Shook was excellent. Craig's arguments for the supernatural are lame. He's trying to build a bridge to nowhere. Craig uses terms like "beyond the universe" and "before time". These terms are pure nonsense. There is no membrane around the universe that differentiates the inside and outside. The universe is not made that way. Craig's appeal to the supernatural is like trying to prove that there exists 4 Cartesian dimensions. When trying to build a bridge to the fourth dimension, which direction do you go?
I didn't listen to the whole debate (I tend to dislike oral debates), but I have to say Shook is a really good speaker. I bet he's as annoying to theists as Craig are to atheists.
I guess I'm confused by the terms atheist and agnostic. Dr Craig says that an atheist must believe positively that there is no god. He says if you just "don't have a belief in god," that that is agnosticism. I always thought an agnostic was someone who thought there was a god, but that god is "unknowable." Big difference. I'm definitely not agnostic in that if there was indeed a god, I believe it would be knowable. I just don't happen to think there is any god that fits any of the traditional definitions. Perhaps someone could be an atheist agnostic believing that if there was a god, we couldn't know it. But that doesn't make much sense to me.
4 comments:
The full MP3 audio of William Lane Craig debate with John Shook can be found at Apologetics315.
Shook was excellent. Craig's arguments for the supernatural are lame. He's trying to build a bridge to nowhere. Craig uses terms like "beyond the universe" and "before time". These terms are pure nonsense. There is no membrane around the universe that differentiates the inside and outside. The universe is not made that way. Craig's appeal to the supernatural is like trying to prove that there exists 4 Cartesian dimensions. When trying to build a bridge to the fourth dimension, which direction do you go?
I didn't listen to the whole debate (I tend to dislike oral debates), but I have to say Shook is a really good speaker. I bet he's as annoying to theists as Craig are to atheists.
I guess I'm confused by the terms atheist and agnostic. Dr Craig says that an atheist must believe positively that there is no god. He says if you just "don't have a belief in god," that that is agnosticism. I always thought an agnostic was someone who thought there was a god, but that god is "unknowable." Big difference. I'm definitely not agnostic in that if there was indeed a god, I believe it would be knowable. I just don't happen to think there is any god that fits any of the traditional definitions. Perhaps someone could be an atheist agnostic believing that if there was a god, we couldn't know it. But that doesn't make much sense to me.
Post a Comment