This debate ( audio 1 & 2 | video | 2h25m12s ) took place in the early 90s. It was between Farrell Till and Dr. Kent Hovind and the topic was on the scientific accuracy of the Genesis Flood.
DB: 5m
5 stars BEST
Farrell Till is another guy that Luke M. has mentioned as a good opponent to WL Craig and this is the only audio/video of one of Till's debates that I can find. It is a good one though!
Kent Hovind is a notorious YECist who has recently decided to bring his views to prisoners, exclusively. The late Farrell Till is an ex-pastor and I have heard others mention that he knew the bible better than anyone ever. The debate certainly shows that, he corrects Hovind a few times.
Anyways, they debated the Genesis Flood and Hovind brought up a lot of crazy ideas and wasted a lot of time on making fun of evolution. He certainly gave a lot of information and I must say that Hovind does do the Gish Gallop but not so much here and I actually think that Hovind is a great speaker and good debater. He is poor on logic and uses very sketchy methods but his presentation style is so slick and fast that it's hard to keep up.
An interesting thing is that Till is the exact opposite. Till speaks very slowly and is an older gentleman. He does a great job of dismantling Hovind's arguments which are poor and absurd to begin with but once you hear the crowds' responses at the beginning of the debate you'll know that Till had his work cut out for him. However I think despite this bias Till still came out on top, or certainly won more people over because of his clarity, ability to answer Hovind on every claim and unchallengeable knowledge of the Bible.
A very fun debate and it certainly made me think that Till could have given Craig a run for his money, though he would have had to be prepared to speak faster and handle more convoluted arguments.
Technical: Poor AQ and VQ, I still rec it though!
Friday, July 19, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Poor Jason Gastrich
In the early 2000s, Dr. Jason Gastrich took on a bunch of atheists for some reason. I guess he had a radio show and did some informal debates. The following debates sound like they came from such a radio show and/or were just recordings of phone conversations he had with different people.
Dr. Gastrich is a baddddd debater and just does not seem to grasp basic forms of critical thinking and logic. I've never felt so douchey as I do when I say that about someone, but I don't think anyone would disagree with my assessment after hearing these debates, honestly.
Why this post? Well there are a bunch of his debates online which feature other debaters that I enjoy. He also sounds like your average YEC biblical literalist and some of these informal debates feature a well-versed atheist taking the time to dismantle basic apologetic and/or Creationist lines guys like Gastrich support. One final reason is that I am trying to find debates by the people who Luke M. wishes were able to debate WL Craig and see if they can hold up. Doug Kruegers' on the list and he has two interviews (only one is linked below, however) with Gastrich. Dan Barker is another person mentioned by Luke and he too is interviewed by Gastrich.
So here are mini-reviews to a couple of debates featuring Dr. Gastrich:
Dan Barker v Gastrich 2002 ( audio | video )
3.5 stars
They talk about biblical prophecies and stuff. Dr. Gastrich gets beaten up pretty bad - at one point he states that he would castrate himself if god told him to.
You hear a bit about Barker's background in this one, too. It's so interesting how sincere Barker is when he says that he really did love his life as a Christian. I could go on but in short it's this background that certainly makes Barker a bit more understanding in his debate with Gastrich in this one.
Technical: Low sound AQ
Douglas Kreuger v Gastrich 2003 ( audio 1, 2 and 3 )
4 stars CHECK
Again, Dr. Gastrich gets beaten up pretty badly. Doug is a little more concise in his tearing apart of Gastrich's position and he was really good at tearing down the accuracy of the Bible and Creationism.
Technical: Kreuger's audio is really low and some sort of weird machine's fan kept whizzing throughout the interview.
Reggie Finely (The Infidel Guy) v Gastrich ( audio )
2.75 stars
Nothing too much of interest. Dr. Gastrich is particularly snarky in this one.
Technical: Low AQ, again.
Eddie Tabash v Gastrich ( audio )
3 stars
Gastrich just doesn't seem to follow arguments. Like, he'll laugh at things that he thinks are absurd but really aren't and assumes that his incredulity is enough to counter an argument. It seems like he just gathers up a bunch of canned responses from other apologists/creationists and goes with them. He also isn't very organized. Poor Eddie, he seems to only get debates with lameos like Gastrich, Friel or Slick. He apparently debated Frank Turek who isn't the best apologist but knows how to work a crowd and parrot WL Craig, at least.
Technical: Little better audio.
James Randi v Gastrich ( audio TBP )
2.75 stars
To be fair I barely remember this one. But the AQ is bad, it is shorter than the others mentioned so far and hey, if I can't remember it, it must not have been all that interesting. Randi is pretty flippant in this one and that's usually how he rolls when in a debate-like interview.
Technical: Poor AQ
"So why this post, seriously?" You all ask. Well, I haven't posted in a bit and some debates don't deserve their own separate posts, imo. I might do this with other debates, as well. Who knows?
Also, when I first heard the IG and Randi debates I thought that Gastrich was like 18. He's not. He wasn't, either. From what I can tell, he graduated high school in 1992. Assuming he was 18 in 1992, that would make him at least 28 in the earliest debates I have listed here. To be fair, I am 28 and sound like a 15 year old so I hope this last comment doesn't just seem to be completely mean-spirited.
(Revised 6-11-2015)
Dr. Gastrich is a baddddd debater and just does not seem to grasp basic forms of critical thinking and logic. I've never felt so douchey as I do when I say that about someone, but I don't think anyone would disagree with my assessment after hearing these debates, honestly.
Why this post? Well there are a bunch of his debates online which feature other debaters that I enjoy. He also sounds like your average YEC biblical literalist and some of these informal debates feature a well-versed atheist taking the time to dismantle basic apologetic and/or Creationist lines guys like Gastrich support. One final reason is that I am trying to find debates by the people who Luke M. wishes were able to debate WL Craig and see if they can hold up. Doug Kruegers' on the list and he has two interviews (only one is linked below, however) with Gastrich. Dan Barker is another person mentioned by Luke and he too is interviewed by Gastrich.
So here are mini-reviews to a couple of debates featuring Dr. Gastrich:
Dan Barker v Gastrich 2002 ( audio | video )
3.5 stars
They talk about biblical prophecies and stuff. Dr. Gastrich gets beaten up pretty bad - at one point he states that he would castrate himself if god told him to.
You hear a bit about Barker's background in this one, too. It's so interesting how sincere Barker is when he says that he really did love his life as a Christian. I could go on but in short it's this background that certainly makes Barker a bit more understanding in his debate with Gastrich in this one.
Technical: Low sound AQ
Douglas Kreuger v Gastrich 2003 ( audio 1, 2 and 3 )
4 stars CHECK
Again, Dr. Gastrich gets beaten up pretty badly. Doug is a little more concise in his tearing apart of Gastrich's position and he was really good at tearing down the accuracy of the Bible and Creationism.
Technical: Kreuger's audio is really low and some sort of weird machine's fan kept whizzing throughout the interview.
Reggie Finely (The Infidel Guy) v Gastrich ( audio )
2.75 stars
Nothing too much of interest. Dr. Gastrich is particularly snarky in this one.
Technical: Low AQ, again.
Eddie Tabash v Gastrich ( audio )
3 stars
Gastrich just doesn't seem to follow arguments. Like, he'll laugh at things that he thinks are absurd but really aren't and assumes that his incredulity is enough to counter an argument. It seems like he just gathers up a bunch of canned responses from other apologists/creationists and goes with them. He also isn't very organized. Poor Eddie, he seems to only get debates with lameos like Gastrich, Friel or Slick. He apparently debated Frank Turek who isn't the best apologist but knows how to work a crowd and parrot WL Craig, at least.
Technical: Little better audio.
James Randi v Gastrich ( audio TBP )
2.75 stars
To be fair I barely remember this one. But the AQ is bad, it is shorter than the others mentioned so far and hey, if I can't remember it, it must not have been all that interesting. Randi is pretty flippant in this one and that's usually how he rolls when in a debate-like interview.
Technical: Poor AQ
"So why this post, seriously?" You all ask. Well, I haven't posted in a bit and some debates don't deserve their own separate posts, imo. I might do this with other debates, as well. Who knows?
Also, when I first heard the IG and Randi debates I thought that Gastrich was like 18. He's not. He wasn't, either. From what I can tell, he graduated high school in 1992. Assuming he was 18 in 1992, that would make him at least 28 in the earliest debates I have listed here. To be fair, I am 28 and sound like a 15 year old so I hope this last comment doesn't just seem to be completely mean-spirited.
(Revised 6-11-2015)
Friday, July 12, 2013
Chris Hallquist vs Calum Miller on Unbelievable discussing Probability and the Resurrection 2013
This debate ( audio | 1:20m ) took place last week between Chris Hallq and Calum Miller. It was supposed to be on probability and the resurrection, though they didn't really go into the details that the title of the episode implies, sadly.
2.25 Stars: Nothing too insightful seeps out of this debate with a blogging favorite and young English apologist.
Hallq's posts on the show.
Facebook discussion of the show.
I won't lie, I was pretty disappointed with the show. From reading the APF reviews of the past shows of Unbelievable and a few of my own experiences with other eps, it seems like the show has misses that significantly outweigh the hits. This is a bummer considering the show does get great guests and has such interesting topics!
But on to the debate. Or lack of it. I had some hope this would become a more technical debate in that it would talk more about probability. Bayes Theorem was only brought up once and it actually wasn't even defined or explained, at least not directly.
Calum also seemed like the most liberal Christian and though he didn't do terrible or anything, he just wasn't amazing, either. One weird thing is that Calum doesn't like the KCA, the argument WL Craig is famous for popularizing.
As for Hallquist, a great blogger I enjoy following, he suffers from an issue that apparently has plagued him before: his speech is filled with ums and uhs. People have told him about this and I feel bad stacking more criticism on him but it just became too distracting. Also, I think it was contagious, the host even started um-ing and uh-ing more it seemed.
Hallq did make some good points about Mormonism but they didn't so relevant to the topic when they were mentioned, or at least I bet that's how Christians will see it considering how critical they are of Mormonism (unless of course the Republican nom is Mormon, then they seem to be more open towards the religion :P). I was also a little annoyed that even though he was asked to debate probability with a student of Richard Swinburne - the guy who came up with the stat that there is a 97% chance that the resurrection was true - he said he had only read Swinburne's book a while ago.
I was surprised to find out that Hallq and I are the same age and Calum sounded pretty young too. One of the perks of Unbelievable is that it seems more willing to get younger guests on and this has some pros and cons. A pro is that people like Hallq and Ed Turner get to go up against apologists who should pretty much be considered professionals in their field...though in this case Calum doesn't seem to be one nor is he claiming to be one.
Technical
Good audio quality - it's radio.
Revisions
8-23-2015 Lowered the score, cleaned up some writing.
2.25 Stars: Nothing too insightful seeps out of this debate with a blogging favorite and young English apologist.
Hallq's posts on the show.
Facebook discussion of the show.
I won't lie, I was pretty disappointed with the show. From reading the APF reviews of the past shows of Unbelievable and a few of my own experiences with other eps, it seems like the show has misses that significantly outweigh the hits. This is a bummer considering the show does get great guests and has such interesting topics!
But on to the debate. Or lack of it. I had some hope this would become a more technical debate in that it would talk more about probability. Bayes Theorem was only brought up once and it actually wasn't even defined or explained, at least not directly.
Calum also seemed like the most liberal Christian and though he didn't do terrible or anything, he just wasn't amazing, either. One weird thing is that Calum doesn't like the KCA, the argument WL Craig is famous for popularizing.
As for Hallquist, a great blogger I enjoy following, he suffers from an issue that apparently has plagued him before: his speech is filled with ums and uhs. People have told him about this and I feel bad stacking more criticism on him but it just became too distracting. Also, I think it was contagious, the host even started um-ing and uh-ing more it seemed.
