BiolaUniversity
Captured February 1, 2013 at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN.
Resources for further study: http://apps.biola.edu/apologetics-store/collections/the-symposium-at-purdue-product-recommendations
Apologetics Events Around the World: http://www.apologeticsevents.com
Get Your M.A. in Christian Apologetics: http://www.biola.edu/apologetics
Source
This was interesting..thank you.
like this debate but the video stops too much
jesus, the false Messiah…Rabbi Tovia Singer and Rabbi Michael Skobac explain why…visit youtube site for Judaism 101. http://www.outreachjudaism.org http://www.bejewish.org http://www.aish.com http://www.chabad.org http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
This was Not the best debate. Dr. Rosenberg seems like he was forced into it at gun point. He does not want to be there, nor does he respect his opponent. If he did not have a book to sell, I doubt he would have shown or be invited. I hope the book sold well, he clearly is suffering for it.
As to the actual points given, William Lane Craig presented things I have heard over & over. They are strong arguments, but to get him to bring forth others, you need to engage him. That happened a little, but not much.
Dr. Rosenberg was very obtuse & caustic. It was used to good effect once. I find his approach emotionally moving, but logically callow. Callow is the exact word he choose to use to describe his opponent, but it applies more to his own case. Vague gesturing only leads to further questions, & at some point needs to end. I would have liked to see him reach that end, rather than cry about the format, or his distaste for his opponent. I feel for what Dr. Rosenberg has gone through, & what his family has, but he fails to justify his feelings logically.
I can logically stand back from the Holocaust & give my opinion. I don't have family that died, & my family fought with the allies. It is that lack of burden to allows me to be objective, but it also means I can never grasp what he went through because of it. All I have is the logical points. I echo his statements there, evil was done. That is kind of my point though. If evil people kill & oppose your people, what would that make you? A victim? A person put through struggles? Or is it that your people are good & that is why evil people hate you? He has to decide & he has chosen to use victim in this debate. It maybe honest, but not the best strategy.
In the end it is hard to say anything, except that those people were evil in their actions & Dr. Rosenberg's family did not deserve what they got. The only take away I can get is that there are large emotional reasons to be hurt there. I cannot say it logically gives reason to doubt God exists, but emotionally loss is personally compelling. The problem of evil is an emotional argument, & is not the necessary outcome of suffering. You can choose to overcome. I feel you dishonor those that died, by not accepting what they died for. They died for their beliefs, there is nobility in that. He has a right to those feelings, but I hope he can overcome them in the end.
I can enjoy theses debates, even if I fully disagree with both sides. What I feel was worthless, is dragging on man kicking & screaming on to the stage. The people who put this on should have called it off & let Dr. Rosenberg sell his book in forms he approved of. This discourse could have been fruitful, if Dr. Rosenberg wanted it to, but his sarcastic, 'I would believe if…' is just the apitomy of why he should not have been on that stage. He did not enter it willingly, the result is apparent.
Dr. Craig is a beast!
Debating starts at 17:15, if you wish to save some time.
There are, by now, several articles on the web that have dissected why Craig is such a great debater, e.g.,
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-atheists-almost-always-lose-to-William-Lane-Craig
http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/02/why-most-atheist-debaters-suck-compared.html
If atheists argued with the same enthusiasm, passion, dedication, and preparedness, we would see a well-matched debate, not a slaughter. I enjoy watching these debates as sporting events, not because either side actually proves anything. This topic in particular is tantalizing, because naturalists and rationalists expect atheists to win out-of-hand, but Craig really puts them to the test!
Finally an atheist philosopher that takes his arguments one at a time instead of rambling on about old testament ethics and not being consistent. I thought Rosenberg did a great job of briefly dismantling each of these arguments and making them unreasonable enough to not warrant they be used for faith in a deity.
Exodus 21:20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property". JEHOVAH THE LORD
Rosenberg is an amazingly bad philosopher.
Exelent ending from Alex, if you want use reasons for god, you will lose it.. In Europe there is faith and science not in conflict, only in America..
so we must believe in god to save us from the things god is going to do if your not…. hahahaha funny and it's just a fairy tail from some kind of ruler to keep the people in line…
Also those people making fun of Rosenberg are missing the boat entirely
Sorry you're so angry Rosenberg, I know it's tough.. but "no one learns from someone they hate"
This Mr. Rosenberg's way of rebuttal is so pathetic…he just keeps saying "eh look scientists dont believe this they dont believe that.." what kind of argument is that? is the debate to be settled using democracy eh?? Well going by his argument, I can also quote the names of many many many scientists and founding fathers of science who were very religious and conclude that Mr.Rosenberg is therefore an idiot to believe in atheism..such a shallow argument from a philosopher..pathetic
Craig makes so many straw-man arguments, he misinterprets Rosenberg. Also, he jumps from A to C in every argument.
ffs if Rosenberg can be a professional philosopher so could I
Idk I'm a kid
https://samzlogic.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/causality-and-the-emission-of-alpha-paticle/ Here I discuss why alpha ray emisison does not disprove the need for a creator or first cause.
