William Lane Craig is promoting his Reasonable Faith Tour of the UK this October. He would like to debate atheists during his visit to the United Kingdom because it's good publicity and a good revenue generator [see william lane craig resources if you want to contribute]. So far, he hasn't been able to
The President of the British Humanist Association has pulled out of debating renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and prominent critic of religion, readily agreed in April to debate Craig on the Existence of God but withdrew her involvement last week saying "I hadn't realised the nature of Mr Lane Craig's debating style, and having now looked at his previous performances, this is not my kind of forum".What could possibly have convinced her that this was a set-up—one where Craig has no intention of actually addressing the issue? Well, the data are readily available, even on YouTube.
I'm going to show you a YouTube video made by Craig's supporters. It's a clip from his debate with Christopher Hitchens at Biola University in 2009. Ignore the text comments—they're simply an extreme version of the debating technique that Craig employs.
Note that Christopher Hitchens does a perfectly fine job of defining his version of atheism—it happens to be the same as mine. Hitchens has not found any convincing evidence that gods exist so he doesn't believe in them. He also doesn't believe in Santa Claus for the same reason, he's an a-santaclausian. Watch how Craig then present Hitchens with a false trichotomy. He demands that Hitchens choose between three beliefs, none of which correspond to what Hitchens has just described. Finally, Craig gets Hitchens to say that there are no gods. Then he pounces, demanding to know how Hitchens can prove a negative.
This quickly morphs into a discussion of whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Hitchens, to his credit, does not view that as an open and shut proposition since, as we all know, absence of evidence is, indeed, part of the reason for not believing in gods. But to a slick apologist like Craig, that can be a devestating admission.
The point is that William Lane Craig is a typical Christian apologist who would prefer to focus on rhetoric than on truth. Most atheists will find this method of debate frustrating and aggravating. They have to be constantly on their guard against a "gotcha" moment, knowing that Craig will pounce whenever he gets a chance.
Here's another example of the style of argument used by Craig. You can see the trick. He simply refuses to accept the analogy being made and prefers to twist it around to make his point. Listen to what he says about "evidence" that there is no Santa and that there's no teapot. Don't we have the same kind of "evidence" for the non-existence of gods? Of course we do, but it's not "evidence" of nonexistence of Santa and teapots—it's simply evidence that particular claims about Santa and teapots have not been proven. Lots of claims about gods fall into that category as well.
Who wants to spend half an hour debating the meaning of atheism or whether we can prove the non-existence of teapots in space? The real issue is whether gods—or in Craig's case the Christian gods—actually exist?
Here's another example of Craig's style of argument. Who in their right mind wants to engage in this sort of debate?
I'm with you on this one. There are very few people who have been able to debate with Craig successfully on HIS terms. The reality of it is, most people who debate Craig aren't prepared for him.
ReplyDeleteThey aren't prepared, because truth has no counter. Atheists dislike Craig, because his arguments are based on sound reasoning and they cannot find a way to shake him. Every time I have watched Craig, he breaks down his arguments into sound logical deductions...only to have his opponent completely ramble on in circles without even attempting to tackle his argument. You know why? Because they know they cannot.
DeleteNo. An argument is only the first part of proof. You can ARGUE all day about whether something is or not true. At the end, the claimant must provide EVIDENCE. The Kalam, Moral, Teleological Arguments, etc., are not PROOF of the existence of anything. You can't simply deduce something without corroborating evidence, facts, data, or a simple contrasting or comparative event/situation. His deduction, at best, is a similar to a detective's "hunch." Furthermore, he leads his arguments --- arguments based on contingent arguments (i.e. In order for claim X ---which I can not prove to be true --- Y --- which I can also not prove --- must be true) --- to the conclusions HE WANTS. That's NOT how evidence works. For example, they claim IN ORDER for their cosmological arguments to work --- i.e. God created everything --- they ASSERT he MUST have existed outside of space in time (it's the only way they get around infinite regress).
