What do you think of William Lane Craig?

[robvalue]

I would love you to go on about Denmark again please.

[Huggy Bear]

I would love you to go on about Denmark again please.

Oh...

So you DO realize he was on the wrong side of that argument then?

[robvalue]

I'm a rock star now, I don't have to listen to this.

I'm raising it to 200,000%. What you got now?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If I'm the (dubiously self appointed) chainsaw of logic, Esq is the Death Star of obliterating every last micro-organism of weak arguments.

You sure about that?

[Huggy Bear]

I'm a rock star now, I don't have to listen to this.

I'm raising it to 200,000%. What you got now?

I already know how you love to plug your ears when confronted with truth... kinda like how you threw a fit and put me on ignore when I brought up the fact that atheist churches exist.

[robvalue]

300,000%. I have two pairs, what do you have?

OK, that's enough of that. Back to our regularly scheduled calling WLC a piece of shit.

[Esquilax]

I would love you to go on about Denmark again please.

Oh...

So you DO realize he was on the wrong side of that argument then?

Was I even fucking involved in that argument?

I really can't remember, so I'll leave it to the sad obsessive.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Huggy doesn't believe in "religion", therefore he has no sources for his ideas. No holy book, sacred rituals, no flock to associate with, no shepherd in a pulpit, and no spiritual advisor (all are elements of religion). When you believe in a god in the absence of these, then all you have is your own mind, within which you retreat as you purport to "listen" for your "God" to instruct or "move" you, when in fact it can be no more than your own mind reflecting back at you. In short, Huggy believes he is "God". Probably the worst possible sort of god too, being over-aggressive and vindictive.

[robvalue]

Since you brought it up Huggy, I put you on ignore because of your obsession with derailing threads with irrelevant garbage, exactly like you've done here. And dragging up pointless squabbles no one cares about, like you've done again, twice.

[athrock]

I'm sorry, Ex...where did you earn your doctorate?  

Again, you leap to the assumption that I don't have one, despite me making it clear last time that I did, in fact, attend university. This isn't based on any actual evidence- you still don't even know my real name- but on your need to attack me as a person, rather than engage with the argument I presented the first time I posted here. Your naked, baseless aggression is noted, but does not, in itself, constitute an actual refutation of what I'm saying.

Okay, Esquilax. Since you have made your personal bona fides a matter of relevance, do you have a doctorate in Philosophy?

And honestly, is there really any reason why you can't link us to your published thesis and papers? I can respect your right to privacy, of course, but if you've going to make SOME claims, you're gonna have to provide more than just your say-so.

And in an amazing example of the pot calling the kettle black, YOUR half-truth now is to concentrate on attacking Craig's current employer (which is a small institution focused on a very specific objective, btw) while omitting any...mention...whatsoever...of his own academic training and credentials.

I'm shocked at the duplicity. Not.

That you can't see the difference isn't surprising, since you strike me now as a particularly insipid fellow, but I'll show you: of the two of us, I started out with an actual argument beyond ad hominems, and in fact offered to provide a more substantial criticism of WLC's ideas and philosophy if you wanted to provide those parts of that set you felt were particularly effective; I came into this discussion in good faith, willing to engage with whatever ideas you wished to bring to the table. I was the one of us who retains a standing offer to do so. The difference between us is that I've actually attempted to engage with the subject matter, rather than the person.

Which sort of puts me in the position of having to play apologist for WLC, a position I am not comfortable with. But that's not the real issue - as will be demonstrated momentarily.

But I can only serve back the ball that's tossed into my court, athrock. In response to my offer, you opted not to actually present a WLC argument, but to attack my credentials (despite having no way to know what they are) and to puff up Craig's, as though an argument from authority will carry any weight here. Since you brought up Craig's tenured position as though it were some great achievement, and you seemed to want to focus on that instead of Craig's arguments, I refuted your "argument." This wasn't something I came to all on my own, after all.

You have the sequence well enough. I mentioned that Craig in a tenured professor (Your criticisms of Talbot ring hollow since he is being paid to teach...are you envious?) I also referenced his books, papers, and years of public debate as evidence for the fact that he's no intellectual slouch. You were the first to mention Talbot by name. Should I have the court reporter read the transcript back to you? You did so here.

