Comments on: What Science Can’t Account For

By: Can science really prove everything? « Superhua

Can science really prove everything? « Superhua — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:01:21 +0000

[...] [ht] [...]

By: Jeffrey J. Stables

Jeffrey J. Stables — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:33:10 +0000

Unfortunately, this is somewhat of a logical highlight near the end of nearly 1.5 hours of talking past each other and ignoring each other’s arguments and nuance. I found the debate as a whole not edifying. So if you were considering going over to YouTube and watching the whole thing (which you can in a series of 12 videos), allow me to suggest last year’s debate between Craig and Hitchens instead.

By: Jeffrey J. Stables

Jeffrey J. Stables — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:32:32 +0000

The point, however, was that it’s an unprovable assumption because we don’t know that c is constant everywhere and everywhen. It’s entirely possible that c has varied over time, and we’d have no way to know that. While the assumption of constancy has worked in every case we’ve needed it to, that doesn’t mean it always would have or always will.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:21:14 +0000

Or he may have just finished the Bahnsen vs. Stein debate and took some cues?

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:19:50 +0000

That’s exactly what I was thinking.

By: The Siberian Grinder » 5 Things Science Cannot Prove

The Siberian Grinder » 5 Things Science Cannot Prove — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:13:33 +0000

[...] HT: Justin Taylor [...]

By: Brendt Waters

Brendt Waters — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:20:49 +0000

I’m kinda surprised that no one commented on the horrid title for this video. (And yes, I know that’s not JT’s doing nor Dr Craig’s.)

Had he known about it, Dr Atkins probably could have used the video poster’s smug “sore winner” attitude as the ultimate argument against the existence of God. It is only testimony to His overwhelming grace that God would want to have anything to do with such an arrogant person as the video poster.

By: David Wickiser

David Wickiser — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:47:06 +0000

But yes, there were better examples.

By: David Wickiser

David Wickiser — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:46:35 +0000

I don’t know, I have read about the speed of light being slowed down in certain atmospheres. That it is constant in a vacuum is pretty scientifically standard, but pretty recently scientists have slowed down light (to 38 mph) in certain experiments. It really was assumed more than proven.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1&page=1

By: Joey

Joey — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:56:14 +0000

While I generally agree with Craig, I would add that his example about the speed of light was a rather poor choice. Yes, it’s strictly a postulate, but it’s been confirmed by reams of scientific evidence, and there are much stronger examples in my view (e.g. requiring scientific hypotheses to be falsifiable).

By: Evan

Evan — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:15:18 +0000

pwned

By: Bill Burns

Bill Burns — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:16:52 +0000

@John & @Jay – I was thinking precisely the same thing as I (re)watched this. I actually own this debate on VHS, but of course, because it’s VHS, I haven’t watched it _since_ about 1998. Of course, at that time, I’d heard of presuppositional apologetics (from peripheral mentions in my reading of and about Francis Schaeffer) but didn’t have as clear an idea of their import. Thanks for the post, JT.

By: John Starke

John Starke — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:10:23 +0000

I wish Craig sounded like this all the time and wouldn’t rely so heavily on analytic philosophy. Its like he just got done reading Van TIl before this video!

By: John

John — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:13:54 +0000

@John -
Yes, and apparently, Dawkins knows he wouldn’t stand a chance, which is why he has refused to debate apologists.

By: 5 things that can’t be proven by science but are still rational to have beliefs about - 22 Words

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:42:48 +0000

[...] (via JT) [...]

By: CR

CR — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:27:52 +0000

Good video. I miss William F. Buckley.

By: Jay Tuck

Jay Tuck — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:34:32 +0000

Sounds like Dr. Craig’s at his best when he sounds like a presuppositionalist.

By: donsands

donsands — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:54:57 +0000

I was lost at the first word of his five points. But wen William Buckley said, “Put that in your pipe and smoke it”, I knew it had to be good.

By: John

John — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:11:52 +0000

That was a good riff.

Did you hear Richard Dawkins on the Michael Medved show a couple of weeks ago? I would like to hear a debate between Dawkins and a good apologist.

By: Sarah Flashing

Sarah Flashing — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:34:29 +0000

Great video…..did Atkins respond that because science can’t prove moral claims there are, therefore, no moral facts? That would seem to be an obvious response. Great video! May have to show it in my class this morning.

By: A Smoking Argument and a Smoking Pipe « Tracts & Treatises

A Smoking Argument and a Smoking Pipe « Tracts & Treatises — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:21:24 +0000

[...] Justin Taylor Published [...]

By: Patrick Chan

Patrick Chan — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:29:40 +0000

See here and also here for the above clip in context. In my opinion, unfortunately, I don't think Atkins fares any better even in context.

By: adam

adam — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:56:49 +0000

I don’t disagree with Craig, but the video cuts out before Atkins can respond, which is a shame.