DeleteHe's a scam artist, a pseudo-intellect, and not once has he provided EVIDENCE for god(s). Not once. Arguments, yes. But never one shred of proof. Deduce that, asshole.
You use the word "proof" as an absolute. Evidence and proof are not necessarily the same thing. When I am diagnosing someone condition I go primarily by observations. Even when I am pretty well convinced of the cause I may end up writing that the symptoms are "consistent with" cause X. I have to do this because there is no definitive instrument I can use to measure what I am looking for. Certain data simply correlates highly with certain causes. As your word "proof" is too strong so is "hunch" is too weak. If the Kalam, Moral, Teleological Arguments are so flimsy why could not Christopher Hitchens come up with effective counter-explanations? At least they are at least based on interpretations of real data. People have bias and want to prove their points. That does not in itself invalidate their case.
DeleteLawrence Krauss did a great job debating this guy in Australia.
Deletewatch the debate against Lawrence Krauss and watch Krauss squirm. The audience again voted Craig the winner. You may prefer Krauss, but that doesn't make him the winner.
DeleteDawkins with his arrogant response to Craig. Craig is world famous, he wins all the debates, that is why Dawkins is so afraid. Dawkins has the nerve to put down Craig instead of just debating him.
Deletethe teapot analogy is stupid because it can be "rationally disproved' Craig is right. However, let's say I believe in a God who exists inside black holes. Now, since you have NO present evidence to the contrary, my Black Hole God is JUST AS likely to exist as your christian god. This is a failure on his part. He chose to keep it "earth based" because he knows this point exists perfectly in "logical equivalence". Stick with faith, it's where religion belongs. It isn't logical or rational. (actually, faith by definition can not be based on evidence. So the entire premise is comical)
DeleteYea, dont say that WLC has good.points or sound reasoning because ge DOESN'T. How could he ? He arguing for a fable!! He uses slick tactics and trickery instead of good arguments. No point in debating someone who has NO valid argument, because only waiting for you to say something out of confusion so he can go "gotcha!!" ....thats worthless
DeleteIf you are so sure that atheism is true why worry about Craig's style! What you are really saying, Mr Morgan, is that you cannot find a style that will do the job for you. Then why be jealous of the man? All power to Craig! Yes, I recall the British humanists running for cover when he visited our fair country a few years ago. Shame on you lot... James
DeleteWhen Craig debated Sean Carroll, Carroll demolished him.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8
The style of the man is the same in all his debates. He outlines certain points or concepts adds a little science term here and there and simply ignores his opponents points and says they've offered no evidence for their view. In the end he is simply a spokesperson for evangelical christians. He's very knowledgeable about his faith but frequently gets schooled by his opponents.
DeleteI've been watching the line-up for the tour for the last few months, and I'm glad few notable atheists have accepted. That said, I'd like to see some people debate him on specific topics where they are specialists in that field, great debaters, and be prepared to point out the crap in his arguments.
ReplyDeleteI can only think of one debate where someone's preformed really well against WLC; Shelly Kagan debating morality.
atheists get upset and frustrated when they lose debates. They claim after the debate that they don't like Craig's debating style. Well, let the audience decide about that. They expect Craig to just not talk at all during the debate otherwise he's cheating.
DeleteUltimately, who cares? Craigy can be the Philosopher King if he wants. The believers need their heroes too.
DeleteIf you want to see Craig really get his ass handed to him, look no further than his debate with Shelly Kagan. The difference is that they did a more casual format where they could banter back and forth instead of the more conventional "academic" debate style in which each person can rant unanswered for 20 minutes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theaunicornist.com/2011/04/william-lane-craig-in-hot-seat-on.html
Concerning the final video in your post Moran says:
ReplyDelete"Here's another example of Craig's style of argument. Who in their right mind wants to engage in this sort of debate?"
My reaction to the last video is that Mr Craig makes the argument that I have made elsewhere on this blog.