And now, since your sacred cow has been slaughtered and his superficially impressive position dismantled, you rush to shift the goalposts to Craig's education, rather than his current employment. But you didn't mention his education at all in the last post, your sole jibe at me there was that Craig was a tenured professor, author, and speaker, so I should shut up. It's hardly "duplicity" for me to address the contentions you actually made, rather than ones you neglected to and apparently only want to focus on now because your first ones were so comprehensively drubbed. Is replying to the words you said truly so dishonest to you?

I mentioned that Craig is a tenured professor. You decided to attack Talbot in an attempt to score cheap debate points. Should I counter by attacking your social work? 

Where either of you works is not particularly relevant to what you have learned during your years in the hallowed halls of your respective universities. And since you thought that Talbot somehow tarnishes the credentials of WLC, I felt obligated to point out his sterling training that resulted in TWO doctorates earned from prestigious universities. You won't even name yours.

But let's not forget who moved the goalposts, Esq...you did in this paragraph taken from post #84:

But before we even afford that dubious accomplishment any degree of respect, let's compare: Talbot's ridiculous presuppositions aside (and for entertainment value, there's even a threat of hell right there in the doctrinal statement, because all good philosophers know the best way to convince people is through threats, not argument or evidence  ) it's a very small school, hosting less than two thousand students. Now, my university, which has no statement of faith at all, nor gears its subject matter around presupposing a certain position, had over sixteen thousand students last year, international campuses, and regularly turns out notable politicians, academics, and so on. Talbot's notable alumni is little more than a cavalcade of pastors and christian speakers, with not a single person of note outside of theology graduating from there. 

Oh, and by the way? I studied philosophy when I went to my real university, as a focus of my degree. So maybe don't make assumptions about what is and is not within my wheelhouse. 

So, right there, you began a side by side comparison of where Craig teaches with the school you merely attended. Equivocate much? So, yeah, I then went apples to apples comparing his education with your education. 

It was just a train wreck for you after that... 

Craig got his first doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham (England, not Alabama, in case you need a map or compass). THEY have 20,000 students (nanny nanny boo boo), and according to Wiki, "the university was ranked 15th in the UK and 76th in the world in the QS World University Rankings for 2015-16." I'm not sure what all that means but I'm guessing that's pretty good.

His second doctorate was earned from Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich. Heard of them? Me, either, but Wikipedia says the one in Munich is one of Germany's oldest universities. Oh, and since size matters to you, they have 50,000 students. (How do you measure up now, shorty?)

Again, I only brought up Talbot's relative size because you seemed to think his working there was some impressive achievement; I worked with what I was given, and now you're acting like I came up with this all on my own and had no prompting from you, which is weird given the quotations from you all over my last post. If you had actually stayed on topic instead of running your mouth in an attempt to attack me, we would be talking Craig's arguments now, not his education. This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't started it, there's no use getting arch at me because the shit you said turned out to be severely unimpressive.

I kinda skimmed this in light of all that has been shown above. I mean, you're attempting the "my university can beat up your university" argument? Except that he has better academic credentials than you do? How is this helping you even remotely???

Regarding education... it's nice, but it's not the be all and end all. It's what you do with that education that matters to me, and that's where Craig falls down, regardless of his (heretofore not even mentioned) pedigree: I took my education and turned it to helping underprivileged people with their literacy skills to give them a leg up in their professional lives, turning my linguistic skill to helping those that needed it most learn to read, on a mostly volunteer basis. Craig took his (far greater) opportunities and turned them into a means of enhancing his own wealth, he took his skill with words and used them to make his anemic ideas seem feasible with mealy-mouthed excuses and tarted up presuppositional tactics, and he took a position at a college where everyone already agreed with him and presupposing faith is a high enough requirement to be on literally every page of the website. That's the difference between an education used for good, and an education misspent.

Enhancing his own wealth with his college degree? Isn't that the pretty much the primary purpose for going to college? To get an education, to get a job, to get paid?

