William Lane Craig

[Justtristo]

While I am unconvinced of Craig's arguments , he is one of the better Christian apologists of our era.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/04/1...christian/

[DeistPaladin]

While I am unconvinced of Craig's arguments , he is one of the better Christian apologists of our era.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/04/1...christian/

An honor much like being the greatest snake oil salesman of our era.

[The Grand Nudger]

The whole thing is uncomfortable. Nonetheless, I can't help but be interested. I keep expecting to hear them say something reasonable, and insightful. Christianity has it's finer points. I don't have any idea how they chose their current focus, seems a poor choice for the public eye.

[Captain Scarlet]

What do you guys think about him? I just read an article which said most atheists are afraid to debate him. When i told my friend i was reading a book by bart ehrman he should check out, he said "i know that guy! William lane craig debated him, kicked his ass, dont listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about." i couldnt say anything because i havent really watched craig debate. I plan to correct that now. Anyway anyone got links to some of his debates i should watch or any general thoughts on him and his arguments?

WLC is a very well prepared debater. He is bright without being the brightest and is something of a xtian fundie poster boy. He also knows his arguments very well but also knows they are tired and invalid, but puts them forward anyway in an attempt to shore up the xtians from always appearing like nut jobs and the atheists rational. The arguments are well defended as he knows all of the atheists ripostes, but forces a format onto his opponent which enables him to defend his arguments without adequate time to forensically dismantle them. He has lost a number of debates to folks like Ray Bradley, Shelly Kagan, Jesseph, Quentin Smith etc. He struggles particularly when the debate narrows focus to a particular topic eg just morality or just cosmology. But he doesnt struggle because he doesn't know his stuff, he struggles because he knows the devil is in the detail and his arguments quickly break down.

---

So what would u guys say in response to the cosmological argument? Did te universe come into being? Or has it always existed?

The correct answer is one stated by Rhythym, ie we do not know. However the cosmological argument is invalid:

1. Even if it can be proved that the universe has a cause, how do you then move to that cause being a god or gods and why the xtian god. WLC does have a line of logic but it's tenuous. The cause could have been the 'idea of an apple'.
2. If the universe is caused then it must have been a temporal effect. Causes always precede their effects in time. Without time causality breaks down. the thing is time only came into existence with the big bang and thus there was no time nor cause before it.
3. the first premise states nothing comes into existence uncaused. This is true with respect to things in our universe. But to extrapolate that to the universe as a whole commits a compositional error. That is you cannot argue to the whole from the individual parts.
4. The big bang is cited by Craig as evidence that the universe began to exist. Yet this is highly dubious. The big bang can only reach back in time as far as Planck time. Before that time (if such a thing is at all possible) the universe could have always existed just in a different state, ie as a quantum of energy
5. The alternative explanations of the universe starting from a quantum fluctuation are better supported by maths and physics and are simpler than a highly complex mind bootstrapping a universe from nothing, as they do not require explanation yet the mind does. Occams razor would suggest the natural explanation is superior.

[frankiej]

Seeing the title of this thread made my skin crawl... I hate that man.

[Judas BentHer]

William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins have finally ended up in a debate on the topic 'Does the Universe Have a Purpose?' at a conference in Mexico called 'La Ciudad de las Ideas' (City of Ideas). Richard Dawkins, however, did not consider this to be a debate with Professor Craig, as he had previously rejected such a debate...(Article Continues @bethinking.org)

The Debate: English Translation




Debate in Mexico City between Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins VS Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig and Douglas Geivett.
You'll have to get past the first Spanish language, with no translation, introduction to 8:39, for the English language to begin.

[ElDinero]

As others have pointed out, Craig is an intelligent man. Intelligent enough to know that he is being dishonest by continuing to use the same arguments that have been rebutted countless times. Once an argument has fallen flat, it should be removed from your debates. He doesn't because to the credulous theists that listen, a new audience will be taken in by it again.

I also find him unbearable to listen to. Not as bad as Frank Turek or Schmuly Boteach, but unbearable nonetheless.

[salty]

What do you guys think about him? I just read an article which said most atheists are afraid to debate him. When i told my friend i was reading a book by bart ehrman he should check out, he said "i know that guy! William lane craig debated him, kicked his ass, dont listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about." i couldnt say anything because i havent really watched craig debate. I plan to correct that now. Anyway anyone got links to some of his debates i should watch or any general thoughts on him and his arguments?

I'm sure someone has provided a link for you already. I haven't read the other posts yet. I agree, William Lane Craig is very difficult to debate, athiests usually stammer a lot around him. He's very respectful and engaging, but most of all, he's extremely informed. The biggest argument that William has, and that any Christian has is the fact that no one can disprove the existence of God, they can simply believe he's not real.

I really enjoy visiting his page for answers to my own questions about God.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org

Listen to his podcasts, they're excellent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Firstly, willful obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty are not respectful. He's an ass. Secondly, proposing an unfalsifiable concept and then supporting it with fallacious "reasoning" is simple deception, not in any way some sort of knockdown argument for god.

One can say "I believe", or "I have faith", and there is no argument to counter it. Mostly because it is not an argument. It's just a declaration.

The minute you cross the line from faith to evidentialism you have doomed yourself to defending the indefensible. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. If you have reason, faith is unnecessary. If you have faith, you need not appeal to reason.

---

You can try to marry the two but eventually one must give way to the other, making every step along the way redundant. If you have reasoned your way into faith you could have saved yourself the trouble and went straight to go. If faith has lead you to reason, it is only by way of abandoning faith.

I believe that you believe, why tank yourself? If these "airtight arguments" didn't exist, wouldn't you still believe? Can't you just avoid the whole matter entirely?

[DeistPaladin]

The biggest argument that William has, and that any Christian has is the fact that no one can disprove the existence of God, they can simply believe he's not real.

Ah, so his biggest argument is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof (aka Argument from Ignorance).

Not much to fear then.