Hallq did make some good points about Mormonism but they didn't so relevant to the topic when they were mentioned, or at least I bet that's how Christians will see it considering how critical they are of Mormonism (unless of course the Republican nom is Mormon, then they seem to be more open towards the religion :P). I was also a little annoyed that even though he was asked to debate probability with a student of Richard Swinburne - the guy who came up with the stat that there is a 97% chance that the resurrection was true - he said he had only read Swinburne's book a while ago.
I was surprised to find out that Hallq and I are the same age and Calum sounded pretty young too. One of the perks of Unbelievable is that it seems more willing to get younger guests on and this has some pros and cons. A pro is that people like Hallq and Ed Turner get to go up against apologists who should pretty much be considered professionals in their field...though in this case Calum doesn't seem to be one nor is he claiming to be one.
Technical
Good audio quality - it's radio.
Revisions
8-23-2015 Lowered the score, cleaned up some writing.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Barker & Carrier v Rajabali & Corey on "Does God Not Exist?"
This debate ( audio | video playlist | 3h15m58s ) took place in 2004 in Dearborn, MI between Dan Barker and Richard Carrier v Hassanain Rajabali and Michael Corey. The debate had a weird topic: "Does God Not Exist?" and this is probably the most flustering debate I have ever heard on the topic of atheism/the existence of god.
3 stars
APF review: 4/5 stars
Carrier's assessment which I suggest ya'll check out.
Like Damion on APF I suggest you fast forward to ~22 minutes in if you wanna skip all the prayer and intro (only ~18 minutes if you wanna here the intros because both the theists are not that well known). This debate has so much going on that I just don't know how to rate it. I am mostly just gonna comment on it in this review.
Short review: the theists were contradictory, illogical and did not address any of the arguments and instead rested on trying to make the crowd cheer (which isn't too special considering over 90% of the crowd were believers). Barker and Carrier gave good arguments and organized well and over gave pretty good performances which were even better considering the debate structure and how aggressive and unscrupulous their opponents were. Ultimately this is a tough listen and though both Barker and Carrier give good performances I can't say that about the other side.
Also, concerning the structure, it was really poorly formatted and along with the dumb debate topic, heavily favored the theists:
Openings: Theists then Non-Theists
Rebuttals: Non-Theists (what?) then Theists
Cross: Theists Ask Questions then vice versa
Q&A: One side gets a question to respond to and the other side can counter (I like this format, at least)
Closing: Non-Theists (what? again?) then Theists
In what debate we we have one side get the first and last word? Kind of weak.
The theists probably showed thee most unprofessional, revolting behavior that I have ever seen in a formal debate. Both Rajabali and Corey (if he were alive) should be ashamed of their performances as evident in the following observations I made:
They were rude because they constantly laughed at and interrupted Barker and Carrier throughout the debate.
They were incoherent, both Corey and Rajabali made bizarre and contradictory claims about free will and ad hom attacks.
They were angry, especially Rajabali. He sounds hysterical at some points and calls both Barker and Carrier liars in the debate.
They were mean-spirited. Several times the theists literally laughed at the statements made by the non-theists or disparaged them overtly. Now sometimes arguments should be disparaged and I am not above doing that, but you should still address/counter them and/or show why they are flawed with respect to the debate or topic - which both theists and especially Corey did not do. When Richard brought up an article for his argument Corey just dismissed it by saying Richard didn't understand it. This tactic certainly worked because the crowd loved it.
Finally, they exploited their crowd and their religion. One of Barker's arguments was from religious confusion and he mentioned the fact that Rajabali and Corey hold to two different beliefs about Jesus. Rajabali flipped out about this and said that Corey never claimed to be a Christian and that Barker lied to fool the audience. Furthermore, Corey doesn't address this and even refers to god as Allah in the debate (which also got a loud cheer). Corey apparently (and it was obvious from the arguments he made) was a Christian but he was just so flexible to let slide the fact that Muslims don't think that Jesus rose from the dead, something kind of important to the Christian faith...This is the height of dishonesty, imo.
