Is WLC done debating?

[Jehanne]

His last debate was over 2 years ago:

Reasonable Faith -- debate transcripts

And, his current calendar is rather limited in his activities:

Reasonable Faith -- Calendar 

Could it be that the Internet has finally caught-up with Craig and his nonsense:

RationalWiki -- William Lane Craig

Note the entry added by yours truly:

William Craig denied the Number Zero

In his debate with Professor Sir Peter Millican, a great philosopher at Oxford University, Craig said (beginning at the 1:18:00 mark) that the "number zero probably does not exist".[76] Just prior to that and in other debates, Craig treats the concept of infinite sets as being equinumerous, a view that was popular among mathematicians prior to the proofs of Georg Cantor, but which have been universally abandoned among all mathematicians. While he incorrectly cites the BGV theorem as supporting an "absolute beginning" to the Universe, Craig rejects Cantor's theorem, a mathematical proof that relies upon no physical presuppositions about the Cosmos, which is the case with the BGV theorem, which assumes a 4-dimension Lorentzian metric on a pseudo-Riemannian manifold where superluminal information exchange ("faster than light" communication) is a physical impossibility, hence, the past incompleteness of certain geodesics in inflationary models of the Universe [77]. It should also be noted that Craig rejects Professor Vilenkin's naturalistic model of the Universe which he says that he "interacts with" [78], but, in fact, outright rejects.[79] Of course, Dr. Craig does not reveal to any of his audiences that he thinks that some of Professor Vilenkin's ideas are fundamentally flawed. For instance, Vilenkin subscribes to multiverse theory, which Craig is himself critical of.[80] In his debate with Professor Alex Rosenberg, Craig states, "Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called multiverse composed of many universes their (the BGV) theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have had an absolute beginning."[81] However, the BGV theorem [82] nowhere contains the word "multiverse" nor does it make any reference to it whatsoever. This is a prima facie example of Craig making things up to suit his "argument of the moment".

Misunderstanding of transfinite arithmetic

In his debate with Professor Millican and elsewhere, Craig claims that "infinity minus infinity is undefined in transfinite arithmetic..." This claim is abjectly false -- in transfinite arithmetic, infinity minus infinity is indeterminate. A mathematical operation that is indeterminate has more than one solution,[83] in many instances, an infinite number of solutions, but such is typical. Consider the following equation: 2x + 3y = 16. Under the set of real numbers, there are an infinite number of solutions, that is, values of 'x' and 'y' that will make the equation true. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this; in physics, one can have a general solution to a differential equation, and from there, the initial conditions will specify the particular solution of the equations. This is fundamentally different than saying that something is undefined, which means that there is no solution to the problem. Craig's understanding of set theory, and mathematics, in general, is woefully inadequate.

It should be noted that the idea of a countably infinite set (such as Professor Sir Roger Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology model)[84] is simply an example of a veridical paradox,[85] such as the Monty Hall problem[86] or Hilbert's Hotel.[87] A veridical paradox is one which produces a result that appears absurd, but is demonstrated to be true nevertheless.

Appeal to the now-discredited Opera experiment

During the debate with Millican, Craig appeals to the now-discredited Opera experiment[88] to support the idea of "absolute simultaneity" of events. Craig is a proponent of the long-abandoned neo-Lorentzian conception of "relativity",[89] which enjoys no support (including from Vilenkin) among physicists alive today.

[robvalue]

Wouldn't that be great.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Maybe he just got bored saying the same shit again and again?

[robvalue]

Or he's not making enough money by doing so now.

[Abaddon_ire]

Wouldn't that be great.

Yeah, but I doubt it will last. He may simply be developing his next "killer" argument for "dawg" to unleash upon an unsuspecting world. Time was when he thought Kalam was it. That got trashed. For a while he flirted with Sye Ten Bruggencate and his nutty presuppositionalist crap. I suspect he is simply brewing yet another failure of an argument.

That will also get trashed in turn, whatever it turns out to be.

Of all the apologists I have had the misfortune to happen upon, WLC is the most slimy abject liar for jebus that I have ever seen. Although in fairness, it is difficult to rank them. Hovind x2. Ham. Banana man. The list is endless.

To be fair, they are not all like that. Lennox is at least rational, although wrong.

[Angrboda]

He's still writing books, so he's not completely silent.

[Minimalist]

Maybe he just got bored saying the same shit again and again?

Fuckheads like him never get tired of saying the same shit again and again.

[Jehanne]

Or he's not making enough money by doing so now.

That's my thought, also; if WLC would start-up his debate circuit again, such would be bad for business.  It makes more sense, financially, for him just to coast on the momentum that he built-up over the years.

[robvalue]

That makes sense. The opposition he faces has become stronger and stronger, more people are seeing through his crap, and he's just stuck with the same stale nonsense.