Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Esquilax]

My own opinion is that not one person in this forum could last five minutes on stage in front of a live audience with him.

Oh, no doubt! I suck at public speaking!

Consequently, it's amusing to see people trying to explain why he's wrong when he would mop the floor with their silly objections in person.

See, I dunno that this actually means anything: I fully accept that Craig could probably beat me in a live debate, but I don't think for a second that he could do so in a prepared back and forth. Craig is an excellent orator, and he's very good at obscuring the problems with what he's saying by turning simple, intellectually dishonest premises into twisting labyrinths of twenty dollar words, but the actual content of his arguments is trivial to rebut. Hell, I've done it myself countless times here, even with you; do you remember citing the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem in support of Kalam? That's a William Lane Craig argument too, and you retracted it when I pointed out that the theorem doesn't actually say anything in support of Kalam; this is something that Craig himself refused to do even when actually told, point blank, by one of the writers of the paper, that no, it does not say what he asserted that it says. It's one of the few times that I've ever seen Craig put off his game on stage, but the point is that you can hardly tell me that Craig would "mop the floor" with me based on the content of his arguments, when the one interaction we've had over WLC's arguments in the past had you admitting that the argument Craig used was wrong.

Craig is nothing special. He's just another in a long line of preachers, albeit one of the few who has managed to cloak his rhetoric in intellectualism rather that religious fervor. I've seen his arguments, I've watched him present them. They're nothing more than assertions, in the main.