A note on Rajabali: I need to hear is other debate with Barker but I have to say I was not impressed with Muslim apologetics. Many of his arguments and misunderstandings were - for a lack of not sounding like I am a philosophy expert - philosophically naive and ones that even amateur Xian apologists shy away from. IIRC, I heard someone discuss the young nature of Muslim apologetics and how it has a ways to go and I agree. Rajabali was obviously not used to having his theistic (not necessarily Muslim) beliefs questioned by the way he acted and floundered in the debate. I would say that I am more interested in hearing Muslims v Non-Theists debates but they aren't too wide spread. Also, considering the strictness of the debate about insulting Islam coupled with Rajabali's performance it seems like those debates won't be too interesting because they're not as (as weird as it is to say it) open to having their religion criticized, which is such a shame.
3 stars
APF review: 4/5 stars
Carrier's assessment which I suggest ya'll check out.
Like Damion on APF I suggest you fast forward to ~22 minutes in if you wanna skip all the prayer and intro (only ~18 minutes if you wanna here the intros because both the theists are not that well known). This debate has so much going on that I just don't know how to rate it. I am mostly just gonna comment on it in this review.
Short review: the theists were contradictory, illogical and did not address any of the arguments and instead rested on trying to make the crowd cheer (which isn't too special considering over 90% of the crowd were believers). Barker and Carrier gave good arguments and organized well and over gave pretty good performances which were even better considering the debate structure and how aggressive and unscrupulous their opponents were. Ultimately this is a tough listen and though both Barker and Carrier give good performances I can't say that about the other side.
Also, concerning the structure, it was really poorly formatted and along with the dumb debate topic, heavily favored the theists:
Openings: Theists then Non-Theists
Rebuttals: Non-Theists (what?) then Theists
Cross: Theists Ask Questions then vice versa
Q&A: One side gets a question to respond to and the other side can counter (I like this format, at least)
Closing: Non-Theists (what? again?) then Theists
In what debate we we have one side get the first and last word? Kind of weak.
The theists probably showed thee most unprofessional, revolting behavior that I have ever seen in a formal debate. Both Rajabali and Corey (if he were alive) should be ashamed of their performances as evident in the following observations I made:
They were rude because they constantly laughed at and interrupted Barker and Carrier throughout the debate.
They were incoherent, both Corey and Rajabali made bizarre and contradictory claims about free will and ad hom attacks.
They were angry, especially Rajabali. He sounds hysterical at some points and calls both Barker and Carrier liars in the debate.
They were mean-spirited. Several times the theists literally laughed at the statements made by the non-theists or disparaged them overtly. Now sometimes arguments should be disparaged and I am not above doing that, but you should still address/counter them and/or show why they are flawed with respect to the debate or topic - which both theists and especially Corey did not do. When Richard brought up an article for his argument Corey just dismissed it by saying Richard didn't understand it. This tactic certainly worked because the crowd loved it.
Finally, they exploited their crowd and their religion. One of Barker's arguments was from religious confusion and he mentioned the fact that Rajabali and Corey hold to two different beliefs about Jesus. Rajabali flipped out about this and said that Corey never claimed to be a Christian and that Barker lied to fool the audience. Furthermore, Corey doesn't address this and even refers to god as Allah in the debate (which also got a loud cheer). Corey apparently (and it was obvious from the arguments he made) was a Christian but he was just so flexible to let slide the fact that Muslims don't think that Jesus rose from the dead, something kind of important to the Christian faith...This is the height of dishonesty, imo.
A note on Rajabali: I need to hear is other debate with Barker but I have to say I was not impressed with Muslim apologetics. Many of his arguments and misunderstandings were - for a lack of not sounding like I am a philosophy expert - philosophically naive and ones that even amateur Xian apologists shy away from. IIRC, I heard someone discuss the young nature of Muslim apologetics and how it has a ways to go and I agree. Rajabali was obviously not used to having his theistic (not necessarily Muslim) beliefs questioned by the way he acted and floundered in the debate. I would say that I am more interested in hearing Muslims v Non-Theists debates but they aren't too wide spread. Also, considering the strictness of the debate about insulting Islam coupled with Rajabali's performance it seems like those debates won't be too interesting because they're not as (as weird as it is to say it) open to having their religion criticized, which is such a shame.
