conversationpc wrote:Rip Rokken wrote:conversationpc wrote:It's all well and good for Dawkins to diss on Craig from the comfort of his keyboard. The fact that he addresses him at all is actually sort of astonishing since he's still refusing to show up. Considering that, his comment about addressing Craig with "gloves off" is quite hilarious. It's rather easy to argue with "gloves off" in that case, isn't it?
I'm pretty firmly convinced that given enough prep time, I could make Craig look pretty silly in a debate. I wouldn't try to fight his fight, but instead draw him back down from the cosmos to earth where people can relate to the discussion. I think it would be remarkably easy to make his arguments seem irrelevant as far as the existence of a theist (not deist) god goes. Simple example - if he started rattling off about the "Is/Ought Distinction" or the "Ought Implies Can Principle", I'd just ask the audience to think... if that's what it takes to
actually convince people there is a god, then how can it ever be argued that God wants all to come to belief? I'd also ask for a show of hands of those who understood his point enough to repeat it. It would be remarkably simple.
With a due respect, and I know you to be an intelligent guy, you'd stand no chance against Craig just like I wouldn't against Hitchens or Dawkins.
Sure I could. First, I've become pretty comfortable with public speaking over the years, so as long as I had good outline notes (and took more during his statements) , I could remain pretty articulate. Second, I'm quite used to his style and know how he presents his cases, and how he counters - I'd know what to expect. I wouldn't give him any reason beforehand to think that I'd be fighting dirty (which I wouldn't, really), so hopefully he'd retain the same type of structure. Third, I've recognized the gaps in the counters to his arguments - the gaping missed opportunities - and would recognize and take advantage of them when possible. Forth, and really most importantly - I can connect with people and speak in a way that the majority can relate to - not just dazzle them with philosophy and knowledge - because ultimately, I don't think it's really a debate about what we know, but what we believe (faith), right? I would not just duck his points, but explain simply to the audience why I didn't think most were subjectively relevant to belief in an interactive, theistic god -- not hard to do.
Sure, it would be a David vs. Goliath situation, and he doesn't like to debate anyone who isn't heavily credentialed. Of course I'd be respectful - not try to make him look like a fool - but it's just not that hard to make his points look absurd. See my next response below.
I've watched several, several debates, and William Lane Craig is by far the most boring and unrelatable of all the theistic debaters I've watched. And I should add, insincere in some respects. He's really a Christian politician - a spin doctor.
conversationpc wrote:Of course, he's a "spin doctor", according to you. You don't agree with him. In all fairness, Guys like Dawkins seem the same way to those of us taking the opposing view. Come on. Unless you know something he's done that's untoward, the "politician" and "spin doctor" accusation is really only a reach with no evidence to back it up, the same thing, by the way, that you accuse Christians of relying on in regards to their faith.
To follow up on my response above, I think there is plenty of evidence. When you can't counter rational arguments with rational responses, but just cover them up with blanket grand statements of faith, then you're spinning... He does exactly what I've seen politicians do - pinning them down on an issue is as tricky as catching a chicken, and it's a skill, plain and simple - not a factor of intellectual honesty or accountability.
I challenge you to watch the two clips I posted above of the Craig vs. Harris debate, especially noting Craig's response in part 5 to Harris' crystal clear, subjectively easy to understand arguments against the moral "goodness" of the Biblical god, and tell me he isn't spinning. If you don't want to watch them, I'll be happy to transcribe them.
