I had never heard of Arif Ahmed until a few days ago, but after listening to his debates with
William Lane Craig and
Gary Habermas, I am convinced that he is someone I definitely
want representing atheism. He did a great job pointing out the fallacies in Dr. Craig's arguments and a super job at arguing against the resurrection with Dr. Habermas. Both of these debates must be listened to by believers and nonbelievers alike.
Ahmed v Habermas is one of my all time favorites. I gave a sketch of it here, went in to more detail here. I have to say I wasn't thrilled with his performance against Craig.
ReplyDeleteI agree. His debate against Habermas was a clear win. I think he did well in the Craig debate. He was disarming at the beginning by saying how he wanted to hear strong arguments; he highlighted the rational bankruptcy of Craig's worldview on several occasions; and really nailed him on his use of probabilities.
ReplyDeleteHe could have done better, however. He could have pointed out how Craig's response to the problem of evil undermines Craig's belief in objective moral values ("oh so by saying God could have his reasons, you are in effect saying we can never have reasons for action, since we can never be sure that what we do doesn't interfere with God's greater plan") and he could have completed his point against Craig's dualism.
I thought that debate was pretty informative for both the atheist and theist. Good post.
ReplyDeletecheck my site, soundapologetics.blogspot.com