Craig v Dacey on Does God Exist? 2nd Debate BEST
 |
| Make a counterargument cake! |
This debate ( audio | 2h08m11s ) took place in 2005 between Craig and Philosopher Austin Dacey with the following debate topic: Does God Exist?
4.5 stars. BEST
PhilVaz 5/5
CSA review: good
This is a better debate than the last, it is longer and both debaters showed that they learned some things from the previous debates. Again I agree with Luke in that this one is better for the couple of reasons.
Dacey's presentations are a little bit more dense in content. Also, Craig does a pretty good job, himself. This is one of his best performances and it is just a bummer* that it happens to be against probably one of his best opponents. Though he was without faults at times - something which probably also lead him to concede at the beginning (a classy move, btw) that Dacey is a tough opponent
Technical
Unlike the previous debate, there is only audio, and it is kind of quiet. A few stutters occur in Craig's first rebuttal, too.
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
*Considering Craig's debate style, I think he wouldn't mind my talking about his debates in such a competitive fashion. I agree that not all debates should be about only scoring points but that's how Craig debates AND that still, isn't a negative view of debates, imo, anyways.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Carrier v Marshall 2013 Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?
This debate ( video | 1h52m02s ) took place in 2013 between Richard Carrier and Apologist(?) David Marshall. They debated the reasonableness of the Xian belief.
3.25 stars.
This debate is an example of what I mentioned in my reasons for this site page. In order to attempt to have a lot of content out in a short time I decided to just review all the debates I like/are already popular and I predicted that as I started debating newer debates, my ratings (which were all pretty high) would start to diminish because I was just listening to the debates to listen to them...well here we are.
Nothing really new or interesting with this debate. Richard did fine though I think that his debates with Jacoby and Licona were the best of his that I have heard so far. What is definitely the case is that he devastated Marshall. I don't know much about Marshall but he just doesn't seem to have the flare for debate - which isn't always bad, I don't think Vic Stenger is the most charismatic but I think he can present and call out arguments pretty well - but it certainly becomes evident even with his opening speech.
In fact, both kind of muddled up the debate topic, imo. Both didn't really state things too explicitly and this probably should have been emphasized due to the fact that the debate wasn't a) an argument about the existence of a god nor was it b) only about the historicity of the bible. Yet the debate seemed to only focus on one or the other.
For example, Marshall notes that Richard is not addressing the arguments for the existence of god and this is the only time that Richard comes back and notes that this is irrelevant to the debate - this kind of thing happened in the Parsons v Craig debate only Parsons was a lot more no-BS about pointing out the same thing that Richard does and does it so well that Craig never brings it back up.
Marshall was just too all over the place, his opening speech talked a lot about miracles and it seems like a good apologist would at least know not to bring up modern day miracles because of how sketchy they are but he brought up a lot of coincidence stories and stuff and I felt bored and had no idea where he was going. He also decided to bring up the fact that Richard lost to Craig and named dropped Luke M. when he talked about how tough of an opponent Craig is. To this internet nerdy atheist, it was obvious that Marshall is an internet apologist - not too bad of a thing, but it should be noted that this debate is an example of how being able to argue a lot on the interbuttz doesn't really translate over to real lifebuttz.
After watching the debate I've lurked around all the atheist/apologists blogs out there and I guess Hector Avalos has been in a little internet tiff with Marshall. I wish Reggie still did the Infidel Guy because I bet BET they both would love to go on IG to square off and I wouldn't mind hearing that. The closest thing we got going that I know of is Unbelievable but that's too short and has little audience interaction.
Technical: Great VQ...I might upload an Mp3 of it but the program I use to make Mp3s from yt vids makes them like 300 MB!
3.25 stars.
