Is there Evidence for God? Craig v Krauss streamed live at Auckland Uni

The Evangelical Union and the Reason and Science Society, along with Thinking Matters, will be streaming the upcoming debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss at the University of Auckland on Thursday 31 March 1-3 pm.

If you’re in the city and free for lunch, come along and join us for what should prove to be an interesting exchange. Christian philosopher, theologian, and blogger Matt Flannagan has also kindly agreed to take some Q&A at the conclusion of the debate.

What: Is there Evidence for God? Krauss v Craig Debate Streamed Live (Q&A with Matthew Flannagan)
When: Thursday 31 March 1-3pm
Where: Cap and Gown Lounge, Level 2, 34 Princes St (AUSA building), The University of Auckland.

Visit the Facebook page here.

Lawrence Krauss is a professor at Arizona State University and an internationally known theoretical physicist with wide research interests, including the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology. He received undergraduate degrees in both Mathematics and Physics at Carleton University. He received his Ph.D. in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of numerous books including a national best-seller, The Physics of Star Trek.

William Lane Craig is a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in California. He specializes in philosophy of religion and philosophy of time and, as a theologian, in historical Jesus studies. Dr Craig pursued graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the University of Birmingham (Ph.D), and the University of Munich. He has written over a hundred articles in professional journals and authored or edited over over thirty books including the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and God, Time and Eternity.

2 replies
  1. Bnonn
    Bnonn says:

    Hi Sola Ratione, I can see your point, but did Craig set the moot at all? I was under the impression he simply agreed to it. If I were defending that moot, I might take a very similar strategy to Craig, because I assume that people are able to read and understand plain English, and that whoever who set the moot phrased it the way they meant to phrase it. It’s not like this is a junior school debate where precision isn’t necessarily to be expected. The topic is there evidence for God is quite specific: it means what it says. The fact that some people are inclined to qualify it implicitly, with words like “sufficient” and so on, isn’t really Craig’s problem, surely? In any case, he very adequately defended far more than the moot required.

    Kind regards,

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *