Ah, yes--the theodicy thing. The problem of evil has some of the best philosphers and theologians baffled. A famous American religions scholar, Bart Erdman, went from being a Bible-believing Christian to an agnostic because he couldn't deal with it.
These are some of the interesting videos.
Desouza on miracles(atheist has put the video)
Dawkins and Mcgrath( on statistical improbability of God) Atheist tries to show how he is very smart in logic.
We saw the debate yesterday, and thought it'd be cool to see our GM engaged in that format, since he is usually talking to a favorable crowd on festivals or preaching tours.
At the same time, it's very easy to preach to atheists, especially that buffoon in the video, or anyway to non-devotees; much more difficult is to fine tune on the details of our siddhanta with the devotees who already know it, or so they think, and our GM is the best at that.
After watching the entire video yesterday, it was plain to me that this Law fellow was easy pickings. Despite a PhD from Oxford, he was a real lightweight. Sivarama Maharaja didn't even have to break a sweat discussing with him. It would indeed be fun to watch Swami deal with him. All Law has going for him is his pedigree, but Swami has real substance and weight.
Another person who would be fun would be Hridayananda Maharaja. Law tried his best, in true modern-professor style, to be clever and entertaining. Hridyananda Maharaja's encyclopedic knowledge and lightning-fast rapier wit would make it clear to everyone what a buffoon Law is. This would have more entertainment value than the debate with SRS.
Still, it would be more instructive and satisfying to match him with Swami. Well, maybe not as satisfying as matching Swami with Dawkins or Hitchens. No, not Hitchens. He's mostly showman, anyway, and I don't really take him all that seriously. He mostly plays to the atheist choir. (Hmmm . . Hitchens and Hridayananda Maharaja?)
After watching the entire video yesterday, it was plain to me that this Law fellow was easy pickings. Despite a PhD from Oxford, he was a real lightweight. Sivarama Maharaja didn't even have to break a sweat discussing with him. It would indeed be fun to watch Swami deal with him. All Law has going for him is his pedigree, but Swami has real substance and weight.
Another person who would be fun would be Hridayananda Maharaja. Law tried his best, in true modern-professor style, to be clever and entertaining. Hridyananda Maharaja's encyclopedic knowledge and lightning-fast rapier wit would make it clear to everyone what a buffoon Law is. This would have more entertainment value than the debate with SRS.
Still, it would be more instructive and satisfying to match him with Swami. Well, maybe not as satisfying as matching Swami with Dawkins or Hitchens. No, not Hitchens. He's mostly showman, anyway, and I don't really take him all that seriously. He mostly plays to the atheist choir. (Hmmm . . Hitchens and Hridayananda Maharaja?)
I agree, Law was easy picking. He is not as sophisticated as Dawkins. I don't find Hitchens a great person to debate, he is unreasonable and arrogant.
I don't find Hitchens a great person to debate, he is unreasonable and arrogant.
Well, I wouldn't want to debate him. I'd turn into just as big a jerk as he is, and he probably thinks faster and is less inhibited than I. But it might be fun to see HDG slap him down a couple of times.