This debate is an example of what I mentioned in my reasons for this site page. In order to attempt to have a lot of content out in a short time I decided to just review all the debates I like/are already popular and I predicted that as I started debating newer debates, my ratings (which were all pretty high) would start to diminish because I was just listening to the debates to listen to them...well here we are.
Nothing really new or interesting with this debate. Richard did fine though I think that his debates with Jacoby and Licona were the best of his that I have heard so far. What is definitely the case is that he devastated Marshall. I don't know much about Marshall but he just doesn't seem to have the flare for debate - which isn't always bad, I don't think Vic Stenger is the most charismatic but I think he can present and call out arguments pretty well - but it certainly becomes evident even with his opening speech.
In fact, both kind of muddled up the debate topic, imo. Both didn't really state things too explicitly and this probably should have been emphasized due to the fact that the debate wasn't a) an argument about the existence of a god nor was it b) only about the historicity of the bible. Yet the debate seemed to only focus on one or the other.
For example, Marshall notes that Richard is not addressing the arguments for the existence of god and this is the only time that Richard comes back and notes that this is irrelevant to the debate - this kind of thing happened in the Parsons v Craig debate only Parsons was a lot more no-BS about pointing out the same thing that Richard does and does it so well that Craig never brings it back up.
Marshall was just too all over the place, his opening speech talked a lot about miracles and it seems like a good apologist would at least know not to bring up modern day miracles because of how sketchy they are but he brought up a lot of coincidence stories and stuff and I felt bored and had no idea where he was going. He also decided to bring up the fact that Richard lost to Craig and named dropped Luke M. when he talked about how tough of an opponent Craig is. To this internet nerdy atheist, it was obvious that Marshall is an internet apologist - not too bad of a thing, but it should be noted that this debate is an example of how being able to argue a lot on the interbuttz doesn't really translate over to real lifebuttz.
After watching the debate I've lurked around all the atheist/apologists blogs out there and I guess Hector Avalos has been in a little internet tiff with Marshall. I wish Reggie still did the Infidel Guy because I bet BET they both would love to go on IG to square off and I wouldn't mind hearing that. The closest thing we got going that I know of is Unbelievable but that's too short and has little audience interaction.
Technical: Great VQ...I might upload an Mp3 of it but the program I use to make Mp3s from yt vids makes them like 300 MB!
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Craig v Cavin Jesus's Twin BEST CHECK
This debate ( audio | 1h33m20s ) is the earliest debate on the res that I have heard Craig participate in. In took place at UCI in 1995 and Craig's opponent was Robert Greg Cavin.
4 stars. BEST CHECK
PhilVaz 3/5
CSA review: bad
I should mention that the title is misleading, kinda. This was a regular resurrection debate but the difference is that Cavin I guess, is known for upholding a theory that Jesus had a twin that impersonated his brother after his death.
Craig does eventually use his usual arguments but does a few things different. This debate is almost 20 years old so that could account for this but Cavin does defend a pretty novel argument and agrees with 3 of the "facts" Craig usually brings out. One change is that he does a more thorough challenge against Bayesian probability, though it is actually pretty weak. He also significantly fleshes out his historical criteria he uses from McCullough, which others have argued is dishonest of Craig. He also pokes fun at the twin theory by calling it the Dave Theory after a movie where a body-double named Dave becomes the President when the pres is put in a coma.
Cavin doesn't really completely rely on the twin theory. It seems like it is just a more elaborate thought experiment that is supposed to be kind of weird in order to emphasize the point that something as bizarre as Jesus having an unknown twin who impersonated his brother after his death is still more probable than someone rising from the dead. Cavin doesn't do that great of a job making this explicit but he does do a good job on a couple of things that I would like to see others do in a debate against Craig on the res: he really deflates Craig's arguments about not using Bayes Theorem in history, pointing out that Craig does not address this and keeps arguing against him as if he is still using BT, using more interesting arguments against the resurrection.
Continuing from what I mentioned above, Cavin brings up the super powers that Jesus possesses after he resurrects and the possibility that Craig needs to explain how the laws of thermodynamics could be suspended and other issues of probability usage that can be applied to historical research. Like Luke says in his review of the debate, Cavin does a good job of pointing out how Craig only dismisses and weakly argues against these particular arguments, which show Craig's position to be completely ad-hoc.
