Bill Craig now claiming to have a PhD in Philosophy.

[bennyboy]

I don't think it matters.

It's obvious to me that WLC is as versed in philosophy as many of the people he debates with. He's not a slouch or an intellectual weakling.

[Esquilax]

I don't think it matters.

It's obvious to me that WLC is as versed in philosophy as many of the people he debates with.  He's not a slouch or an intellectual weakling.

Are you... kidding?

Someone with any intellectual wherewithal would not need to court presuppositionalism as Craig does for the one topic he's made his central area of discussion, with this nonsensical "inner witness of the holy spirit," crap. Intellectual strength also, by the way, precludes the idea that one would continue believing a thing despite evidence to the contrary, as Craig has repeatedly said that he would.

Craig is good at one thing, and that is dressing up already refuted ideas that are bereft of any form of support, in so much philosophical jargon that they no longer seem to be such on cursory examinations. Nobody who was well versed in philosophy would champion the Kalam argument as heavily as Craig does.

[Jehanne]

I don't think it matters.

It's obvious to me that WLC is as versed in philosophy as many of the people he debates with.  He's not a slouch or an intellectual weakling.

I would hope that you take the time to read the RationalWiki article.  Craig is just woefully ignorant and he appears that he wants to remain that way, no doubt to continue the stream of income that he is receiving from his "ministry".  Let's take just one example of Craig's foolishness.  Craig claims that "actual infinities" are an absurdity in Nature, and yet, he will cite singularity theorems to bolster his first cause argument, not telling his ignorant evangelical audiences that a singularity, in physics, is an actual infinite, where the equations go to an infinite space-time curvature.

Craig can't have it both ways; either actual infinities exist, or the singularity theorems/results are telling physicists something (that, by the way, they already know!), namely, that General Relativity, as a theory, is incomplete at extreme energies and/or distances.

Maybe Alex can fill us in with more details?!

[SteveII]

I don't think it matters.

It's obvious to me that WLC is as versed in philosophy as many of the people he debates with.  He's not a slouch or an intellectual weakling.

Are you... kidding?

Someone with any intellectual wherewithal would not need to court presuppositionalism as Craig does for the one topic he's made his central area of discussion, with this nonsensical "inner witness of the holy spirit," crap. Intellectual strength also, by the way, precludes the idea that one would continue believing a thing despite evidence to the contrary, as Craig has repeatedly said that he would.

Craig is good at one thing, and that is dressing up already refuted ideas that are bereft of any form of support, in so much philosophical jargon that they no longer seem to be such on cursory examinations. Nobody who was well versed in philosophy would champion the Kalam argument as heavily as Craig does.

I've heard you and others make this claim before. Do you have a link to anything published by a philosopher of any renown that would support your opinion? Of course I am not talking about a respectful difference of opinion on a topic--I'm talking about mirroring your general characterization of him as not being a serious philosopher.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Are you... kidding?

Someone with any intellectual wherewithal would not need to court presuppositionalism as Craig does for the one topic he's made his central area of discussion, with this nonsensical "inner witness of the holy spirit," crap. Intellectual strength also, by the way, precludes the idea that one would continue believing a thing despite evidence to the contrary, as Craig has repeatedly said that he would.

Craig is good at one thing, and that is dressing up already refuted ideas that are bereft of any form of support, in so much philosophical jargon that they no longer seem to be such on cursory examinations. Nobody who was well versed in philosophy would champion the Kalam argument as heavily as Craig does.

I've heard you and others make this claim before. Do you have a link to anything published by a philosopher of any renown that would support your opinion? Of course I am not talking about a respectful difference of opinion on a topic--I'm talking about mirroring your general characterization of him as not being a serious philosopher.

What do you care for philosophy? There's already a consensus in your mind, right? God? Maybe you've heard of him? He's already declared what is and what isn't, arguing about it is utterly fruitless. The dictate have been dictated.

[Edwardo Piet]

Are you... kidding?

Someone with any intellectual wherewithal would not need to court presuppositionalism as Craig does for the one topic he's made his central area of discussion, with this nonsensical "inner witness of the holy spirit," crap. Intellectual strength also, by the way, precludes the idea that one would continue believing a thing despite evidence to the contrary, as Craig has repeatedly said that he would.

Craig is good at one thing, and that is dressing up already refuted ideas that are bereft of any form of support, in so much philosophical jargon that they no longer seem to be such on cursory examinations. Nobody who was well versed in philosophy would champion the Kalam argument as heavily as Craig does.

I've heard you and others make this claim before. Do you have a link to anything published by a philosopher of any renown that would support your opinion? Of course I am not talking about a respectful difference of opinion on a topic--I'm talking about mirroring your general characterization of him as not being a serious philosopher.

Anyone with more than 2 brain cells who has heard Bill Creg enough in debates and the fallacious arguments he makes knows he's obviously shit at philosophy.

All he's good at is making so many logical fallacies for his opponents to clear up that they don't have much time to make their own counter argument after they've corrected all his stupid bullshit.... as proper formal debates are on a timer.

Fucking ridiculous really. I think obvious logical fallacies should stop the timer and receive a warning from the moderator. If you're gonna engage in a serious debate at least don't spend all your time making your opponent clear up your equivocations and other bullshit. At least have a position worth arguing against.

[Jehanne]

I've heard you and others make this claim before. Do you have a link to anything published by a philosopher of any renown that would support your opinion? Of course I am not talking about a respectful difference of opinion on a topic--I'm talking about mirroring your general characterization of him as not being a serious philosopher.

Anyone with more than 2 brain cells who has heard Bill Creg enough in debates and the fallacious arguments he makes knows he's obviously shit at philosophy.

All he's good at is making so many logical fallacies for his opponents to clear up that they don't have much time to make their own counter argument after they've corrected all his stupid bullshit.... as proper formal debates are on a timer.

Fucking ridiculous really. I think obvious logical fallacies should stop the timer and receive a warning from the moderator. If you're gonna engage in a serious debate at least don't spend all your time making your opponent clear up your equivocations and other bullshit. At least have a position worth arguing against.

I don't even know that Bill took very many philosophy courses in his PhD program; his PhD advisor was Professor John Hick, who was in the department of theology.  He has 2 Master's degrees (basically, in the same area) from an evangelical seminary, and there's his communications BA from Wheaton.