While the debate was lively and engaging, I found some of the logic was weak. I should say that I enjoyed listening to the debate and was happy with the fact the the debaters treated each other respectfully. As if debating the existance of God isn't difficult enough, Dr. Craig used some arguments relating to infinities. This is an extremely difficult area to be precise in. With non-mathematical language there's sufficient ambiguity that it's difficult to really say something meaningful. Dr. Dacey tried to show (among other things) that the attributes of God are mutually contradictory -- particularly with respect to the problems of evil, belief and salvation. His arguments often rest on the idea that it is reasonable to have certain expectations of God. Christians would agree with this statement in many, many cases. However, it doesn't hold universally with respect to the types of things that we should expect. I should point out that Dr. Dacey does remind us of the difference between evidence and proof. But the strength of the evidence relies on the strength and universality of the assumptions.

An interesting enough debate on the topic. The disparity between the quality of the debaters, however, was a little frustrating. William Lane Craig is extremely articulate; a commanding presence who uses every second of his time to say precisely what he needs to say, with no wasted words. Dr. Dacey, by contrast, regularly uses fillers like "um" and "ah", which tends to deflate the power in his arguments; besides beginning nearly every speech with a joke. Especially frightening were a couple of the students' questions near the end. One asked Dacey about evolution like this: "Why do teachers say we're from apes? I don't look like a ape." And the girl who tried to suggest to Craig that Christians tend to be more judgemental and prejudiced (bad idea). Some of Dacey's arguments were interesting if you don't mind his personality. Some of Craig's counter-arguments were very difficult to follow. Still, the format was civil and the tone was very respectful, and for those reasons it's definitely worth a listen.

i found this to be an excellent debate by two great intellectuals in their respective fields. my own beliefs may bias me towards finding more strength in dr craig's premises, but aside from that i did find him to be a more effective debater. i found dacey's arguments to be logical from his foundation as an atheist. his closing statement, however, was both difficult to follow and ineffective. one question i would have for dacey would be why it is even worthwhile for him to debate the existence of god as an atheist. for the believer, the consequence of one's conclusions on such matters is infinite; for the nonbeliever one's conclusion is inconsequential.

Great debate! Craig gives a great argument for the existance of God, and Dacey brings up some interesting ideas as well.

I've been looking around on the internet for a while, but I just can't seem to find any other debates like these. Does anyone have a web resource for debates between athiests and theologians? It would be much appreciated.

Entertaining discussion. Dr. Dacey argues for the atheism/non-existence of God in several ways. Tsunami that causes of so many death recently, malaria killing many, etc. Does that mean the amount of death is the lack of existence of death? Many argue with all these evils in the world, how can there be a God? By using just numbers, which triggers emotions of men, while ‘useful’ in using argument, it’s not a good logic to refuse the existence of God. A mother in USA would be sadder if her child dies and thinks it’s not fair and thus there must NOT be a God, more than thinking of the tsunami in the Pacific. A counter-argument for Dr. Dacey is why didn’t a stronger super-tsunami occur that could have killed more people? Why was USA so ‘lucky’ in that it didn’t happened at California, or near NYC? Why didn’t an earthquake happen where Dr. Dacey lives? Would he think there is a God who spared his life for not sending an earthquake at his town? Would he argue that God isn’t fair, so malaria should be everywhere equally and tsunami equally and other ‘act of God’ equally even to him? Dr. Dacey doesn’t consider the ‘goodness’ that has been done for him and many others too.

I meant to say "Does that mean the amount of death is the lack of existence of God?"

On the other hand if evil and pain in the world guides people to think there is no God, then would the beauty and joy in the world guide people to think that God exists? We see the beauty in the nature, (fall foliage, Yosemite Park, etc) as well as the joy of eating a nice cool ice cream on a hot day. People all die, typically much before they become 100. Why shouldn’t Dr. Dacey argue that this isn’t fair since some trees live longer and aren’t human more valuable than trees? God if he existed shouldn’t let this happen. If people were able to live for 200 years, then Dr. Dacey would argue that why only 200, it should be 300, etc… As Ravi Zacharias and others pointed out, more atheists have killed in the 20th century than theists. List like Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Hitler.

i am sorry, but i have to reduce this debate down to the most easiest way that i can truthfully put... Atheism is FOOLISHNESS (Ps. 14:1). We as Christians place our FULL faith in the ressurection of JESUS, I know that this was not the subject, but after personally engaging in these debates and listening to the "Masters of Debate", such as Dr. Craig, i am becoming less and less concerned with what poor excuses Atheism continues to invent to not believe in God. Here Craig shows that an infinite universe is impossible, yet the Atheist stills wants to believe in it and change simple "addition & substraction"??!@*(#(^!^# Its like, "Come on!!!!!" Then the Atheist wants to question God's goodness, yet, he will not give a standard of goodness, and at the sametime, he will leave the origin of the entire universe to "mystery", yet he DEMANDS to know ever action of God and for it to fit objectively into his subjective morals/beliefs... this simply reminds me of a silly child plugging theirs ears and pretending not to hear what the teacher is saying... David said it correctly, to be an atheist, is to be a fool.