In the facebook page of the Cambridge Union Society, you can read the voting results of the above debate: "On the Motion - "This House Believes God is Not a Delusion": Ayes 243, Abstentions 129, Noes 229: The motion passes by 14 votes." in favor of Craig/Williams vs atheists Copson and Ahmed.
It's interesting and even astonishing that in a so prestigious scholarly debating society like the Cambridge Union (not precisely a friend of Christianity), Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and Peter Williams have beaten atheists Andrew Copson and Arif Ahmed.
In my opinion, the format of the debate wasn't ideal for a serious scholarly discussion. Formal philosophical arguments need to be examined carefully, slowly and in depth, without ditstractive cavils and uninformed objections from "the public" (who tend to be ignorant of the most sophisticated arguments for and against a given thesis). Moreover, in a debate (in which both sides present philosophical argumentation) the need for a careful reflection and objective evaluation of the arguments in their strongest formulations is even more needed.
In any case, even in these less than perfect conditions, the atheist debaters lost in their own "home".
This is further evidence of the extreme intellectual weakness of the atheist case.
It's interesting and even astonishing that in a so prestigious scholarly debating society like the Cambridge Union (not precisely a friend of Christianity), Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and Peter Williams have beaten atheists Andrew Copson and Arif Ahmed.
In my opinion, the format of the debate wasn't ideal for a serious scholarly discussion. Formal philosophical arguments need to be examined carefully, slowly and in depth, without ditstractive cavils and uninformed objections from "the public" (who tend to be ignorant of the most sophisticated arguments for and against a given thesis). Moreover, in a debate (in which both sides present philosophical argumentation) the need for a careful reflection and objective evaluation of the arguments in their strongest formulations is even more needed.
In any case, even in these less than perfect conditions, the atheist debaters lost in their own "home".
This is further evidence of the extreme intellectual weakness of the atheist case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment