Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him?

[HappySkeptic]

It makes no sense for an atheist to debate a theist, except perhaps on a very narrow philosophical question.

I saw Sean Carroll debate WLC.  It is on Youtube, and a transcript is found here:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/de...ary-cosmol

I think Carroll won handily, but even if he didn't, the truth of a proposition isn't determined by who is the best debater.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Indeed being good at debate does not mean the positionis true

[Astreja]

So, for instance, some Agnostic or Atheist may be 80% convinced there is no God, but leaves open as a possibility or a 20% probability that there might be. Would you disagree with characterizing it that way?

In my case it's an assumed probability of 0.999... of no gods, with an infinitesimal probability assigned to gods.

I'm an agnostic atheist, by the way - I do not believe that gods exist, and hold a position of strong agnosticism.  I believe that it is impossible to determine with 100% certainty if any given candidate is a god, because it's beyond the capability of humans to fully assess the being's credentials.  The furthest I'm prepared to go is "Oh.  This appears to be a god-like being of some sort."

[Mister Agenda]

Hi Mister Agenda. Thanks for the pleasant response.

To briefly address your points.

1. Propositions or States of Mind: You say Atheism and Theism are not strictly propositions, since Atheists have different degrees of confidence or certainty about them. But, the Truth value of a proposition is one thing, the probability of it being true is surely another?

So, for instance, some Agnostic or Atheist may be 80% convinced there is no God, but leaves open as a possibility or a 20% probability that there might be. Would you disagree with characterizing it that way? You said, "most of us are content to state that we are not convinced there is a God; and are more or less confident in that depending on which God is being proposed." I think that's what you're saying, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's just call Atheism being True (A) and Theism being True (T) for simplicity instead of P and Q:

So. A: There is no God. T: There is a God. If A is false, T is true. If T is true, A is false.

Now, one Atheist might estimate a prior probability, P(A)=60%; P(T)=40%, or something like that. And if you know Bayes' Theorem, Posterior Probability means Probabilities get revised in light of new data or fresh evidence. So, for e.g. if one finds the Contingency Argument more probable than not, one would revise the probability of A downward in light of that. And so on with every fresh argument for either side. In this way, a proposition would become or more certain, when all reasonably possible arguments for both sides have been heard, and a decision can be made.

2. Christ and the Pharisees. Well, Christ was presenting an argument from the Old Testament (which the Jews accept) for the Divinity of the Messiah. He was saying, David himself calls the Messiah, Lord. The Messiah is therefore not just a human prince, as they thought, but rather the Lord God. Only God in fact could have been the Savior of humanity, and there are in many passages Isaiah (e.g. 9:6) where the Divinity of the Messiah is also prophesied as well as passages where it says that God is the only Savior (43:11). The Jews knew the Messiah would be the Savior; but they didn't realize He would be God Himself.

3. Email vs in person debates: Email or correspondence debates are fine, and I guess what we're having here would broadly come under that. I'm certainly not opposed to those. But imo, there is an advantage in live in-person debates, when the persons best qualified to represent side can cross-question each other. I think Atheists could follow the same pattern Dr. Craig does, if they think it's just because of pattern or oration or something that he does well. They could do the same, "Here are Five Good Arguments to think a God is improbable"; and then they could give the problem of evil, or whatever else they personally find convincing. And then calmly respond to the objections, whether it is free will, two world theodicy, and so on, from the theistic size.

Not only on public policy matters, but that's how academic debates, even on other subjects, generally proceed, right? So not sure why the invitation to debate these ideas fairly and freely should be controversial. If Dawkins thinks this or that statement of Craig's or Christ's the Bible's is allegedly so blatantly incorrect or wrong that everybody would recognize it, then he should have leapt at the opportunity to prove that before a large debate audience at Oxford imo.

God Bless.

Edit: some typos.

I agree, an atheist might find the proposititon 'there is a God' 20% (or 40% or 0.001% or whatever) likely to be true. And I agree that there either is or isn't a God. But my position isnt that there isn't a God, it's that I'm not convinced by the arguments presented that there is a God, and I find a God (or god) very unlikely. I find the usual version of the Abrahamic God I hear about here in South Carolina to be 0% likely because that God is supposed to have done things that didn't happen and is ascribed attributes that don't go together; that God is a married bachelor. On the other hand, the God of Deism is merely unlikely, the only thing going against that one is no good reason to think it's real, at least not yet.

