tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post2399586078473414745..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: W.L. Craig DebateRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-89697810883719990212009-12-02T21:52:55.972-08:002009-12-02T21:52:55.972-08:00Maybe we can not firmly rely on the gospels becaus...Maybe we can not firmly rely on the gospels because they were approved under the conviction of creecias and political expediency of epoca.Por Therefore, if they had passed all those who were ruled to have fewer rather controversial because the written word would been more open to scrutiny and truth. Religiously speaking.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517561752065575460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-73491353665629762742009-03-31T07:41:00.000-07:002009-03-31T07:41:00.000-07:00Going through Craig's essays online and through so...Going through Craig's essays online and through some of his books, it has amazed me that despite his proclivity for making simple arguments sound complicated, he really provides no persuasive argument for his theological or historical claims. His turgid analyses are obviously designed for the believer to use as rhetorical defenses for their improbable beliefs. I give him credit for being Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-50401595945890937032009-03-25T11:26:00.000-07:002009-03-25T11:26:00.000-07:00As promised earlier, I have replied to comments ma...<I>As promised earlier, I have replied to comments made here about the debate, in comments appended to my post about the debate, starting <A HREF="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/03/craig-debate-wrap.html?showComment=1238004360000#c5126632145318997007" REL="nofollow">here</A>.</I>Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-28342216361608674592009-03-25T07:35:00.000-07:002009-03-25T07:35:00.000-07:00techboy,ok.. it works now. last time i had reach...techboy,<BR/>ok.. it works now. last time i had reached my "viewing limit" by skipping through pages. But I was able to view it this time. <BR/>thanks.<BR/>WillWill77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-82223333195255802632009-03-24T17:15:00.000-07:002009-03-24T17:15:00.000-07:00Will Fenio, When I cut and paste this link:http...Will Fenio,<BR/> When I cut and paste this link:<BR/><BR/>http://books.google.com/books?id=DZ8XzHSJpd4C&pg=PA1&dq#PPA239,M1<BR/><BR/>into my browser, it brings up the Google Books limited preview, which for me includes the relevant pages.<BR/><BR/>Does that work for you?Alan Schwalbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997028608880954890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-83701803779436502332009-03-24T16:58:00.000-07:002009-03-24T16:58:00.000-07:00techboy,I agree. I'm sure McCullagh also apprecia...techboy,<BR/>I agree. I'm sure McCullagh also appreciates his methodology being employed by Craig as well. As it will bring many new people to his work.<BR/>I tried to check out pgs 238-239 on the e-book but it wouldn't let me. Do you know of any other way of viewing those pages online? If not, no big deal. thanks.<BR/>-WillWill77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-71172882219411216582009-03-24T16:20:00.000-07:002009-03-24T16:20:00.000-07:00Posted on the debate (very likely my last words on...Posted on the debate (very likely my last words on WLC, in fact) <A HREF="http://leoquix.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">on my own blog</A>.<BR/><BR/><B>Ó</B>Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-69581501229990286232009-03-24T15:50:00.000-07:002009-03-24T15:50:00.000-07:00Will Fenio, Yes, and actually Dr. Craig address...Will Fenio,<BR/> Yes, and actually Dr. Craig addresses Dr. McCullagh's comments on page 238 and 239. <BR/><BR/>http://books.google.com/books?id=DZ8XzHSJpd4C&pg=PA1&dq#PPA239,M1<BR/><BR/>My point was not that Dr. McCullagh agrees with Dr. Craig's conclusions. In fact, I think it's more powerful that he <I>doesn't</I> totally agree (As your cite mentions, Dr. McCullagh agreesAlan Schwalbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997028608880954890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-20283469135995661402009-03-24T15:00:00.000-07:002009-03-24T15:00:00.000-07:00I think WLC puts out too many points to defeat all...I think WLC puts out too many points to defeat all at once. You should just concentrate on maybe one of his arguements and tear that one arguement to bits. And mention that due to time constraints, you won't address the other points unless there is time afterwards. And just emphasize that just because you didn't address the other points, doesn't mean