Search Results for: Worship and Revelation 4-5

This post is a commentary on the Craig-Rosenberg debate. Most of my comments are in italics; factual reporting is in regular text.

In short, Craig undeniably wins. I felt bad for Rosenberg, and could hear naturalistic philosophers of religion face-palming throughout the debate.

Debaters: there’s a lot you can learn from here.

• 8:00 The debate has judges? Yet no philosophers? Or rather, one who used to teach it?
• 17:14 – Debate finally starts. C comes out hitting on all cylinders, with a clean argument for a self (an “unembodied mind,” “a consciousness,” or “person”) which exists a se (he hedges with talk of “a personal being”) (person etc. – before 24 min). (See comment re: 37:00 below.)
• 25:30 It is clear that C has read some of Rosenberg’s work.
• C keeps his arguments simple, short, and understandable – though philosphers and other pros might prefer more detail. But this is effective communication; he knows his audience. His pace is conversational, and not a word is wasted. It is clear that C has tailored his arguments to his opponent, even while using mostly his standard arguments – and he points out some of the most ridiculous things R has said follow from naturalistic atheism.
  
• 28:00 – I don’t at all understand C’s comeback to the multiple cosmoi objection to the fine tuning argument. A rare mis-step in C’s debate performance.
• 37:00 C: God “can be personally known.” Never mind that God is NOT literally a self/person, or C’s controversial Trinity speculations, which he habitually presents as “the” doctrine of the Trinity. But, this does nothing to hurt him in this debate.
• 38:00 Rosenburg starts his case, and is hilariously rude. He falsely implies Read More »Craig wins again