William Lane Craig

[Captain Scarlet]

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?

WLC is a very well prepared debater. He is bright without being the brightest and is something of a xtian fundie poster boy. He also knows his arguments very well but also knows they are tired and invalid, but puts them forward anyway in an attempt to shore up the xtians from always appearing like nut jobs and the atheists rational. The arguments are well defended as he knows all of the atheists ripostes, but forces a format onto his opponent which enables him to defend his arguments without adequate time to forensically dismantle them. He has lost a number of debates to folks like Ray Bradley, Shelly Kagan, Jesseph, Quentin Smith etc. He struggles particularly when the debate narrows focus to a particular topic eg just morality or just cosmology. But he doesnt struggle because he doesn't know his stuff, he struggles because he knows the devil is in the detail and his arguments quickly break down.

---

So what would u guys say in response to the cosmological argument? Did te universe come into being? Or has it always existed?

The correct answer is one stated by Rhythym, ie we do not know. However the cosmological argument is invalid:

1. Even if it can be proved that the universe has a cause, how do you then move to that cause being a god or gods and why the xtian god. WLC does have a line of logic but it's tenuous. The cause could have been the 'idea of an apple'.
2. If the universe is caused then it must have been a temporal effect. Causes always precede their effects in time. Without time causality breaks down. the thing is time only came into existence with the big bang and thus there was no time nor cause before it.
3. the first premise states nothing comes into existence uncaused. This is true with respect to things in our universe. But to extrapolate that to the universe as a whole commits a compositional error. That is you cannot argue to the whole from the individual parts.
4. The big bang is cited by Craig as evidence that the universe began to exist. Yet this is highly dubious. The big bang can only reach back in time as far as Planck time. Before that time (if such a thing is at all possible) the universe could have always existed just in a different state, ie as a quantum of energy
5. The alternative explanations of the universe starting from a quantum fluctuation are better supported by maths and physics and are simpler than a highly complex mind bootstrapping a universe from nothing, as they do not require explanation yet the mind does. Occams razor would suggest the natural explanation is superior.