they are infallible. You can then mention thatblindingimpedimentshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11177629718481162402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-24363546861553211342009-03-24T13:13:00.000-07:002009-03-24T13:13:00.000-07:00I noticed that McCullagh's endorsement of Craig's ...I noticed that McCullagh's endorsement of Craig's book does not actually state that he agrees with his assesment of the resurrection. In fact, if you look at McCullagh's book "Justifying Historical Description", on page 21 he says, "...the Christian hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead. This hypothesis is of greater explanatory scope and power than other hypotheses which try to account for Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-17015178434820653802009-03-24T12:38:00.000-07:002009-03-24T12:38:00.000-07:00techboy,thanks for directing me to the text and cl...techboy,<BR/>thanks for directing me to the text and clearing that up. I was looking at McCullagh's criteria out of the context of the rest of his book. that's why I ended my first remarks with "that is how i take it to apply". Craig's understanding of it, and I assume McCullagh's, is that the hypothesis in question initiates a causal chain of events which can be detected empirically in the Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-1814736040967268552009-03-24T09:30:00.000-07:002009-03-24T09:30:00.000-07:00Will Fenio, You might be the only one to notice...Will Fenio,<BR/> You might be the only one to notice that Dr. Craig only makes use of 6 of the criteria because you're wrong. In his book <I>Reasonable Faith</I>, he references all 7. My guess would be that he drops the first in debates because it's not directly relevant, and also because it's easily misunderstood (as you have), and so would likely sidetrack argument, which is Alan Schwalbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09997028608880954890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-27021533139763543762009-03-21T17:58:00.000-07:002009-03-21T17:58:00.000-07:00Jeanne,sure. I will simply follow the form as cit...Jeanne,<BR/><BR/>sure. I will simply follow the form as cited above but plug in Craig's case for the resurrection:<BR/><BR/>The statement (Craig's claim that Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead), together with other statements already held to be true (that Jesus was tried, executed, and experienced in post-death visions) must imply yet other statements DESCRIBING PRESENT, OBSERVABLE DATA (Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-6191419554262422842009-03-21T12:09:00.000-07:002009-03-21T12:09:00.000-07:00Will,Would you mind providing a bit of analysis fo...Will,<BR/><BR/>Would you mind providing a bit of analysis for what the first criterion entails?<BR/><BR/>I couldn't make up my mind on how it could be fairly applied historically.<BR/><BR/>ThanksUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14951114499942100550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-85632735693120188952009-03-20T15:44:00.000-07:002009-03-20T15:44:00.000-07:00Just so everyone is aware: as I find time, I will ...<I>Just so everyone is aware: as I find time, I will reply to comments made here about the debate, in comments appended to my post about the debate <A HREF="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/03/craig-debate-wrap.html" REL="nofollow">here</A></I>.Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-65343358310461827752009-03-20T12:48:00.000-07:002009-03-20T12:48:00.000-07:00Brian, thank you for the MP3 file. I can't f******...Brian, thank you for the MP3 file. I can't f****** stand those streaming Flash players. Blech.<BR/><BR/>And Thinker, for goodness' sake can you please not do a cut-and-paste dump of Craig's entire article? How about a short quote and a link next time? Manners and all that.Pikemann Urgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02587558012877707537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-78060181101562096292009-03-20T08:42:00.000-07:002009-03-20T08:42:00.000-07:00I'm sure that i am not the only one to notice this...I'm sure that i am not the only one to notice this. But it occured to me that whenever Dr. Craig refers to the criteria of C. Behan McCullagh to establish the best historical explanation, he conveniently leaves out the very first criterion. And when you read it you can see why.. here it is: "The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-4573613602109523782009-03-20T06:08:00.000-07:002009-03-20T06:08:00.000-07:00Any comments to Craig's response to what Carrier h...Any comments to Craig's response to what Carrier has written in this