Home » Philosophy » Science vs. Religion Debate: Craig, Plantinga, Gale, Smith

Science vs. Religion Debate: Craig, Plantinga, Gale, Smith

Check out here a debate on the relationship between science and religion between the following participants:

Christian debater (1): William Lane Craig
Christian debater (2): Alvin C. Plantinga
Atheist debater (1): Richard M. Gale
Atheist debater (2): Quentin P. Smith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXWTr0QjCoM#t=3044

The arguments they bring up aren’t groundbreaking, but it was at least entertaining to see Craig and Plantinga team up in a debate. I will note that Smith’s argument that (1) there is no “first moment” of the universe and therefore (2) there is no cause to the universe’s beginning seems to me self-refuting, since you could apply the same argument to evolution: (1) there is no “first moment” of one species beginning to evolve to the next, and therefore (2) no species ever changes from one to the other. Craig makes the same point about motion, and although neither of them mention it, Smith’s argument is really just one of Zeno’s paradoxes and I fail to see how he seriously intends that to be a legitimate argument a first cause of the universe.

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. Ignostic Atheist says:

    Seeing as what constitutes a species hasn’t ever really been agreed upon, due to the difficulty of categorizing things which exist on a continuum, it doesn’t bother me too much for you to say that no species changes from one to the next.

    Seeing as I haven’t watched the debate, I can’t argue for the fitness of the analogy, but it doesn’t really strike me as equal. Was he talking about the multiverse?

    • scacewater says:

      Interesting re: species. Haven’t heard of species placed on continuums.

      He was arguing against God as the cause of the Big Bang. They did later touch on issues of the multiverse

      • Ignostic Atheist says:

        Really? I thought that was why you said that there was no first moment of one species beginning to evolve to the next.

        I don’t know if I would use the big bang not having a beginning as an argument, especially if multiverse were to be coming up later. I’d say that, because the universe as a whole likely adds up to zero energy, then no impetus was necessary for it to begin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: