More nonsense from William Craig...

[abaris]

They're as useless as wheels on a fish.

Great line, Abs.

Thanks. I'm rather fond of it myself, if I may say so.

[LastPoet]

They should be swayed in the "opposite" direction, to one of not trusting anything that Craig says.  He plays the exact same games with respect to higher Biblical scholarship as he does with the physical sciences.  Look, I could say to you, "Most scholars of the Quran believe it to be divinely inspired."  But, is that "proof" that the Quran is "divinely inspired"?  Ditto for the New Testament and Craig's "most scholars accept blah, blah, blah...."

Craig's citing of the 2011 CERN superluminal results is a major blunder on his part (not the first and not the last, to be sure); most of his followers will, I grant, not care.  But, for those of you who are on the fence, take note; Craig is a dishonest scholar who will take and twist anything to suite his religion.

You can't fight a snake oil salesman. the ones he reaches to, are already convinced, and in hunger for expensive wording to sugar coat their own fantasies they use him and give him money... for doing nothing. I have not a christian mindset, as in, trying to make a buck out of others idiocy.

Good luck beçieving an afterlife dumbfucks.

[Jehanne]

They should be swayed in the "opposite" direction, to one of not trusting anything that Craig says.  He plays the exact same games with respect to higher Biblical scholarship as he does with the physical sciences.  Look, I could say to you, "Most scholars of the Quran believe it to be divinely inspired."  But, is that "proof" that the Quran is "divinely inspired"?  Ditto for the New Testament and Craig's "most scholars accept blah, blah, blah...."

Craig's citing of the 2011 CERN superluminal results is a major blunder on his part (not the first and not the last, to be sure); most of his followers will, I grant, not care.  But, for those of you who are on the fence, take note; Craig is a dishonest scholar who will take and twist anything to suite his religion.

You can't fight a snake oil salesman. the ones he reaches to, are already convinced, and in hunger for expensive wording to sugar coat their own fantasies they use him and give him money... for doing nothing. I have not a christian mindset, as in, trying to make a buck out of others idiocy.

Good luck beçieving an afterlife dumbfucks.

I listen to Craig's debates not because I care in the slightest what he has to say (he does not even need to show-up; just bring a cassette tape recording of one of his previous debates); rather, I like to listen to hear what his opponents have to say!  Craig is monotonous boredom, like re-reading an issue of Penthouse from 30 years ago, absent any pictures; however, his opponents, for the most part, have always brought novel and thoughtful ideas with them to the auditorium.

[Edwardo Piet]

If you just want to hear one of his opponents, then in that case you may enjoy this if you haven't seen it already:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8FRqMK8OOY

[Jehanne]

If you just want to hear one of his opponents, then in that case you may enjoy this if you haven't seen it already:

I wish that folks would make more of these.  In fact, I may commit myself to such a project!  Craig's presentations are like a Scooby-Doo episode -- if you've seen one, basically, you've seen them all.  Now, don't get me wrong; I love Scooby-Doo!  But, not Bill Craig.

[abaris]

If you just want to hear one of his opponents, then in that case you may enjoy this if you haven't seen it already:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8FRqMK8OOY

Ass versus Ass. I think I give that one a pass.

[dyresand]

WLC is a con artist and a liar.

[Gemini]

I listen to Craig's debates not because I care in the slightest what he has to say (he does not even need to show-up; just bring a cassette tape recording of one of his previous debates); rather, I like to listen to hear what his opponents have to say!  Craig is monotonous boredom, like re-reading an issue of Penthouse from 30 years ago, absent any pictures; however, his opponents, for the most part, have always brought novel and thoughtful ideas with them to the auditorium.

I used to listen to them while playing World of Warcraft or Diablo 3, and yeah, Craig does mostly just repeat the same stuff every time. His opponents are much more interesting; some of my favorites were Stephen Law, Paul Draper, Shelly Kagan, and that interview with Peter Millican.

Oh, and Sean Carroll. One of the best moments came when Craig's collaborator, James Sinclair, was forced by Carroll to concede that the Aguirre-Gratton model is perfectly consistent with the BGV theorem, leaving them with only their a priori argument against an actual infinite to support the Kalam. 

Not that Craig or his emulators would ever stop appealing to the BGV. It impresses laypeople with terminology, and that's really all apologists need their arguments to succeed at.

[Spirian]

Makes one wonder whether he believes his own claptrap.

[pgrimes15]

As useful as a cat flap in an elephant house.

As useful as a catflap in a submarine.