It is not a valid criticism of ID that the evolutionist believes that God would not act that way.
The evolutionist has no expertise whatever about how God should act.
As Mr Craig points out - that is a theological question. It can never be a scientific criticism of design.
The really nonexistent and almost fraudulent distinction between atheism and agnosticism continues to aid an endless verbal diarrhea on both sides of the [stupid] debate.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Anon, atheists do not have any expertise in how magick should act.....but neither do IDiots.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't prevent them from pretending to know that their God would not permit junk to permeate the human genome.
Sam Harris did very well against Craig at Notre Dame a few months back. And the crowd much to Craig's surprise turned hostile towards him!
ReplyDeleteTruti
mr harris has his ass whipped by Dr Craig
DeleteI don't think anybody thought that Sam Harris won. Craig took apart his arguments one by one.
DeleteNo one has ever had their ass whipped by WLC. I've watched many of his debates and the only people whoe seem to think he won are his fellow believers. I will give him this he is good at using tatics in his debate to try and keep his opponents from making their point. He often starts his debates (and he always goes first) by piling on numerous questions for his opponent to address, each of which could be a debate in and of themselves. For example he once opened a debate on the existence of God using the resurrection as a proof! For his opponent to refute him he would have to attempt to refute the arguments he presented, including the resurrection in 20 mins! This is nothing more than a debate trick. If in your opinion someone was unable to address many arguments thrown at them all at once, including one like the resurrection, would be considered the loser in a debate, then I have to ask, what in your opinion constitutes a fair and good debate? Every debate I have with WLC his oponent uses facts and data that are backed by imperical data and scholarship in the field being discussed. WLC will sometimes use scientific data but attributes its workings to God, how convenient. His fall back position is the bible. Really? So to "win" an argument with him you now have to dispute the validity of the bible in addition to everything else he throws at you. The simple fact is that at the end of the day WLC has NEVER offered imperical evidence fo the existence of a god, nor has anyone. The fact of the matter is when we look at cosmology, physiology, biology and any other study of the universe around us, all that we know and have found thus far can be, and is, explained by the natural laws that govern our reality. No god has yet to be found. The best any one can say is "I am a believer in God and I chose to see god at work in all the laws of nature". If someone choses to take that stand more power to them. However THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, IT IS ONLY A BELIEVE, At the end of the day WLC has never won a straight forward debate on the evidence of god because, again, there is none to date.
DeleteI sometimes find that men like Harris and Krauss are more interested in communicating with the audience rather than waste time in a dubious battle of wits with Craig. It's more like they are giving a lecture which is periodically interrupted by Craig's diatribes. Craig seems to dislike that they ignore his many specific questions and just continue on where they left off.
DeleteHarris won the debate by making his points and getting no real answer and not wasting his speeches on refuting Craig's pointless word games. Kagan made him look flustered and frantic as did Sean Carroll who made his arguments seem foolish and dated (cutting edge for 2000 years ago, to paraphrase).
DeleteIs Craig holding a copy of Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" in that photo in the OP? How much does Denton talk about evolution? That by itself is a huge weakness if he goes in for creo stuff, at least if his opponent is well-informed.
ReplyDeleteHello Brent.
ReplyDeleteI have made the point elsewhere that religious folks do not need to assert that there is no "junk".
We as humans are intelligent and design things. But of course we produce junk.
That does not mean we are not intelligent and design things intelligently.
So whether there is junk DNA or not, it is irrelevant to the subject of ID.
Do you see what I mean?
The point is still valid that:
It is not a valid criticism of ID that the evolutionist believes that God would not act that way.
The evolutionist has no expertise whatever about how God should act.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIf ID is ever to be a positive science, and hence falsifiable, it must set some limits on what the Designer can reasonably be expected to do. Otherwise whatever scientists discover can be explained as the whim of the Designer. If that question is off-limits to science, ID is not and never will be a science.
