William Lane Craig unmasked.

[Jehanne]

by Lawrence Krauss:

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

I think that Krauss has his own shortcomings, such as being unnecessary abrasive and rude at times, which, I think, stems from his own personal insecurities, but in this video, he scores a bulls-eye.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here's WLC getting embarassed some more:

[Angrboda]

Here's WLC getting embarassed some more:

I think Craig is on point here. His opponent is drawing value judgements about harming others out of thin air, without really justifying why they are moral values. He's engaged in a classic example of Moore's naturalistic fallacy. So ultimately, I think the point goes to Craig.


“If everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

[Whateverist]

But Shelly makes a good point when he asks "and why should that matter" in relation to a theist's attempts to ground moral values in God's authority.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Craig vs Parsons may be of interest to some of you.  Here it is:

[robvalue]

Here's WLC getting embarassed some more:

I think Craig is on point here.  His opponent is drawing value judgements about harming others out of thin air, without really justifying why they are moral values.  He's engaged in a classic example of Moore's naturalistic fallacy.  So ultimately, I think the point goes to Craig.


“If everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

I agree, Sam Harris pretty much does the same thing. It's pre-packaged philosophy, being snuck in. Of course most people tend to agree anyway, but that doesn't validate the argument. It's just exclusionary thinking.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here's WLC getting embarassed some more:

I think Craig is on point here.  His opponent is drawing value judgements about harming others out of thin air, without really justifying why they are moral values.  He's engaged in a classic example of Moore's naturalistic fallacy.  So ultimately, I think the point goes to Craig.


“If everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Nah that's conflating moral ontology with moral epistemology.

[bennyboy]

Here's WLC getting embarassed some more:

I think Craig is on point here.  His opponent is drawing value judgements about harming others out of thin air, without really justifying why they are moral values.  He's engaged in a classic example of Moore's naturalistic fallacy.  So ultimately, I think the point goes to Craig.


“If everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Yep.  So far, every time someone's posted how WLC has been "embarrassed," it's because they are excited about an atheist's points, and ignoring WLC's.  I think he holds the wrong position, but nobody can really accuse him of not representing that position pretty much as well as one could, IMO.

[Jehanne]

WLC is a small business owner and not a scholar.  He even admitted during a debate (sorry, I'd have to look it up) that he "spends most of my time reading atheist literature"; in other words, he spends most of his days working out of his home (probably, in his underwear), reading-up on his next debate opponent.  This is not the work of a true scholar.

[Amarok]

Yup

In all his debates Craig has never been able to provide a good argument for god being the foundation of morality that doesn't beg the question. My favorite example is when he tries to argue that deep down we really know something is wrong as if our feelings on the matter make it justified.