William Lane Craig

[Welsh cake]

William Lane Craig is very difficult to debate, athiests usually stammer a lot around him. He's very respectful and engaging, but most of all, he's extremely informed. The biggest argument that William has, and that any Christian has is the fact that no one can disprove the existence of God, they can simply believe he's not real.

Then William has nothing.

A half-arsed argument from ignorance is not a valid argument for God's existence or any entities' ontology for that matter.

[theVOID]

What do you guys think about him? I just read an article which said most atheists are afraid to debate him. When i told my friend i was reading a book by bart ehrman he should check out, he said "i know that guy! William lane craig debated him, kicked his ass, dont listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about." i couldnt say anything because i havent really watched craig debate. I plan to correct that now. Anyway anyone got links to some of his debates i should watch or any general thoughts on him and his arguments?

Craig is pretty much the best debater I've ever seen regarding religion... He's also trumped Hitchens, Harris and Stenger that I know of.

Craig kicked Erhman's ass when it came to Bayes theorem and probability theory, Ehrman was much better in terms of historical evidence - He really cocked up when he started using Hume's long debunked ideas on historical miracles, the central idea of it (that it is impossible to historically establish miracles) being incompatible with Bayes Theorem and since Bayes > Hume in any objective sense he lost the argument. Overall I thought that debate was a bit of a draw, maybe Craig had a slight edge.

The debate with Harris is entertaining, mostly because it's a perfect demonstration of how utterly bullshit the content of "The Moral Landscape" is, Harris is so out of his depth and his arguments so frail that he goes completely off topic on at least a dozen occasions with typical Atheist rhetoric and generic talking points, a damn obvious sign that he's got nothing of substance to support his utilitarian/wellbeing/science-morality assertions.

Debate and commentary; http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15167

I've only read one of Craig's books thus far; "The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination", it was pretty fucking good as far as philosophy of time is concerned, he obviously grasps relativity to an impressive extent too because in the book he laid out a pretty good case for A-theory (tensed theory) of time being consistent with GR and other observations - Essentially his Kalam argument (which imo is still a steaming pile of crap) is contingent upon A-theory of time, so his book at least removed one obstacle for his theory, though his misrepresentation of atheist claims amongst other things still make his argument egregiously flawed.