I've seen quite a lot of debates on religion, several with William Lane Craig. Each time he brings forth arguments that discredit themselves. He doesn't even need a rebuttal. Just look at the debate with Bart Ehrman.
ReplyDeleteCraig brings forth Bayesian probability. I was most pleasantly surprised. He then does on to promptly disprove his own position - without ever noticing it due to his mathematical ignorance.
Also it is very telling how Craig literally has nothing to say when Ehrman points out fallacious reasoning from the gospels. First Craig claimed he couldn't respond because he was out of time; yet when given a second chance to respond, Craig switches the subject.
All in all watching Craig feels like watching any fraud, from Popov to Monckton. Sadly so many people seem not to notice all the verbal and non-verbal tricks these charlatans are using.
Has the Kalaam cosmological argument that Craig defends every been publicly refuted? I have never ever heard one of Craig's opponents break down that particular argument, and yet on youtube and other forums you hear people say oh that argument was refuted millions of times...yet I have never ever seen or heard it. Craig's arguments for God's existence are based on scientific research and historical evidence people have committed their lives to researching, including himself. I once heard and ever so proud and sure of himself Alex Rosenberg state publicly in a debate with Craig that the New Testament's original text was written in Aramaic. He stood up behind his pedestal and said this so pompously and certain, only to have that obviously repeated statement from some other atheist, torn down by Craig, who corrected him by saying it was indeed written in Greek. These are the types of false statements spewed out by atheists everyday, and it gets repeated without any type of research...and yet people come onto these websites and call Craig a liar and a charlatan? Typical and I wouldn't actually expect anything less. Atheists cannot bring Craig down, so they attack him personally. A disgrace and an utter embarrassment to their cause.
DeleteI'd say the Kalaam Cosmological argument doesn't need to be refuted because it refutes itself. I watched the Hitchens/Craig debate. Craig states that the creator of the univerese must be "uncreated" but never provides ANY reason why we should believe that to be true. For the cosmological argument to have any validity theists have to provide a good explanation why God doesn't require a creator. I've never heard it.
DeleteI saw a lot of other problems with Craig's arguments. He's pretty good for a Christian apologist but still ultimately unpersuasive. A number of times he says that there is a historical consensus on various aspects of the resurrection. I am aware of no such consensus.
it's a circular argument with a pre-supposition:
Deleteyou cannot have infinite regress, God exists, nothing created God therefore God is eternal.
WLC refuses to address the idea that our local universe and time came into being (was caused by) the stuff that is outside our universe, stuff that isn't sentient or God or intending such "creation" etc. Sean Carroll gave him ample opportunity. This is where premise 1 of the Kalam argument fails.
He also fails to address how Kalam leads to a personal God involved with our planet and lives.
David Evans says,
ReplyDeleteIf ID is ever to be a positive science, and hence falsifiable, it must set some limits on what the Designer can reasonably be expected to do. Otherwise whatever scientists discover can be explained as the whim of the Designer. If that question is off-limits to science, ID is not and never will be a science.
Exactly. The IDiots claim they have methods of detecting design and, hence, proving the existence of god(s). Those methods depend on things like complex specified information and irreducible complexity. In other words, things that an intelligent creator would make.
If Intelligent Design Creationism is to be treated seriously then it has to have an explanation for what we observe in nature. If the basic assumption is that nature looks designed then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that some thing don't have the appearance of design at all. Pseudogenes, for example, or the fact that our abdominal muscles run the wrong way.
When the IDiots try to counter this evidence by claiming that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable, they have lost the battle. What this means is that everything can be an example of god's handiwork no matter how crazy it appears on the surface. That pretty much destroys the "scientific" argument that we can detect intelligent design.
When the IDiots are forced to resort to such arguments they have left science and embraced faith. It's them, not us, who are pretending to know the mind of god (oops, I mean the intelligent designer).
The whole point of bringing up bad design in nature is not to refute the idea of god the creator—it's to expose Intelligent Design Creationism as religion, not science.
