Let me know what you think and if any changes are desirable. One thought - how will you determine which adaptations to include is HamletMachine truly notable? Also - should the first Hamlet On Screen be a black heading as well, or should Adaptations be up one line?
As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. For some atheists, it is rather maddening. Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician.
If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it and for this, I respect him. He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say.
Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won.
His opponents are never that organized or clear. So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig. They think it will be easy to win an argument with anyone who has a wish-granting invisible friend.
Craig for raising the level of debate on this issue. Though he makes many patently absurd arguments, they are no less absurd than some of the bad arguments made by his opponents, and they are usually more relevant to the central point. Atheists tend to ramble on about irrelevant topics when they debate Dr.
Not updated to cover his debates. Also see my reviews of his debates with Mike Begon and Shelly Kagan. Sinnott-Armstrong [ book ] A superb debate. Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong took statements from two of their debates, then clarified and expanded them to form the back-and-forth chapters of this book.
Dacey [ video ] Craig gives his usual arguments. Dacey responds with 5 facts that fit better with atheism than with theism: Dacey responds to the First Cause argument by saying that some scientists think the Big Bang does not explain the initial bang, but rather what happened after the bang.
About fine-tuning, Dacey says we might someday in the future discover how physical properties emerged from simple rules.
There are so many good arguments against fine-tuning, and again Dacey chooses just about the weakest counter-argument he could have picked. Dacey 2 [ audio ] Dacey gives the same arguments as in their previous debate, and Craig sticks to only 2 arguments: Kalam and the Resurrection.
This debate is mostly a repeat of their previous debate, but a little better. Craig seems to win this one simply by presenting more information and argument than Dacey does — basically, by talking faster. Price [ audio ] A great debate between two people who really know their stuff.
This is a hard question for Craig to answer, and Bradley is a good debater — on both the emotional and intellectual levels. This might be a debate that Craig lost.
Parsons [ audio ] This is the other debate Craig may have lost. He certainly lost it on logic, though he probably won on rhetoric and organization as he always does.
Parsons is full of logic, common sense, and passion. If you make mistakes like this, Craig will make you pay for them. Crossley [ audiovideo ] Craig makes his own well-developed case for the Resurrection of Jesus, and then there is some good historical back-and-forth between the two.
Again, Craig wins by way of superior organization and rhetoric. Slezak [ audiovideo ] Slezak starts off strong, but then starts to lose quickly, and in his summary he forgets to remind his audience of all the good points he made up front.
In his first rebuttal, Craig demolishes about 20 different points made by Cavin — in a clear, convincing, well-organized way — in the space of 8 minutes. Ahmed [ audio ] Ahmed opens quite well. Craig says that objective moral values exist, and I think we all know it. Now that might pass for an argument at Talbot Theological Seminary, and it might pass for an argument in the White House, but this is Cambridge, and it will not pass for an argument here.
Avalos [ audio ] Craig begins by embarrassing Avalos by showing how Avalos combated a previous opponent by demanding that he be able to recognize Biblical manuscripts by sight — which is not how scholars work with Biblical texts anyway.
Craig responds calmly and confidently, and reminds the audience that almost nothing Avalos has said 1 builds a case against the Resurrection, nor 2 rebuts the arguments Craig gave in this debate. Kurtz [ audio ] As usual, Craig argues against the moral ontology of atheistic philosophy, while Kurtz defends the view that nevertheless, atheists can choose to live morally.Questions.
Questions about the meaning of life have been expressed in a broad variety of ways, including the following: What is the meaning of life? BASIC PHILOSOPHY. A COLLECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS & A GUIDE FOR THE PHILOSOPHICALLY PERPLEXED.
Also. TOPICS FOR LIBERAL EDUCATION TOPICS FOR NEW EDUCATION. A Word of Caution. Few statements are true in all respects or for all plausible interpretations. This is especially true of interesting or significant statements and arises from the .
Tragedy - Theory of tragedy: As the great period of Athenian drama drew to an end at the beginning of the 4th century bce, Athenian philosophers began to analyze its content and formulate its structure.
In the thought of Plato (c. – bce), the history of the criticism of tragedy began with speculation on the role of censorship. To Plato (in the dialogue on the Laws) the state was the. Written by Dr. Peter Kreeft.
Dr. Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and a noted Catholic apologist and philosopher. He is a convert to the Catholic Church from reformed Protestantism. Hamlet’s aptest disciple is Iago.
by which I do not mean that Hamlet was any more a representation of William Shakespeare than Ophelia was. There is pragmatically something very close to a fusion of Hamlet and Shakespeare the tragedian.5/5(2).
English vocabulary word lists and various games, puzzles and quizzes to help you study them.