I mean, I'm not really in the minority on this view, Esq.

Damn, son. You wasted your Daddy's money if you didn't learn that in school.  

Before you (hypocritically) accuse me of not engaging with Craig's ideas in favor of attacking the person again, I'll ask you just like I did the first time: present an argument of Craig's that you find to be particularly impressive, and I'll engage with that. Don't continue to attack me and puff up Craig's education like you think "he's real smart tho!" isn't just a fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere.

Let me get this straight: You want to pick a fight with me over someone else's words? And I'm supposed to defend the arguments of a man with not one, but two PhD's in philosophy against a man who "claims" to have - possibly have - a doctorate of his own?

And let's say I accept your challenge but fail miserably? What has been proven? That WLC's ideas really suck? That I suck at regurgitating them? Or both?

That advances our discussion exactly how?  

If you have an issue with WLC, why don't you challenge him to a debate yourself? We'll see whether he considers you a worthy adversary or not. Or get yourself published. Heck, you might even self-publish if that suits you. These days, there's no end to the means of getting the truth out. And if you have the chops to take down WLC, then your glory days will soon follow.

In the meantime, I'll stick to defending my own views and positions...which may or may not include ideas gleaned from others.

... Or not. It's possible, since you did literally use the phrase "nanny nanny boo boo," so maybe you aren't here for an actual discussion.    

I did. In mockery.  Like you do every time you insert:    

Now, you have the stones to accuse ME of beginning with ad hominems (a charge I don't think you can actually prove by providing links to my posts, btw.) when you have just wasted the last 15 minutes of your life attempting to discredit a respected scholar with more credentials to his name than you will ever earn?

You spent the entirety of your response to me mocking me as a person instead of responding to what I'd said. If you don't think that's an ad hominem, I really don't know what to say to you.

But THAT was not your accusation. Wow, no wonder you got out of academia. What you accused me of was "beginning" all my discussion with an ad hominem attack. This is a blatant lie which you cannot support. Sure, I attacked you later, but that wasn't at the beginning our our "discussion" was it? Is this ANOTHER of your half-truths?

Regarding Craig though, I don't happen to think that what I said discredits his position, which stands or falls on its own merits. Everything I said was within the context of your own baseless bragging about the man to avoid actually engaging with what I said. If you can't handle people responding to your senseless puffery, might I suggest providing something of actual substance next time? Like, maybe, the things in Craig's position that you find meaningful?

blah, blah, blah

And exactly how does the current student enrollment of your publicly-funded university contribute to your own status in any way? Don't public universities usually accept just about any resident of that state? Oh, wait...are you saying that because 16,000 people got in, that makes your alma mater better than Talbot? Didn't you learn about the argumentum ad populum in philosopher's school? Or is this an appeal to your public school's authority? Which philosophy degree is worth more, Ex? Yours or his?

How do you know my university was a public one? I never so much as mentioned the name of it; you've got no way of knowing where I went. Hell, you don't even know what country I'm from (I'll give you a hint: it's not America) nor the acceptance standards for universities in that country. You wrote this entire long paragraph and all you ended up doing was showcase your willingness to leap to baseless, bad faith assumptions about a person you've never met in order to discredit them.  

I gathered that you were possibly European (or under the British Crown) when you said you went "to university". Like going "to hospital". Americans insert an article there. I went to the university. I went to a hospital.

For the record, I posted the student number stats not as an argument from popularity, but to demonstrate the obvious differences between a real university, and a seminary tarted up to look like one. You've conveniently omitted it, but I went on to talk about the campuses and notable alumni from both schools too, but I guess those are harder to dishonestly dismiss as fallacies than the pure numbers I started out with.

Which is pretty irrelevant when you are TRYING to hype your academic credentials relative to his. Where the two of you work today is not at issue. (Though I'd argue that he spends more of his time thinking about Cosmology at his office than you do at yours.)

Any mention of Talbot is irrelevant when trying to decide whose education is more prestigious.

Given your inability to follow this logic, I think the answer to that question is abundantly clear.

Oh, and