You can see this in Craig's response to bad design in nature. He immediately links this to theodicy, but theodicy presupposes not only the existence of god(s) but also their motives and personalities. He is conceeding that Intelligent Design Creationism is just a front for a certain kind of Christianity.
Moran posted:
ReplyDelete"When the IDiots try to counter this evidence by claiming that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable, they have lost the battle. What this means is that everything can be an example of god's handiwork no matter how crazy it appears on the surface. That pretty much destroys the "scientific" argument that we can detect intelligent design."
Can you give us a link to a reference where an ID proponent has
claimed that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable?
I am asking you for a quote from an ID proponent.
Please do not quote from somebody else.
NickM: That by itself is a huge weakness if he goes in for creo stuff, at least if his opponent is well-informed.
ReplyDeleteCraig rides the ID bandwagon
When Craig speaks on cosmology, he selectively chooses the tidbits he finds which can be distorted to support his view, and ignores the rest.
ReplyDeleteDebunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig
Likewise, when he speaks on mathematics, he says very questionable things about probability and infinity.
He relies on the time constraints of the debate format, the lack of preparedness of his opponents, and the inability of the audience to distinguish between a scientific argument and a "sciencey" but shallow argument.
Craig is the poster boy for the case that the debate format is not a good way of getting at truth.
@Anon:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Search for "Paul Nelson". Read the entire paragraph.
Or search in Google for Behe's own words: "Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are."
I am asking you for a quote from an ID proponent.
ReplyDeletePlease do not quote from somebody else.
I have personally debated with ID-proponents who went as far as to claim that everything we observe in biology is optimal design, including stuff like the route taken by the recurrent laryngeal nerve. This particular fellow actually asserted that the argument that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is suboptimally designed is flawed because, according to him, we simply haven't yet figured out how it is actually superior design. If we simply did more research, we would realize the recurrent laryngeal nerve is taking the most optimal route.
When you are arguing with people who think like this, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that no observation could be made tha twould falsify the design inference. To these people, everything simply is designed, and sometimes we simply haven't figured out yet.
They start with the presupposition : Life was intelligently designed, and then go on to force-fit everything they see to it.
It all boils down to this: Without some method of scientifically determining the wills of the designer, the design inference is unfalsifiable. The reason for this is that, for all we know, the designer could intentionally be designing life to look like it evolved. That's why ID isn't science and never will be.
Anus the utmost IDIot asked:
ReplyDeleteCan you give us a link to a reference where an ID proponent has claimed that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable?
Just browse through Cornelius Hunter's blog. He has made this claim in different wordings. As for other cdesign proponentsists, they do this too, only you have to put the pieces together. Please don't be a hypocrite. Oh, sorry, I was forgetting that's your job exactly.
I see that Anonymous has not returned after being crushed. I'll bet he will continue to make the same b.s. argument at a later date, though.
ReplyDeleteMoran posted
ReplyDelete"When the IDiots try to counter this evidence by claiming that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable,"
Moran has not supported that claim.
Moran does not distinguish between ID and creationism. That is the root of his problem.
But it is all political anyway.
No point in arguing with someone who is simply making a political argument.
Moran does not distinguish between ID and creationism.
ReplyDeleteThat's because it's the same thing.
Look up "cdesignproponentists".
Good point Anon, how could anyone conflate creationism with Intelligent Design?
ReplyDeleteAfer all according to "Biology and Creation"
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"
But "Of Pandas and People" lets us know that:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Moran does not distinguish between ID and creationism...But it is all political anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou answered your own objection. Go read The Wedge Document. ID = as attempt at judicially filtered creationism. It is poliics, not science.
People here are conflating your assumption of the motives of some ID proponents with the actual IDEAS involved.
ReplyDeleteThe IDEAS of ID are of course independent of creationism. Everyone here knows that.
Pretending otherwise just makes you less credible.
Like Moran, you want to pretend to not get it, for your own purposes.
Anyone looking at this objectively sees what you are doing.
