is on a debate tour of Britain. Apparently Polly Toynbee pulled out of debating him. I heard on Uncommon Descent that a replacement had been found. (I’d emailed WLC to volunteer myself! – but I guess it has to be Somebody.)
I’m starting this thread to house any comments about the tour and the debate.
I saw you wanted to debate William Lane Craig and you received no reply. I’ll debate with you, but it would have to be a a skype debate or something like that.
Well, we can do it here 🙂
are you afraid of having a voice debate?
noam ghish, Do you have a problem with a written debate?
Why do you fear written debate, noam ghish? I ask because if Ms. Febbe’s apparent preference for a written debate is, indeed, evidence that she fears spoken debate, then it follows that your apparent preference for spoken debate must be considered evidence that you fear written debate. Personally, I don’t think this is a valid line of reasoning, but since you did ask why Ms. Febble is “afraid of” spoken debate, it would seem that you do think it’s a valid line of reasoning, and it would be interesting to know whether or not you think said line of reasoning is applicable to you as well as to Ms. Febble…
There are many reasons why a person might prefer participation in a written debate to participation in a spoken debate, noam ghish. What makes you think Ms. Febble’s preference for written debate indicates that she’s ‘afraid’ of spoken debate, as opposed to having any other reason(s) for preferring written debate?
basically you’re wasting all that energy into trying justify your cowardice. cowards don’t become courageous by changing the conditions of the challenge. whatever sophistry you can come up with, the fact remains that elizabeth, in spite of her boasting for challenging WLC, is a coward. how about you, why don’t you take me on in a voice debate?
You, Mr. Ghish, are a cad (this word is unfortunately currently out of common usage, but describes your behavior and that of several UD denizens perfectly). It is quite clear who has the most intellectual bravery and integrity when one compares the behavior of Dr. Liddle to that of the ID proponents with whom she has engaged. I point to Chris Doyle’s recent destructive exit from here as just one example.
If you have a scientific hypothesis that explains empirical observations and makes testable predictions that support the concept of intelligent design creationism, please present them here. If all you wish to do is hurl baseless insults that you would never dare to make in person, I think we can see who the real coward is.
No, not at all, which is why I wrote to William Lane Craig. It’s just technically easier to do it in writing over the internet.
Anyway, welcome to TSZ 🙂
I would normally move an exchange like the one above between myself, Noam Ghish and Patrick to guano, but I won’t for the simple reason that I myself am the target of one of the exchanges. So I will respond, but I will also ask people to respect what I am trying to develop as the ethos of this site, which is that people make the assumption (however unsupported) that other people are posting in good faith. That includes not engaging in demeaning insults such as “coward” and “cad”. Address the arguments, please, do not speculate about motives.
Noam Ghish: your allegation that I am a coward is unsupported, and, I would argue, unsupportable. I offered to debate William Lane Craig in a live public debate – I didn’t expect he’d accept, as I am not any kind of celeb, and a celeb would be far better, but if no-one had been found to replace Polly Toynbee, I would certainly have made further moves to have my offer accepted. It seemed to me important that someone should present a rebuttal to his arguments, and I was willing to do so, even though I am not an experienced public debater. That should settle the question of my courage.
The reason I do not make the offer to you, is because the written word is the medium of internet debate, and this is an internet conversation. In many ways I think it is a more rigorous format, however, as it allows both participants and audience to compare arguments point by point, and side by side. As I said, I am very willing to engage in such a debate with you, and we can do it here. We can agree on the parameters (length of statements, number of rounds, time limits, etc) and I’m sure BWE would be happy to chair it.
Just let me know.
Lizzie
(Edited to make it clear that I am addressing the whole exchange above, not just one post.)
Something that seems to have been skipped over in this exchange:
Who is Noam Ghish? What public venue might Noam Ghish command for a verbal debate?
Has someone stepped in to replace Polly Toynbee?
.
Let me say that I consider that Noam Ghish is, by his lights, posting in good faith. I think the same is true of most of the contributors to Uncommon Descent. That does not change the fact that his attitude, like that of some some of the contributors to UD, has the appearance of being deliberately and unnecessarily confrontational, provocative and one which I find offensive.
According to junkdnaforlife, here.
I’ll move the WLC stuff to a new thread.
The above posts were moved from the Religion’s Guided Missiles thread.
“Who is Noam Ghish?”
http://doubtingdarwin50.blogspot.com/
Anyone who follows the link to Mr Gish’s website will notice he has a problem with the Dawkins Weasel problem. In fact he makes his incredulity into a centerpiece.
Anyone who has ever run a simulation of this knows that Carroll is correct.
Ah, yes, I just found it here. Near the bottom it says:
You might want to notify them over at Uncommon Descent as they may not have heard yet.
i expected to be guanod, go for it. Mr. Ghish’s statements could not go unrebutted, however.
