What do you think of William Lane Craig?

[Pat Mustard]

An absolute, complete, total and utter fucking cunt of a bastard, an idiotic shitstain, a motherfucking cretin, a fuckmothering halfwit, a fucktarded monster of a human being, a despicable twatwaffle, a bastarding dickweed, a sodding, perverse, creepy, asshat of a fucking moronic loser, a terrible, awful excuse for an amoeba with less brain cells than one atom from one droplet of my most turtleyest wankered turtle-mayo with extra sprinkles of my reptilian nougat dust.

So, basicly, drippy with access to a ban account with money in it then?

[athrock]

I've watched most, if not all, of his debates, and read many of his papers and books. I doubt many (any?) here can say that.

He's far better than most here want to give him credit for, and I suspect the vitriol directed at him is the direct result of their unspoken recognition of his knowledge and skill as a Christian apologist.

Face it, if he weren't so damned good at what he does, none of the people hurling insults at him in this thread would have even heard of him. Clearly, Krauss, Hitchens and others considered him a worthy adversary...or they never would have taken the stage with him. A bit of respect, however begrudgingly given, is due.

And make no mistake, Craig and others like him are actively arming a generation of believers with the arguments and answers needed for battle. So, while the clarion calls of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens may have stirred their followers to arms, they were also heard by other watchmen on the walls who have sounded their own alarms. A sleeping giant has been roused from slumber. 

The tide is beginning to turn.

[Pat Mustard]

I've watched most, if not all, of his debates, and read many of his papers and books. I doubt many (any?) here can say that.

He's far better than most here want to give him credit for, and I suspect the vitriol directed at him is the direct result of their unspoken recognition of his knowledge and skill as a Christian apologist.

Face it, if he weren't so damned good at what he does, none of the people hurling insults at him in this thread would have even heard of him. Clearly, Krauss, Hitchens and others considered him a worthy adversary...or they never would have taken the stage with him. A bit of respect, however begrudgingly given, is due.

And make no mistake, Craig and others like him are actively arming a generation of believers with the arguments and answers needed for battle. So, while the clarion calls of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens may have stirred their followers to arms, they were also heard by other watchmen on the walls who have sounded their own alarms. A sleeping giant has been roused from slumber. 

The tide is beginning to turn.

The problen with your supposition is that it doesn't hold water. The only "arguments"Craig offres in favour of his theistic worldview are 1) quote mines misrepresenting the ideas of others, 2) old Catholic-Platonic ideas which were debunked over a thousand years ago and 3) gross and deliberate misrepresentation of modern scientific theories (we know they're deliberate misrepresentations because he uses them even after being corrected by those who came up with them, often to his face).

If you thinkvthis mendacious, malicious, meandering miscreant is provung your delusions you're thicker than I previously thought (and that is hard to do, as I thought there were dead goldfish out there cleverer than you). Of coyrse if you had read his words critically and listened to even one of his debates with non-apologists, you'd have known this yourself, so not alone are you too dumb to live you're a liar to boot.

[robvalue]

As I said, bring me his best argument, and we'll deconstruct it. His arguments look fancy, but they are fallacious.

He's a clever trickster, that's for sure. He knows how to work his audience.

[LadyForCamus]

What do I think of William Lane Craig?

I think the kindest thing to say is the thought of him can keep the wolf from the door in a vinegar stroke situation.

LOL! Taco...

[robvalue]

This is what I think of WLC. I made a video simulator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e1lfIpQD3w

[Esquilax]

He's far better than most here want to give him credit for, and I suspect the vitriol directed at him is the direct result of their unspoken recognition of his knowledge and skill as a Christian apologist.

So is this just what you're reduced to now? Just empowering yourself to dictate to others what their positions are so that we all secretly agree with you? That's the low you've sunk to?

I can debunk any single WLC argument you happen to like. Frankly, I'm kind of quizzical that this is the guy you're holding up, the one whose belief just rests on a presupposition ("Inner witness of the holy spirit" ) that he's right. That's a skilled apologist, to you? Sye Ten Bruggencate if he wasn't a hobgoblin?

[dyresand]

Let's be honest here WLC doesn't win any arguments at all.
When he is questioned on one of his arguments he uses his tactics of asking several other fallacious questions
to the person he debating. That is what he does to make himself look like he wins a debate. The thing is
you can answer 1 question when he asks several he is only prolonging the debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o9UXjpT8ig

[Jehanne]

I've watched most, if not all, of his debates, and read many of his papers and books. I doubt many (any?) here can say that.

He's far better than most here want to give him credit for, and I suspect the vitriol directed at him is the direct result of their unspoken recognition of his knowledge and skill as a Christian apologist.

Face it, if he weren't so damned good at what he does, none of the people hurling insults at him in this thread would have even heard of him. Clearly, Krauss, Hitchens and others considered him a worthy adversary...or they never would have taken the stage with him. A bit of respect, however begrudgingly given, is due.

And make no mistake, Craig and others like him are actively arming a generation of believers with the arguments and answers needed for battle. So, while the clarion calls of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens may have stirred their followers to arms, they were also heard by other watchmen on the walls who have sounded their own alarms. A sleeping giant has been roused from slumber. 

The tide is beginning to turn.

I have also watched most of Craig's debates, over two dozen, to be sure.  He basically gives the same presentation every time with only minor variations.  From a scholarly POV, Criag is just a pathetic joke; I would encourage anyone to watch his debates with Professor Bart Ehrman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

Professor Lawrence Krauss:

http://lifeuniversenothing.org/

Professor Sean Carroll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

Also search his debates with John Shelby Spong and  Professor Shelly Kagan to name just a few.

Point is that when Craig debates a real scholar who is also a good public speaker, Craig performs terribly.  He is shown to be the lying charlatan that he is.  Note he is continual quotation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem certainly misrepresents Professor Alan Guth's views, as Sean Carroll shows. For Professor Vilenkin's views, see this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s

[robvalue]

EDITED

That was a bit mean. Removed.