I am interested in ID IDEAS independent of creationist ideas.
The IDEAS of ID are of course independent of creationism.
ReplyDeleteNo they aren't. The ideas of ID were created specifically to attempt to get creationist ideas past the courts by omitting the blatant religious aspects of creationism. Again, see the Wedge Document. Or do a google search on the use of the terms "creation science" and "intelligent design". You'll notice that, in what must seem to our anonymous friend as a bizarre coincidence, those pushing "creation science" suddenly stopped using that term and instead started using "intelligent design" to describe the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS.
Everyone here knows that.
Pretending otherwise just makes you less credible.
Indeed, everyone does, and pretending otherwise does indeed make you less credible, as far as such is possible.
I am interested in ID IDEAS independent of creationist ideas.
There aren't any.
Anus. the utmost IDiot,
ReplyDelete... blah, blah political ... blah, blah, blah .... ID IDEAS independent of creationist ideas
Aren't you ashamed to be responsible for that load of bullshit? Aren't you ashamed that your arguments, just like the bad disguising of creationism as ID, rest entirely on ignorance and hypocrisy? Well, you should. Now begone you scum.
man who ever made this page was stupid..... william give reason on why he thinks why god exist... all they say is its wrong.. but they gotta explain how its wrong and where is the evidence thats what he thinks is wrong. william craig let them speak and explain and break it down to them how they wrong and the reasons they are wrong and they keep comming with stupid and craig will explain how they wrong again... and they would get stuck and start hesitating.. these are the smartest ppl in the world he uses the same arguement and they still do not be prepare to win.... bekuz they do not come with evidence only thing they come up with is "big bang theory" "science"... and craig does speak the truth wtf are u talking about ? no athiest never said he was wrong until after or before the debate ... but during the debate... they stumble hard... craig lost a few but the subject wasnt about god existence.....
ReplyDeleteWCL is not a bible literalist so what I'd like to see is WCL debate an expert bible literalist, anti-evolutionary theory fundamentalist. And then I'd like to see him debate an expert Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, 7th Day Adventist, a Catholic, etc.
ReplyDeleteNow that would be fun.
The Bible "literally" teaches the Trinity, the Incarnation, Jesus' death that redeems from sin in the believer, the Resurrection, miracles, Divine Providence, the Omniscience, Omnipotence, Aseity, and Eternality of God, salvation by grace through faith, Christian particularism, etc., etc. Craig declares and defends all of these doctrines.
DeleteAs for why he doesn't debate someone who believes the Neo-Darwinian theory of naturalistic evolution:
"Indeed, there are very good grounds for scepticism about the neo-Darwinian mechanisms behind evolutionary change." (Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed#ixzz2mUS9VbO7).
Clearly, WLC is no fan of Neo-Darwinism, and therefore would be more likely to debate a Dawkins or Dennet on the subject than a Morris.
The reason atheists run away from Bill Craig is that he knows the subject matter better than anyone who faces him; he never gets riled unlike certain 'scientists' and sticks to the debate topic and won't be drawn down side alleys. Good for Bill
ReplyDelete100% right. Atheists cannot break Bill and his arguments down, so they evade and even at times attack him personally. I have watched several of these debates, and Bill always begins with deductive logical arguments based on science and historical evidence...but when it comes time for the atheist to actually to show cards and break his arguments down, they have nothing except more dodging. Some of them even resort to lying as Alex Rosenberg did in their recent debate, one of the subtopics about New Testament text authenticity. He stated that the New Testament was written in Aramaic, where as any New Testament scholar would correct him, as Craig did, by saying it was indeed written in Greek. Now how could Rosenberg make such a ridiculous, false statement? Either he was lying and he knew it, or he simply heard it from some other moron and just repeated it in a formal debate. Either way, that kind of dishonesty has no place in formal debate and truth seekers and it really hurts the position of the atheist.
DeleteI agree with you. Craig is an excellent thinker and the atheists he debates havent the ability or knowledge to provide any case for atheism. This blog page is a good example of even an atheist professor attacking Dr Craig personally. Shame on Larry Moron
DeleteCraig's Kalam argument has been refuted in the peer review and in public debates. He has also refused to debate Dr. Jaco Gericke over the existence of the Old Testament Yahweh.
DeleteHaving watched this debate, I am extremely disappointed with your analysis. You say that "William Lane Craig is a typical Christian apologist who would prefer to focus on rhetoric than on truth". This is patently false. Dr. Craig offered five arguments for God's existence (namely, the cosmological argument, teleological argument, argument from morality, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and the proper basicality of belief in God). The quote from CommonSenseAtheism.com in the embedded video in the post is very instructive: "Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." Anyone who has ever seen Hitchens knows how gifted he was as a rhetorician. He failed in this debate because he failed to address Dr. Craig's arguments.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the main contention in this blog post, Craig's request that Hitchens clarify his position was perfectly justified. Throughout the debate, Hitchens seemed to be teetering between atheism and agnosticism, which are mutually exclusive beliefs. Allow me to spell this out for you. You cannot affirm both of the following propositions:
1. No deities exist.
2. I do not know whether deities exist. (Or, it is impossible to prove whether deities exist)
These statements are logically incompatible. You cannot deny the existence of God, and then admit the possibility of his existence. It is unfortunate that the debaters spent quite a bit of time on this silly issue. Rather than blaming Craig, you ought to point your finger at Hitchens for trying to be concurrently atheistic and agnostic.
Well said. It seems to me this Laurence Moran is living on another planet.
DeleteNo arguments for a God while don't disprove god, are either prominent for a reputable philosopher or sound even in the eyes of a layperson. The arguments are so invalid & arbitrary & ignore all of scientific discoveries, they simply cant be considered anything more than a farce. Of course when your partially delusional you are free to have a different definition of the word reasonable.
ReplyDelete3 possibilities to explain William craig & his behaviour/tactics.
1- His insane like how David icke is thought to be.
2- His genuinely suffering from a handful of mental illnesses & some complex. Although he wont admit it as he probably has never been to a reputable shrink. This is tempting as it might explain his somewhat organized side, yet his support of flawed & fallacious arguments in the face of oceans of evidence that refute them.
3 - His just a despicable con man who is by definition not a reputable philosopher at all. And is some what a sociopathic troll laughing at rational atheists getting his kicks & getting paid.
Option 3 imo is the most likely by far. There is good reason, money.
You could get together 5 reputable scientists, cosmologists, biologists, mathematicians, logitions, philosophers all to dispell craig, Yet he will still have supporters.
Id like to know what the consensus is among REAL philosophers & theologians? Id be absolutely shocked if the didn't find Craig repugnant & just a menace.
He calls himself a philosopher, the average layperson is intellectual superior to him.
Craig still doesn't reveal his elusive Christian God to the world. No clever debate style can serve up the actual existence of God.Why doesn't Craig call God to the stage to state his own case. Its as simple as that. So I applaud him for his immense erudition, presentation and the logical structure of his argument but God is still AWOL
ReplyDeleteCraig got utterly destroyed by Stephen Law. He was pretty shaken throughout the entire debate.
ReplyDeleteYou must have watched a different debate than the one I watched. The debate I watched featured Stephen Law talking nonsense about the problem of evil and Craig handled that very easily.
