Friday, February 08, 2013

William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio

In this debate, which took place at Purdue University on February 1, 2013, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and atheist philosopher Alex Rosenburg debate the topic: Is Faith in God Reasonable? Watch the debate again via Biola here. Debate hosted by SymposiaChristi. Followed by Q&A session. Twitter #GodDebate. Consider these lessons from the debate.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here(1hr 45min)
Q&A here.

Audio provided with permission.

Find all of William Lane Craig’s debates in one place here


  1. teismocristao February 2, 2013

    Man, you're fast!

  2. winteryknight February 2, 2013

    I'm not sure if it's OK to post this, but my snarky summary (Rosenberg was just AWFUL, so I had to make fun of him) is posted here:

    Snarky summary of the Craig-Rosenberg debate

    And I'll link to your MP3 from there. Thank you so much for posting this audio!!!

  3. valentin February 2, 2013

    Super fast indeed, brian.

  4. valentin February 2, 2013

    Wintery, I like the snarky summary you provide for these debates.

  5. Don Severs February 4, 2013

    WLC argues that it is impossible to show that God could have created a world with the amount of good it has in it, but with less suffering.

    But humans reduce suffering with Tylenol.
    So the issue can be restated:

    Can the theist show that administering Tylenol causes a net increase in the suffering in the world? This would amount to a sort of Entropy of Suffering law, where any local decrease in suffering causes an even greater increase elsewhere.

    If this is not plausible, it is reasonable to say that overall suffering can be reduced by giving painkillers. If humans can do it, it seems God could.

    The atheist can agree that it’s not impossible that God could not reduce suffering further without reducing overall goodness. But that would just mean that God is locked in somehow. It means he would be Leibniz’s God and that we live in the best of all possible worlds. It means God could not answer a prayer lest he reduce creation’s perfection.

  6. Anonymous February 6, 2013

    Thanks for the file!

  7. Matt February 6, 2013


    Pain does not necessarily equate to suffering. The pain might be reduced, but the conditions that cause the suffering would not be reduced by simply administering pain killers.

    Pain killers mask the symptoms but do not deal with the real issue causing the suffering.

  8. Anonymous February 9, 2013

    I like the debate, but i don't appreciate the way result was declared 😉

    I am wondering if Dr. Rosenberg will ever become christian…

    Thank you very much Apologetics315


  9. Anonymous February 19, 2013

    One of Dr rosensbergs free will analogies was grossly incorrect which wud make us have to question his entire logic…. he stated, and ill sum it up – if i give a test with easy answers and pay 1000 dollars for each right answer and punish wrong answers everyone wud ace the test and get rich…however thats not free will… because u wud be punished for choosing or rewarded. So of course you wud rather not be punished. Free will is the choice to freely choose …..thats like saying – .if some one says "ill shoot you unless you drink that orange juice" and then asks you to freely choose to drink the o g or not is NOT free will….thats embarrassing for dr rosenberg

  10. Anonymous February 19, 2013

    This seems to be an easy one…dr rosenberg asks how come theres is bad / evil in the world couldnt god just have created a world of only good . So heres an easy analogy- u wud never know the taste of something sweet without tasting the bitter. You wouldnt know suffering without joy, or good without bad. We r agents of free will not robots only doing what we r told every moment of our time here.

  11. jalexb May 15, 2013

    Dr. Rosenberg, although a brilliant thinker, has not thought out his question of "..a world of only good?". I agree with Anonymous + add that the virtue of "Love" could not exist in a world with only good. If I love you, you must be able to reject it by your own free will or there is no way we could call it love by how we define it – hence the robotic world with no Love. The God of the Bible declares He wants Love to exist in our world & between Him/us. We can't go beyond the Bible, because it would be putting false words in God's mouth – in a trial, that would be perjury and not acceptable even to the atheist.