Normally I agree with you, but Mr. Ghish is not exhibiting good faith in the slightest. Good faith in online discussions requires granting the benefit of the doubt to one’s interlocutors unless they have unambiguously demonstrated they do not deserve it. His accusations against Dr. Liddle are completely unfounded and rude beyond belief.
I was still slightly curious to learn what venue Noam Ghish, known only as a blogger and commenter on creationist blogs, might command for a verbal debate. Then I saw that he/she had suggested a Skype debate. That’s not a public forum, and Elizabeth was right to suggest this blog as an alternative.
The charge of cowardice can be supported by evidence. As when UD shuts out people who disagree with them, and when Casey Luskin turns off comments for his blog posts.
Personally I never watch debates and rarely watch lecture videos. Oral presentations evoke visceral responses which impair reason. On any really difficult topic it can take time to research the accuracy of assertions and sometimes days to formulate a response. This is made more difficult by not having easy access to the exact words of an argument.
That is why science is done with publications rather than by lecture. (Although scientists still lecture. It’s difficult to stop social customs.)
In short, oral debates are anti-rational.
No problem 🙂
ETA: but in principle I’m not going to move anything to guano if I have a conflict of interest.
So it stays. Even despots have principles.
Yes, there’s not a lot of point in a face to face debate, if the faces are only visible to the two speakers 🙂
Might as well use email.
Stephen Law sounds as though he’ll be pretty good. I’d like to go! But I guess I can tune in to Christian Radio.
He has blog. Interesting sample here.
Better than Polly Toynbee, who isn’t at her best on atheism, IMO.
I noticed that Stephen Law was being offered a lot of good advice on how to approach the debate with Craig, I hope he takes it to heart.
Another academic I would like to see take on Craig, although I quite understand if he doesn’t, is Simon Blackburn.
In a way, this will be an interesting confrontation of styles: the more relaxed, conversational style of a British academic versus Craig’s more well-practiced, sermonizing oratory; an approach which emphasizes the free exchange and consideration of various ideas versus the promotion of a particular faith. Which will carry more weight with a British audience?
Depends on the audience.
The thing that’s struck me about videos of Craig’s debates is that they offer a great many hostages to fortune – so many that his opponents are sometimes spoiled for choice, and let most of them escape. He also draws from a great many disciplines, where no single opponent is likely to be in a position to refute all his positions (physics, cosmology, biology). I can see why Polly Toynbee pulled out. But well-prepared opponent should have plenty to work with.
The old Gish gallop.
Yup.
Why do you fear written debate, noam ghish? I ask because if Ms. Febbe’s apparent preference for a written debate is, indeed, evidence that she fears spoken debate, then it follows that your apparent preference for spoken debate must be considered evidence that you fear written debate. Personally, I don’t think this is a valid line of reasoning, but since you did ask why Ms. Febble is “afraid of” spoken debate, it would seem that you do think it’s a valid line of reasoning, and it would be interesting to know whether or not you think said line of reasoning is applicable to you as well as to Ms. Febble…
There are many reasons why a person might prefer participation in a written debate to participation in a spoken debate, noam ghish. What makes you think Ms. Febble’s preference for written debate indicates that she’s ‘afraid’ of spoken debate, as opposed to having any other reason(s) for preferring written debate?
Seversky,
Oh dear, I didn’t notice and, in my insufferable arrogance, thought I should offer some of my own. I posted it on his website, not noticing there was a previous thread with all the comments. Ah well, he may not release it from moderation.
Petrushka,
Interesting, there are actually several known mechanisms for selection of certain ‘handed’ amino acids and sugars. Maybe noam should debate me… in writing… with the specific topic of chirality.
Noam introduces himself by calling his opponents dishonest and cowardly. Not a good start.
My guess is Noam is perhaps a blustering high school student, or at least very young.
Does this debate tour have a theme?
Does God exist? Though whether all versions or just Craig’s favourite, I’m not sure.
I would love to debate WLC. I am amazed that anyone takes him seriously.
I am even more amazed that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is taken seriously by some philosophers who actually teach and publish in academia. Gives me a moment’s pause when considering potential ripple effects.
I’m your huckleberry. What technology would you prefer? 🙂
However, knowing Elizabeth, I feel quite confident in saying that your assertion of cowardice will prove to be false upon examination. Also, having seen thousands of challenges begin with language similar to yours, I feel quite confident in predicting that your argument will boil down to your attempt to simply shout louder than your opponent and your inability to even recognize the arguments presented by your opponent.
But, as always, I remain hopeful that you may break the mold created by those who have gone before.
Edit: After reading that Blog, I withdraw my offer to debate Noam. Perhaps I am a coward. It seems pointless though to have a debate which would need to involve reading a textbook to the other party.
Elizabeth,
i agree that internet debate is more rigorous and people learn more, but after having done that 50 times, i’m a little more interested in live debate. i thought you would be game since you expressed yourself as game at UD. also, i want to apologize if i came across as maybe a bit aggressive in my earlier posts. i’m going to ask you one more time for a voice debate. voice debates usually leave a lot of questions open, so we can continue the debate through the written word, after it’s done. let me know if you’re interested, so that we can start to negotiate the terms.
Cubist,
I didn’t even read your reply. I’ve got other things to do than to read someone try to justify their cowardice.
Petrushka,
i’m 34 years old.
BWE,
typical coward response. if you’re so certain of victory, why don’t you teach me a lesson and defend atheist honor. if you’re so convinced that i’m ignorant, then the debate should be a breeze and you should walk all over me.
noam, you’re acting as though you’re 3.4 years old. If you have confidence in your position, you shouldn’t have any problem with stating it in writing here. Your accusations of cowardice are way out of line and just go to show that you are an arrogant blusterer.
According to your words, changing the conditions of a challenge is an act of cowardice. With that in mind, I hereby challenge you to a face to face debate, with me, at a place of my choosing, at a time of my choosing, with a format of my choosing, with attendees of my choosing, with a moderator of my choosing, with publicity of my choosing, and with topics of my choosing. All expenses will be paid by you.
Since you’re so courageous, I’m sure that you will have no problem with my challenge and won’t try to change any of the conditions. Are you up for it? Just say yes, and I’ll respond with more details.
I work alone. The only honor I speak for is my own. The only conscience I answer to is my own.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names you call me are no problem. 🙂
Sorry Noam, I misunderstood the context for your challenge. I see that I replied too hastily and apologize for upsetting you.
Also, I am not an atheist.
Is it rude to ask: then what do you consider yourself to be with regard to religiosity.
This has echoes of Chris Doyle and “I am not a Christian”. It does not really inform, especially as, when it came up in passing on another thread, what actually falls under the umbrella of atheism was not concluded. Richard Dawkins is not an atheist, depending on how strictly you insist on certainty.
Sorry if it is not my business, it just strikes me as a bit coy.
Fascinating: You openly admit that you prefer to avoid debating in a format which is more-rigorous, and does a better job of educating people, than is a spoken debate. And you openly admit this in the aftermath of naming Ms. Febble a ‘coward’ for no discernable reason other than that she prefers the more-rigorous, more-educational format of written debate to the less-rigorous, less-educational format of spoken debate.
You really aren’t doing yourself any favors here, noam ghish…
@ noam
It seems a pretty daft idea to propose a “debate” over skype, even if there is some kind of conferencing facility, which apparently exists for up to 25 people. It’s far more sensible to have a written record of an exchange of view which any number of people can look at at a time that suits them.
So you have a track record of internet debating. Fifty written debates is impressive. I tried searching your name with internet debate, Christianity, etc., and absolutely nothing came up, though “noam ghish” is quite an unusual name. You don’t have a link to one of them, do you?
I was certainly game to debate William Lane Craig in a public oral debate that had already been set up, and from which Polly Toynbee withdrew, even though I think that written formats are preferable, and would be my preferred medium. I offered because I didn’t want WLC to go unchallenged. That doesn’t mean I think that I’m game to debate in any oral debate with anyone over the internet, when a written format is clearly not only more rigorous but considerably more convenent.
No problem. I’m just trying to establish this site as one where we stick very much to idea content. Not that there’s anything wrong with a good brawl, but there are plenty of sites on the internet where they can happen, and I find they get in the way of interesting exchanges of ideas 🙂
Thank you for the invitation, but I must decline. This has nothing to do with cowardice, however, merely with cost-benefit calculations. My offer of a written debate remains open though.
Well, here is a sort of a debate/discussion I had on the topic at another forum if you are interested enough to read it:
http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=5682
I was called a mystic in that discussion. I don’t think that works either though.
ETA: Fixed multi-quote problem. Also, here is a direct link to my first post in that thread to save you some time:
http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=116030&#post116030
Thanks for the link. I’ll be careful what I ask for, another time! 🙂
Always happy to oblige. 🙂 Does it still seem a bit coy?
Not intentionally so, but not written for a lay audience at first perusal.
yeah well. It’s not particularly written for a professional audience either. It’s simply stream of consciousness on the topic. But still, although the gods offered by religion have become something of a bust, I think it is a mistake to imagine that we can make boxes that will be forever true.
While the gods of the gaps slowly withdraw from our current model’s lexicon, the nature of existence is very difficult to nail down with words. We haven’t ruled very darn much out when you think about it.