John Shook v. William Lane Craig Debate: “Does God Exist?”
Part 2/2
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Sponsored by Campus for Christ at UBC
Duration : 1:7:24
[youtube HVjUlSvtgtw]
Categories
Pages
Tags
2008 2010 america atheism Atheist Barack Bush candidate Christianity clinton cnn David debate debates douglas Dr. election giuliani god High Iraq Joe John ld lincoln Martin McCain michael new News obama of paul Political politics President presidential religion republican ron School speech the Video WARArchives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
Blogroll
Meta
-
Recent Posts
- How did the Kennedy Nixon debates influence the future presidential campaigns?
- Will Newt win Florida after he debates in the state and romney still hides his taxes?
- How can Romney win the next two debates?
- What are some good debate topics for sociology ?
- Where can I find information about attending the NBC presidential debate set for Jan. 23 at USF?
- If both presidential candidates pooped their pants during the final debate would you vote for either of them?
- Is it possible for every innocent to debate effectively and make a strong case in Court without a laywer?
- What art related topic should I start a debate on?
- How do I start my introduction in a debate?
- What is the difference between debate and forensics?
-
Recent Comments
- Ralph B on How did the Kennedy Nixon debates influence the future presidential campaigns?
- Mr.Just Justus on Will Newt win Florida after he debates in the state and romney still hides his taxes?
- Grayson B. on Will Newt win Florida after he debates in the state and romney still hides his taxes?
- Paladin on Will Newt win Florida after he debates in the state and romney still hides his taxes?
- Austin - Tea Party Nation on Will Newt win Florida after he debates in the state and romney still hides his taxes?
- Pixie on Will Newt win Florida after he debates in the state and romney still hides his taxes?
- Russell on How can Romney win the next two debates?
- auntb93 on How can Romney win the next two debates?
- StephenG on How can Romney win the next two debates?
- David on How can Romney win the next two debates?
Copyright © Debate Competition - Powered by WordPress
ProSense theme created by Dosh Dosh and The Wrong Advices.
I’m not sure I like …
I’m not sure I like either one of them.
“voodoo is a …
“voodoo is a terrible religion”
Oh, so you admit all religions are terrible, then?
I fail to see any discernible difference between voodoo and any other religion, sorry.
Shook’s conclusion …
Shook’s conclusion that the natural world is all there is doesn’t follow from his 2 premises. Even if you grant the 2 premises it’s still completely compatible with agnosticism instead of saying “the natural world is all there is.”
i like the way …
i like the way shook defined a naturalist as believing in the natural world (which we all do). Then he went on to use visual imagery of the bridge building to the supernatural. It explains the atheist position very well.
@djchozen91
what …
@djchozen91
what a moot point you make.
@jrlieto
How …
@jrlieto
How childish of you.
Lol at the clapping …
Lol at the clapping all over the place throughout the debate. Horribly informal.
Wow. I’ve got to …
Wow. I’ve got to hand it to WLC. He has some great debate tactics. Unfortunately he makes huge non-demonstrable leaps in his premises which he passes at light speed through the white-wash of his tired rhetoric.
Craig is a fucktard.
Craig is a fucktard.
the burden of proof …
the burden of proof isn’t the naturalists’ burden
A little after 12: …
A little after 12:25 Shook” It’s quite unfortunate we are back to debating terminology”. A better definition makes things clearer. Why would he not want to clear any confusion in terminology? Shook resorts to cute tactics instead of arriving to the challenge of clearing or improving definitions. Also he is a prime example of a brainwashed indoctrinated Professor. He learned his mannerisms from Star Treck’s Data. All the knowledge of the world but no common sense.
@ …
@AfterSundaytubecast This is common among University Professors. If you notice there is never a ring of truth in their explanations like when Craig speaks. That is because they do not rely on truthful experiences or observations that are common. Rather they intellectualize their way to arrive at their explanation. Somewhat machinic textbook explanations. No natural consistency is observable in Shook’s presentations and terrible explanations.
It seems to me Dr …
It seems to me Dr Shook came flippantly prepared to embarrass Christianity, and to argue a totally different debate. He was not prepared to debate the question at hand. Which made him appear to tap dance around of all things science in one moment stating it was totally reliable and in another stating that it’s only reliable for a time. Shook would’ve done well to come prepared for this debate rather than to legitimize Christianity.
lol
lol
@TheWinepusher haha …
@TheWinepusher haha, I don’t think so, but cartainly that’s what people (like theologians), who are convinced that they have god on their side, deserve
@jdaniel220 On the …
@jdaniel220 On the question of craig’s opinion about god and morality- read what I say below, and you’ll see why labeling him a “WORM” crawling at the feet of his boss is more than appropriate. if you insist on defending this guy who stands on the same level with the likes of j.falwell and p.robertson, you’d seem quite eager to join their worm-men league. I hope you manage to resist that urge
@jdaniel220 Look …
@jdaniel220 Look man, first of all where I post is none of your business. Second, I see that you are a fan of craig, but you don’t provide some ‘well-defined arguments’ either. I think craig is pathetic in repeating the same set of arguments (I guess, he has nothins else to offer) over and over again, even though no one is taking them seriously.
@HerrVonManstein …
@HerrVonManstein Hey, you’re posting here too. Do you litter all of these videos with your immature, vapid rhetoric? Tone down the name-calling, provide some well-defined arguments, and you might be able to get somewhere – and you might also possibly, yes possibly, even learn something
@godsoloved24 so …
@godsoloved24 so true. Dr. Shook seemed more like a late-night talk-show host rather than an informed debater. Stand down, Dr. Shook. Stand down and don’t come back until you get some dignity about you.
How embarrassing. …
How embarrassing. Dr. Shook went from a respectable debator into acting like a juvenile brat. So sad.
@dfelcman Yeah it …
@dfelcman Yeah it seems that way bc it’s annoying to talk to someone who has been saying the same kalam argument for years and it’s been taken apart by every person he debates but he just twists the words to say your an agnostic then… he does this in so many debates. Morals are decided by us not god. If every woman on earth decided that they were never again going to have sex then rape would become a moral thing or our species would die and no one could discuss it. Evolution of morals
@MayonR After all …
@MayonR After all it was Abraham who had no problem butchering his son to prove his servility and obedience to the deity and never had the balls to reply ” F.u.c.k. you, I am not killing my son, just because you felt like it, you old sadistic bastard”. So how can you NOT call such a person with his true name- a WORM
@MayonR besides, …
@MayonR besides, w.craig’s view of morality is stupid, childish, servile, dangeruos. he says we all live by his filthy god’s mercy and he’d have absolutely no objection if his god strikes his own children dead! but I guess that’s to be expected of a follower of an Abrahamic religion .
@MayonR look man, …
@MayonR look man, all I am saying is that a murderer, torturer, thief has no moral right whatsoever to teach anybody not to murder, torture or steal. it doesn’t matter whether that person is a deity or a man, nor does it matter whether he is the legislator of morality – he is still bound by it; everything else is hypocrisy.
@HerrVonManstein Oh …
@HerrVonManstein Oh the “It’s not fair temper tantrum argument.”.He can do it but we can’t. According to the Bible God created and defined morality. How could you expect him to limit himself especially since the need is not there? Like a mother spanking herself? Craig is probably my favorite debater today.