(March 17, 2017 at 4:22 am)Esquilax Wrote:(March 17, 2017 at 4:17 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't think it matters.
It's obvious to me that WLC is as versed in philosophy as many of the people he debates with. He's not a slouch or an intellectual weakling.
Are you... kidding?
Someone with any intellectual wherewithal would not need to court presuppositionalism as Craig does for the one topic he's made his central area of discussion, with this nonsensical "inner witness of the holy spirit," crap. Intellectual strength also, by the way, precludes the idea that one would continue believing a thing despite evidence to the contrary, as Craig has repeatedly said that he would.
Craig is good at one thing, and that is dressing up already refuted ideas that are bereft of any form of support, in so much philosophical jargon that they no longer seem to be such on cursory examinations. Nobody who was well versed in philosophy would champion the Kalam argument as heavily as Craig does.
I've heard you and others make this claim before. Do you have a link to anything published by a philosopher of any renown that would support your opinion? Of course I am not talking about a respectful difference of opinion on a topic--I'm talking about mirroring your general characterization of him as not being a serious philosopher.
