I thought that this debate was interesting and although William Lane Craig did not offer anything new that I have not heard before but I did like hearing him interact with a scientist I have never heard before this debate.
I'm amazed that Wolpert can't grasp the idea that God has no beginning but has always been and always will exist.
One of the things I appreciate about James White is that he is not afraid to point out and interact with the ideas of people who disagree with him. On his blog today, White has pointed out a review of his debate with Dan Barker from this weekend by an atheist. The writer of the article saw the debate and i have not yet. I would have appreciated more detail for why he thought that Jame White's presentation "ran out of steam"? I also would like to know why he still thinks that Barker is credible when he personally witnessed Barker denying his own book that he was still selling!? Huh? Read his article here.
I don't understand Bruce asserting that the doctrines about Jesus being Lord and savior (although true) being axiomatic but the fact of his existence being axiomatic.
TurretinFan has posted his thoughts on the Dan Barker debate with James White. Reading his short report makes me excited to see the whole video. You can read his notes on the Alpha & Omega Ministries blog. I liked the first debate between James White vs Dan Barker but this one is not about God's existence but about if Christianity is borrowed or stolen from ancient mythologies. I can't wait to see how Barker looses this one as he lost the last one.
If you have not heard, Dr. James White debated atheist, self-professed ex-christian, Dan Barker again last Saturday. Unbelievably Barker took issue at having his own book Godless quoted back to him in context. I don't get it. To add insult to injury, from what I gather, Barker was even selling the book that day in that venue. I don't get how he could have had a problem with his own writings being raised. Here is a quote from James White's blog followed by a clip.
As I noted in the previous article, Dan Barker's attempt to hide the horrifically bad argumentation he presented in his 2007 book Godless failed badly. I promised the video, and here it is (my system is currently cooking along at 162 degrees in the CPU importing the gigabytes of video of the entire debate). I note that it is a meaningless argument to claim that quoting Dan's book on the topic of the debate is tantamount to changing the topic of the debate to the book itself. For someone who prides himself in his "rational" thinking, the recordings of this debate will provide a large amount of evidence that Dan Barker often abandons the laws of logic in his promotion of the hatred of God.