Alex, the fact that God, offered His Son, as payment of the the debt of man, so that law breakers can escape judgement, This alone proves God's goodness.
Alex, rejection of God is expected, of you. You must receive the gift from God, or you will never believe. What is that gift, faith. Faith as a noun, which results in a verb. People have free agency, not freewill. Dr. your discription of "faith" is not totally accurate. You can't trust God unless He give you the gift of faith. Please rethink your thinking about your thinking on the subject and definition of faith.
Alex, you are judging God by your standard and view. Try to think about the meaning of the word God. What is God, and why is God, and what is His purpose in dealing with man. To do this you must understand the scriptures and most do not. God had a plan, a God plan, not a man plan. God can do what ever God chooses to do. Who are you man/ Alex of clay, telling the potter/ God how to write his plan.
You two guys, your Premises that there is a universe of space and plants, is just wrong. Just read Genesis 1, and Job 38 to start with. The earth is not a planet. it is a plain with up turned edges and a dome that sits on God's pillars. We live in a biosphere. It is a closed system. We are being lied to by our government and the Christians don't read their bible as well as they should. Christians spend to much time listening to big bang and evolutionists, which effects their thinking. Not good..
theists usually seem to me more happier and well thought out than atheists….just an observation
+sciencetrumpsfaith "Vic, have you ever visited someone in the hospital after they have had a severe stroke? They may no longer be able to speak or even recognize a spouse of 50 years. This clearly proves that memory is destroyed when the brain gets damaged."
What if all that's happening is that that part of who they are has left their physical body? Your examples are not answering this sort of question. You're talking about the capabilities of the human body while a person is assigned to it, you're not speaking to the possibility of the body simply being a flawed and fallible construct which the soul attempts to use.
And again, this doesn't address Craig's cosmological argument which, along with the analysis that follows it, is an argument for the existence of an unembodied mind. Left unrefuted (which it still is), it can be considered evidence for one.
Dr. Craig's 12 minute rebuttal is the death knell of metaphysical naturalism.
Your guide to Rosenberg's stupidity: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/rosenberg-roundup.html#more
Dr. Rosenberg also realized that if God doesn't exist we don't exist either.
Dr. Rosenberg realized the real issues that atheism implies (the absurdity of Nihilism and negacionism in everything) and he continue accepting this view. But seems that he think that way because he have a confused mind about these issues, I hope he open his mind to the reality someday.
+Gary Whittenberger No, I don't think there is anything wrong with Craig's style of debate. If anything, I think most debaters should be taking notes.
And you have it completely backwards, concerning this "benefit-to-harm ratio" thing. It is your argument that is trying to say things would be better if we all had more evidence, in order to show that god cannot exist. Otherwise, you're simply asking a question, not giving an argument. As I said, so long as it's possible that god would have sufficient reason to withhold this evidence, then the argument falls short of disproving god's existence.
"Also, since hell and heaven are hypotheticals, you can’t use them as facts in an argument."
Wrong. This illustrates a bias on your part, to grant god's existence for the sake of argument but not grant the existence of heaven (and/or hell) for the same sake. You have to analysis the whole story, not just what you've arbitrarily decided is most important.
"You will need to point to what would be benefits and harms in this life."
Not at all, because by any interpretation what happens in this life is not the more significant question. All your argument can really aspire to disprove is a finite god, if you cut out the notion of an afterlife.
"If God existed, the upside of a clear revelation would far outweigh the downside"
How can you know that? This seems to be making claims about people's psychology out of the blue. Because if it is the case that most atheists are atheists mostly because they simply find the idea of following, worshiping a god unappealing, then that strongly implies the evidence wouldn't matter. There's a great many atheists using the emotional version of the problem of evil argument right now! Take a listen to Stephen Fry's YouTube video sometime! And Hitchens, before he died, said he hoped it wasn't true. It could very well be the case that if they came to know for a fact that god existed, they would become even more angry, not less.
Answer: Yes
At 40:18 Dr.Rosenburg says, "This is the wrong format for a profitable discussion of faith or God or science and reason." Well then – uhhh – ummm – uh – why did you agree to the debate since you clearly knew this is how Dr.Craig debates?
Dr. Rosenberg thinks we shouldn't accept Christian scholars who write about Christian documents and Christian doctrine. Should we then accept atheist scholars writing on atheistic philosophy?