One of the things I have trouble with about the Jesus story is the Sanhedrin absolutely had the authority to have a troublemaker stoned, they didn't need permission from the Romans. That verse in the Jesus Christ Superstar rock opera 'we have no law to put a man to death' simply wasn't true. The only reason anything Jesus said would have confounded the Pharisees is if they thought it was true; and if they thought it was true, they would have been too afraid to speak a word against God Incarnate. If I believed, I certainly wouldn't want to piss off God, according to his supposed biographers he takes that sort of thing poorly. But if they didn't believe, they could have just said 'seize him!'. If the story is based on actual events that went down as described, it's more likely that they were afraid of Jesus's fan base.

The thing is that Craig wants to debate Dawkins to enhance his prestige; but Dawkins has no such incentive. On matters of evolution, on which Dawkins is an expert, a grad student well-trained in the art of debate could do a better job of debating Craig on that point...but Craig doesn't want to diminish his prestige by arguing with a student. On matters other than biology and evolution, Dawkins is not an expert and would likely represent poorly in a debate on, for instance, theology with a PhD theologist and master debator. Again, debates, particularly on stage debates, don't prove anything but who is better at debating.

Side Note: I attended a debate in 2009 between Dan Barker and Kyle Butt on whether the God of the Bible exists. Butt never came close to the God of the Bible, got stuck on whether laptops on beaches are designed or not, but still got more votes that he won the debate. That's because he bussed in so many fundamentalist Christians that they nearly crowded out students from the auditorium...DID crowd out many of them who didn't arrive early. I felt a little guilty for not giving up my seat to one of them; but I was really interested in how it would go. Barker had a cold or something so he didn't do great either; but Butt didn't even argue for a God distinguishable from the God of Deism, and he was supposed to be arguing for the God of the Bible. I admit that experience helped form my opinion on the value of public debates regarding establishing truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnk4UCvY89U

[The Architect Of Fate]

Not only on public policy matters, but that's how academic debates, even on other subjects, generally proceed, right? So not sure why the invitation to debate these ideas fairly and freely should be controversial. If Dawkins thinks this or that statement of Craig's or Christ's the Bible's is allegedly so blatantly incorrect or wrong that everybody would recognize it, then he should have leapt at the opportunity to prove that before a large debate audience at Oxford imo

Dawkins gains nothing from a debate with Craig as even if he won his followers would not acknowledge it and if he lost Craig would have bragging rights. Either way Craig gets the prestige. So what's in it for Dawkins when he can simply criticise him without debating him? There is nothing to be gained for winning against Craig there is nothing to be lost from not debating Craig.

[brewer]

I wonder if NX's catholic handlers know about his activity here?

[Simon Moon]

1. Christopher Hitchens is alleged to have written supposedly un-answerable arguments against Christian Theism. And yet, when he actually debated Atheism vs Christianity in fair discussion and cross-examination with Dr. Craig, even an Atheist site remarked he lost and lost badly: "The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." ("Common Sense Atheism" atheist review). Dr. Craig used the Five Pronged Argument he almost always uses, so Atheists have had plenty of time to prepare for it by now. First (1) from Cosmology, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (2) Second, from Design. (3) Third, the Moral Argument. (4) Fourth, the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, from certain facts like the Empty Tomb, Death and Burial of Jesus Christ etc acknowledged by secular historians to be true, (5) the Fifth, I think, if memory serves, was from internal religious experience, which allows the sincere seeker of God to be sure of His existence; will have to re-check that one to be sure. Debate has some 7 MN views on You Tube.

2. And Richard Dawkins, another of the so-called "four horsemen of the apocalypse" ran away from debating Dr. Craig at Oxford University, though happily debating with some lesser known or less qualified Christians or Christian speakers. Not a good look for one of the world's most famous Atheists, and reminiscent of what Arians, who denied the Divinity of Christ, used to do; they'd try to confuse simple Christians that Christ was not God, yet, when St. Athanasius, or another Christian who knew his Faith and could defend it, showed up, they'd run away. So why did Dawkins run away? What does that say about either the Truth of Atheism or the courage and confidence one of the world's leading Atheist Apologists has in his own beliefs or non-beliefs?

3. And, in Case for Christ, Lee Strobel, himself a former Atheist, who later became a Christian after a life-long search for Truth, relates this: "As moderator of a debate between Craig and an atheist selected by the national spokesman for American Atheists, Inc., I [Lee Strobel] marveled as [Bill] Craig politely but powerfully built the case for Christianity while simultaneously dismantling the arguments for atheism. From where I was sitting, I could watch the faces of people as they discovered - many for the first time-that Christianity can stand up to rational analysis and rugged scrutiny. In the end it was no contest. Among those who had entered the auditorium that evening as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, an overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling. Forty seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians. Craig's arguments for the faith were that persuasive, especially compared with the paucity of evidence for atheism. Incidentally, nobody became an atheist." ~ Lee Strobel, Case for Christ. 

So much for the false Atheistic idea that Christianity is afraid of rational analysis or scrutiny. It looks more like Atheists are afraid of it!

Thoughts?

God Bless.

Thoughts?

As others have said, being a charismatic debater does not make one's positions and arguments true.

Craig is famous for his version of Kalam cosmological argument, which is demonstrably fallacious. Not to mention, even if valid and sound, it does not even prove what Craig claims it does. He even has to tack on a bunch of drivel about a 'space less, timeless, bla, bla' to the end of the argument in a failed attempt to claim the conclusion of his version of the cosmological argument proves his god. So, in an effort to try to make the cosmological argument stronger, he adds a circular argument to the end of it, making it even more fallacious.

Matt Dillahunty, a pretty well known atheist debater (an ex Evangelical Christian turned atheist) has been trying to get Craig to debate him for years. But since Dillahunty does not have an advanced degrees, Craig will not debate him. Which says a lot about Craig being more interested in fame, than debating someone who is a strong debater.

Sean Carroll, a well known physicist debated Craig, and called him out for lying about what other physicists have said. And yet, even though he was proven wrong, Craig continued to use the same quote mining lies in subsequent debates.

[Deesse23]

Sean Carroll, a well known physicist debated Craig, and called him out for lying about what other physicists have said. And yet, even though he was proven wrong, Craig continued to use the same quote mining lies in subsequent debates.

Afaik Crain lied about the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem. Carrol then contacted one of the three (think it was Guth) and they made a short video where Gut clearly said how Craig misrepresents him. Craig, being the liar he is, was not impressed, and didnt chance his script a bit. To this day he keeps lying about this.

[Bucky Ball]

Because of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NObtN66itp8

[Bucky Ball]

First of all Xavier .... this is total and utter bullshit >>> ""As moderator of a debate between Craig and an atheist selected by the national spokesman for American Atheists, Inc., I [Lee Strobel] marveled as [Bill] Craig politely but powerfully built the case for Christianity while simultaneously dismantling the arguments for atheism. From where I was sitting, I could watch the faces of people as they discovered - many for the first time-that Christianity can stand up to rational analysis and rugged scrutiny. In the end it was no contest. Among those who had entered the auditorium that evening as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, an overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling. Forty seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians. Craig's arguments for the faith were that persuasive, especially compared with the paucity of evidence for atheism. Incidentally, nobody became an atheist." ~ Lee Strobel, Case for Christ.

Strobel (not a scholar of ANYTHING, but a journalist) had no way of knowing anything about what people thought after the debate. He's just an ignorant LIAR, as you apparently are.
The "Case for Christ" is not "journalism". It's a one-sided biased piece of crap book that is funny, it's so bad.

The first time I saw Craig lie (... BTW do you know how much he CHARGES for his speeches to church bodies ?, ... he has become wealthy debating for his pocketbook not Jebus).
The first time I saw him lie was in his debate with Bart Ehrman in their debate about the Bayesian probability of the resurrection. Craig got the denominator wrong, (as it approached zero, thus made the division and formula meaningless, .... and he knew it, so his did a hand-wave fast so he attempted to hide the fact his math was totally wrong. Even Ehrman didn't notice it. I contacted Ehrman afterward and pointed out the error and he agreed it went by so fast it was hard to see. Craig knew he was fudging the formula.

The second time I saw him ignore a major problem, for which he was called out and did not respond, was the 2014 debate with Sean Carroll.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y-IbL-yLkk

During the debate Craig refers a number of times to his "logic". He never says which logic he uses, nor did he ever justify the use of the logic he does use.
He couldn't. Craig's entire career is based on his "logic" ... his website is "Reasonable Faith" (even though St. Paul tells him faith is a gift, not the result of reason) ...
yet he could not justify his premises and assumptions. He failed utterly.

Carroll reminded him that there are many logical systems, some totally consistent internally, yet which do not "obtain in reality".
Craig had no answer to that. He failed to justify the very basis of his entire career. Craig is a sham and a loser (and a dishonest debater).