What do you think of William Lane Craig?

[Jackalope]

He has been corrected in his use of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, even by prominent cosmologists (such as Sean Carroll) who personally know those researchers, and yet, Craig continues to trot out the same old nonsense time and time again.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, both Vilenkin and Guth have both made statements that the theorem does not say what WLC claims it does. That WLC continues to make such claims is enlightening.

The man is a fraud.

[Edwardo Piet]

"WLC" actually stands for "Weird-Looking Charlatan".

[Cyberman]

Now you've done it.

[Jackalope]

"WLC" actually stands for "Weird-Looking Charlatan".

I thought it was "Wanking Like Crazy"?

[Jehanne]

He has been corrected in his use of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, even by prominent cosmologists (such as Sean Carroll) who personally know those researchers, and yet, Craig continues to trot out the same old nonsense time and time again.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, both Vilenkin and Guth have both made statements that the theorem does not say what WLC claims it does.   That WLC continues to make such claims is enlightening.

The man is a fraud.

This is the prima facie evidence, the "smoking gun", as to why no one should trust anything that WLC says; I'm surprised that his wife still trusts him, although, it's the "Bill & Jan" show if you read their website.

[Alex K]

He strangles puppies for fun.

[Foxaèr]

I think nothing of him at all.

[Jehanne]

Where's the "manipulative disingenuous cunt" option?

Sam Harris kicked his ass in debate. Sam Harris kicks ass just by waking up being Sam Harris though.

It's best with stupid fucking cunt of a bastard William Lane omitted and removed altogether:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8FRqMK8OOY

Bliss. Just Sam.

I think I haz a mancrush on Sam Harris, he is just so damn epic!

I watched the debate in its entirety, all 2 hours, 6 minutes, 54 seconds of it.  Craig's argument basically is that if the Christian god "says that it is good, well, then it's good."  A stunning moment happened near the end of the "show" (to quote the moderator), when one of the ND students claimed to have had a "vision from Jesus" the night before, and Craig dismissed him out-of-hand as a conscious fake.  Today's "conscious fake" is tomorrow's "near visionary," I suppose. The most telling difference between Harris and Craig is that the latter thinks that ISIS is wrong because they are worshiping the "wrong god."  Harris thinks that "they are wrong, period."

An interesting debate; I give the win to Craig on style but the win for substance goes to Harris, clearly.

[robvalue]

Option 1.

He probably does really believe in his religion, but I think he's well aware of the bogus methods he employs and is in it for the money.

If you want to see WLC utterly destroyed in a different format, at length, here is Steve Shives dissecting one of his books. There are 8 more videos about the same book. I've watched it all, it's awesome. When it comes to analysing religion, I tend to agree with what Steve says almost 100% and he's also given me new ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nll-g8ll...3tJxme23ic

[Cephus]

Yeah, he's a charlatan, just like all the rest of the loudmouthed apologists.  This is nothing new, I first identified that kind of nonsense back in the early 80s with people like Henry Morris and Duane Gish, both of whom were repeatedly corrected in their lies, both of whom admitted that they were wrong, yet went right back to spouting the same nonsense the second they thought nobody was listening.

What people need to recognize is that apologetics isn't about finding truth, it's about defending the faith.  Craig gets paid by the religiously fanatical to make them feel good about the things they believe.  He's not going to spit in the face of his meal ticket.  Therefore, truth or not, he's going to keep spouting the same religious nonsense because that's what the people who pay him want to hear.  He's a hack, just like every other apologist out there.