But alas, Craig just got away with too much stuff or Cavin just didn't nail him as thoroughly as I'd like on some of his BS. One thing I think Cavin coulda done has to do with his own twin theory. Craig argues that the narrative of the bible doesn't allow for Jesus to be switched as a baby because he was born in a manger and this is documented. Cavin responded to this and I won't recount it here but the response I wish he gave certainly relies on the fact that I have hindsight and have seen Craig's later debates so I don't blame Cavin for not taking it up: Craig has in several debates claimed that he doesn't argue against Biblical Inerrancy. But if he is gonna use it to counter Cavin's claim with the manger or counter the more general claim that Jesus had super powers after he rose then it is perfectly legit to call into question the accuracy of the NT.
I rated this debate so high because if features Craig using a slightly different framework, Cavin did a good job is showing the logical issues with Craig's case and presented a more-novel approach to this debate that I haven't seen from others.
Technical: Decent AQ. The people who recorded were probably on Craig's side because they would leave in the clapping after Craig's speeches but not the ones after Cavin's :P
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
4 stars. BEST CHECK
PhilVaz 3/5
CSA review: bad
I should mention that the title is misleading, kinda. This was a regular resurrection debate but the difference is that Cavin I guess, is known for upholding a theory that Jesus had a twin that impersonated his brother after his death.
Craig does eventually use his usual arguments but does a few things different. This debate is almost 20 years old so that could account for this but Cavin does defend a pretty novel argument and agrees with 3 of the "facts" Craig usually brings out. One change is that he does a more thorough challenge against Bayesian probability, though it is actually pretty weak. He also significantly fleshes out his historical criteria he uses from McCullough, which others have argued is dishonest of Craig. He also pokes fun at the twin theory by calling it the Dave Theory after a movie where a body-double named Dave becomes the President when the pres is put in a coma.
Cavin doesn't really completely rely on the twin theory. It seems like it is just a more elaborate thought experiment that is supposed to be kind of weird in order to emphasize the point that something as bizarre as Jesus having an unknown twin who impersonated his brother after his death is still more probable than someone rising from the dead. Cavin doesn't do that great of a job making this explicit but he does do a good job on a couple of things that I would like to see others do in a debate against Craig on the res: he really deflates Craig's arguments about not using Bayes Theorem in history, pointing out that Craig does not address this and keeps arguing against him as if he is still using BT, using more interesting arguments against the resurrection.
Continuing from what I mentioned above, Cavin brings up the super powers that Jesus possesses after he resurrects and the possibility that Craig needs to explain how the laws of thermodynamics could be suspended and other issues of probability usage that can be applied to historical research. Like Luke says in his review of the debate, Cavin does a good job of pointing out how Craig only dismisses and weakly argues against these particular arguments, which show Craig's position to be completely ad-hoc.
But alas, Craig just got away with too much stuff or Cavin just didn't nail him as thoroughly as I'd like on some of his BS. One thing I think Cavin coulda done has to do with his own twin theory. Craig argues that the narrative of the bible doesn't allow for Jesus to be switched as a baby because he was born in a manger and this is documented. Cavin responded to this and I won't recount it here but the response I wish he gave certainly relies on the fact that I have hindsight and have seen Craig's later debates so I don't blame Cavin for not taking it up: Craig has in several debates claimed that he doesn't argue against Biblical Inerrancy. But if he is gonna use it to counter Cavin's claim with the manger or counter the more general claim that Jesus had super powers after he rose then it is perfectly legit to call into question the accuracy of the NT.
I rated this debate so high because if features Craig using a slightly different framework, Cavin did a good job is showing the logical issues with Craig's case and presented a more-novel approach to this debate that I haven't seen from others.
Technical: Decent AQ. The people who recorded were probably on Craig's side because they would leave in the clapping after Craig's speeches but not the ones after Cavin's :P
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)