Just because we humble finite beings cannot contemplate infinity does not mean that it does not exist in some form – making infinity a person and calling it god conveniently solves all the problems for Craig!

I <3 things like this where I get to hear the interpretation of 'what happened' after a debate. With just 2 people, such different interpretations.

I'd hazard a guess that it 'twould be similar for the audience members.

That's why police, when interrogating multiple witnesses, they try to talk to them individually and ASAP. Before the 'communal story' happens.

The Krauss, Harris and Erhman debates mark a time when Craig has jumped the shark. When pitted against the actual experts in the fields he seeks to imitate (and ever so slightly allow for the impression he is a member of) at best all he can do is bump heads. That might seem impressive considering that he’s not a scientist or historian (and is arguably a philosopher), but each of these fields demand contribution, not a slick and coached debater who’s only goal is to quote mine well enough to prove his particular deity.

In a sane world doing the defrocking once would have been enough…but alas, this is 21st
Century Ahhmurica we’re living in…sigh…

That the universe allows life to exist, is proof of God only if God necessarily prefers living organisms; that it allows us to exist, is only proof of God if there is some reason to think God actually wants us.

It’s insanely narcissistic.

An even more brief summation of this negative reason!! Thanks for that.

“I don’t believe in the supernatural. My principal negative reason is that there is an infinity of mutually inconsistent accounts of supernatural entities, between which reason cannot distinguish. Were I to accept the offer of one which, as it were, knocked at my door offering an underlying meaning in return for my agreeing to suspend my critical faculties, I should have no decent reply to the next one that knocked and asked ‘Why did you not choose me?’”

This reminds me of a quote from Stephen Henry Roberts:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

“I don’t believe in the supernatural. My principal negative reason is that there is an infinity of mutually inconsistent accounts of supernatural entities, between which reason cannot distinguish. Were I to accept the offer of one which, as it were, knocked at my door offering an underlying meaning in return for my agreeing to suspend my critical faculties, I should have no decent reply to the next one that knocked and asked ‘Why did you not choose me?’

My principal positive reason is that, for various reasons (about which I am writing a book, The Beginning of Infinity), I have come to the conclusion that the world is fundamentally comprehensible — but in a way that rules out the possibility that any ultimate explanation can be discovered. For the latter would necessarily be in terms of entities and attributes which themselves cannot be explained. I expect every true answer to create not closure, but a better question. To seek a final answer is to hope that everything beyond that is incomprehensible. And since that move is always available to shore up any false theory, it must be a mistake.”

– David Deutsch

By the way, the referenced book has just come out. I’m hoping it will be at least as good as yours Sean

I don’t read Barnes’ last comment the same way; of course Craig has not demonstrated that the mathematical CONCEPT of infinity is contradictory under the rules of transfinite arithmetic–Craig agrees that it is not. But isn’t Barnes citing Ellis and Stoeger in support of Craig’s position that “an infinite is no where to be found in REALITY” (only as potentiality)? Thus, the series of all events can extend toward a potential infinite in the future, but not into the past, since you would then have an actually infinite number of events–which under Hilbert’s principles is “no where to be found in reality”? If not, perhaps Prof. Barnes can post again to clear it up.

Actually, if you read Barnes last comment (#14), he also agreed that Craig has not demonstrated any contradiction. If you have time please also read some of the later comments about the possibility of infinite universe and about the Hilbert hotel paradox.

Well, it has been a major point of controversy in the philosophical literature over the last 30 years (see sources gathered here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1637 Major figures in the field–theist and atheist–such as Sobel, Oppy, Morriston, Quentin Smith, etc. have grappled with it). But I suppose if you believe that all of those who have contributed to the literature of that controversy are “not sensible,” you are correct. That seems far-fetched to me.