blog? Quoting Craig:<BR/><BR/>"I had seen those comments... and I think they're due to a misunderstanding, that's all. When Landon Hedrick at Northwest Missouri State invited us to participate in a debate, Richard stated three topics on which he was willing to debate: (1) Are Moral Facts Evidence of God?, (2) Does God Care Aboutthinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00099748402248639287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-76324519887232649992009-03-20T05:18:00.000-07:002009-03-20T05:18:00.000-07:00MP3 Audio of the Craig/Carrier debate can be found...MP3 Audio of the Craig/Carrier debate can be found <A HREF="http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/03/richard-carrier-vs-william-lane-craig.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. May be easier than listening off the web page player.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14939074645029376866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-59752725944123371552009-03-19T18:32:00.000-07:002009-03-19T18:32:00.000-07:00As someone who was there, let me clear something u...As someone who was there, let me clear something up.<BR/><BR/>First of all, the quote is 'That was certainly a shotguns of argument<I>s</I>', and was therefore a reference to the quantity, and not the quality, of the argumentation.<BR/><BR/>And secondly, the comment was not made in Carrier's opening speech, but in his first rebuttal; thus, he was responding to Craig's rebuttal to Carrier's philip mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03966414858455732474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-9971373353201236622009-03-19T17:04:00.000-07:002009-03-19T17:04:00.000-07:00"Of course, but this is not what you initially cla..."Of course, but this is not what you initially claimed. To refute an argument Craig Makes, one would only have to point out a fallacy or a false premise (or something along these lines). This wouldn't require addressing the argument *in its entirety*."<BR/><BR/>I think you misunderstand me. My original point was not that Craig demands every single word of an argument be refuted, but that one mpghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445199879510273357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-88766094110975050672009-03-19T16:55:00.000-07:002009-03-19T16:55:00.000-07:00"my opponent must refute all of my arguments and t..."my opponent must refute all of my arguments and then prove his own.' And after that he frequently ends with something like, 'I believe we've heard no good reasons for atheism/naturalism/agnsoticism/etc and all my reasons for theism/christianity/etc still stand.' Never heard him say something like this?"<BR/><BR/>Of course, but this is not what you initially claimed. To refute an argument Craig Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-90526762172751707672009-03-19T16:46:00.000-07:002009-03-19T16:46:00.000-07:00I have never heard Craig claim that his opponent h...I have never heard Craig claim that his opponent has failed to deal with *every single point* he raised, or even suggest that his opponent has any obligation to do so.<BR/><BR/>Wow! He used to say this all the time! Go back to some of his earlier debates and you will see that he ends his opening statement, particularly when debating the existence of God, with something like, 'for atheism to be mpghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445199879510273357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-48512593212947242112009-03-19T16:39:00.000-07:002009-03-19T16:39:00.000-07:00"As an avid watcher of Craig, surely you have noti..."As an avid watcher of Craig, surely you have noticed that he tends to charge that his opponents haven't dealt **with the entirety** of his arguments."<BR/><BR/>I have never heard Craig claim that his opponent has failed to deal with *every single point* he raised, or even suggest that his opponent has any obligation to do so. Craig doesn't claim that X failed to respond to some minor point he Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-6639246936596737842009-03-19T16:30:00.000-07:002009-03-19T16:30:00.000-07:00I'm sure that anyone who is both familiar with the...I'm sure that anyone who is both familiar with the subject matter and who has studied Craig's standard, completely unsurprising opening could come up with a brief point-by-point rebuttal, focusing only on the strongest arguments against his case. Hence, the 'shotgun' riposte is farcical. It's a debate; you're not expected to reply with a dissertation to every assertion he makes.<BR/><BR/>ah, Ericmpghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445199879510273357noreply@blogger.com