craig on The Michael Coren Show 1/5

William Lane Craig's appearance on The Michael Coren Show from Thursday January 29, 2009. Discussion and debate on the existence of God.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Michael
• Coren
• Show
• Does
• God
• Exist
• Debate

[GoReRoTTedDeAtH]

I thought the age of the earth was 4.54 byo.

[Christianjr4]

@GoReRoTTedDeAtH

The word "world" is also synonymous with the Universe, especially in philosophical discussions. That Craig used this term shouldn't be that surprising since he is after all a philosopher.

[pezzamange]

@JCrownwell

You must have watched a different debate to me, that's all I can say. Hitchens has always made it clear (at least to me) that he is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't make the claim 'no gods exist' he merely rejects the evidence provided for any, which we all do with virtually all supernatural claims, including yourself of other gods, I'm sure. It shouldn't be hard to understand. You can say it was ugly for Hitchens but its subjective, cos I totally disagree.

[JCrownwell]

@pezzamange

Under cross-examination from Craig (watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0), Hitchens, now sweating profusely and even feigning technical failure with his mic, dodges Craig's questions repeatedly regarding where he stands epistemically.

Under ridicule from the audience, Hitchens eventually concedes, claiming that he is an atheist (the assertion: "God does not exist"), and thus invoking a burden of proof which he subsequently proves unable to carry.

It was a very ugly moment for Hitchens.

[JCrownwell]

@pezzamange

Hitchens initially defines his belief as an "absence of belief" in God, but does not specify which of the 3 epistemic sub-categories of "absence of belief" he adheres to.

1. Atheism: "There is no God"

2. Agnositicism: "I neither believe nor disbelieve in God"

3. Verificationism: "The question is meaningless."

As an agnostic you can claim a singular burden of proof on theist and criticise theistic arguments, but you cannot, by definition, posit the non-existence of God.

[JCrownwell]

@pezzamange

"I've never heard an atheist say that"

The quote was from Luke Muehlhauser from Common Sense Atheism. He's actually one of the very few philosophically competent atheists to run a review blog which covers Craig's debates - a post-positivistic naturalist, who seems to understand the metaphysical, ontological, epistemological basis of arguments for and against theism.

[pezzamange]

@JCrownwell

Well that is pretty subjective. I've never heard an atheist say that, I thought Hitchens was particularly eloquent in that debate while Craig just said his usual rubbish like a robot, despite the fact all his arguments have been refuted a million times before.

Hitchens gave, time and time again, very clear descriptions of atheism and where the burden of proof lies yet Craig continually failed to understand.

What questions specifically did Hitchens dodge?

[JCrownwell]

@pezzamange

You mean the debate in which Hitchens fared so poorly that he was even lambasted by atheist academics?

Sorry, but let's be objective here. :)

It was Hitchens who struggled to provide an adequate description of atheism, and dodged some very clear questions by Craig to the ridicule of the audience.

watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0

"Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child" (CommonSenseAtheism)

[pezzamange]

@Vimesisdaman

Is that a joke? He debated Hitchens for 2 hours and by the end WLC still didn't seem to be able to grasp what atheism even meant. He defends hideous acts in the Bible including massacres in the name of god, he is also a very poor philosopher. All he has is that he is a good and confident speaker.

[Vimesisdaman]

@adlerbr12 He spanked Hitchens to an embarrassing degree. I haven't seen him debate Harris.

[12ut5]

WLC is a broken record. Always says same thing, yr. in yr. out.