DeleteWell Evidence would you expect. How about something God revealed that would happen and He revealed signs that would happen in the stars. This sign that could and was seen by all at the time and you can see it too with the aid of software. these events placed in the universe had to be put there and known by God from the moment of the Big bang. http://archive.org/details/TheStarOfBethlehem.divx and you can find it on youTube as well
ReplyDeleteAlso the bonus material http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=video&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFMQtwIwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.godtube.com%2Fwatch%2F%3Fv%3DKDWZGLNX&ei=L1onUpOeAYa-0wXLiIHYDQ&usg=AFQjCNG1VB6kTmLhngZQDCp7TDWu1FqcBw&sig2=QuetQyjAMXgnKaljua1OMA&bvm=bv.51495398,d.d2k
There were signs in the old testament that were given to hail the arrival of the savior. they started happening and the 3 magi from the eastern school who were the early proto astrometry researchers as well a Jewish rabbi's came following the sign that lead them to the savior. For many years people have searched for what was described in Mathew and Indeed atheists used the description of the Star as an argument against the Bible. they would say since no one has found what it was it did not therefore exist and the part was made up etc. One problem the event was found along with other events that are amazing. Make sure to watch the bonus material because something stunning happens viewing the eclipse from the moon as an observation point. These events were set in motion at the time of the big bang and God knew precisely when he would come into human history and the moment he would leave. Who but a God who created the Universe put these events in place. They can not be denied the events took place. the stars did so what is shown and the magi (whose coins have been found) did exist and there is evidence that they were real. So evidence of God that truly only god could have done is written right into the fabric of the Universe itself. There is quite stunning evidence (hard evidence) that God does indeed exist. It also means that the Christian Worldview is reasonable and based on fact as well as faith. a person ask or want more compelling evidence than what is written into the Cosmos?
Occultism and astrology: creationist favorites. Why don't you just perform some necromancy, witch doctor?
DeletePerhaps it's that all such debates proceed more on emotion than reason, but why is it that three terms, theist, atheist, and agnostic are so misunderstood and/or misconstrued? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the first two refer to those who hold beliefs, the former in the truth of a certain proposition we might refer to here as the "theistic proposition", the latter to the one who believes its denial, and the third that refers to a person lacking belief with regard to both the "theistic proposition" and its denial. Why is this view taken to be an odious debating tactic, or overly tyrannical, as opposed to being exhaustive of all possible epistemic circumstances with regard to what, for referential ease, I'm here labeling the "theistic proposition"?
ReplyDeleteApparently you DO have to be a rocket scientist, or at least smarter than you seem to be.
DeleteThere are three reasons why atheists are having such a hard time with Craig:
ReplyDelete1. Atheism is in fact intellectually, and philosophically lacking. 2. The juvenile pseudo-sophistic, Socratic-pretentious (Socrates pretended to have no opinion in order to force his opponent to expose fully their position so he could ridicule their views in his innocent acting pretense to seek truth) argumentation made popular by Bertrand Russel didn't really work under examination. It just sounded good to atheists, and they repeat it now only to have their lack of critical thought exposed by Craig. 3. Professors who are atheists are accustomed to bullying their openly religious students in the classroom. Then with their pompous, dogmatic, intellectually pretentious claims against religion they dismiss or demean the educational accomplishments of those with divinity degrees, or any degree if they openly profess belief in God. Craig is not a student who can be bullied. Craig's education cannot be dismissed or demeaned. What does this mean for the atheist professor? Trouble. This guy can make you look dogmatic in your own field which can discredit you academically.
This article is yet another attempt to dismiss him without engaging him or his arguments, or giving support for your position. This is cowardice, academic and intellectual dishonesty at its worst. If a child stood up in a math class and said 2+2 = 5 for very large values of 2, it would be simple to show this person was clever in clever-sounding word use, but lacking in mathematical skill. In short...stop whining. Either demonstrate he is wrong with proof, demonstrate you are right with proof, or admit your situation: Craig is beating you, and you don't like it.
No reply to you Hakim, all atheists are silent and are now probably going to their reading books to try and come up with more rants!
DeleteYet, Craig has never demonstrated the existence of "God" or the supernatural. Please let us know when he does.
DeleteYeah... Can't blame you. I wouldn't want to debate him either if I were an Atheist. When you "refuse to debate" someone, it makes you look afraid and weak... which is what they are... afraid and weak.
ReplyDeleteIt is atheists who go around saying idiotic things.
The argument almost always follows this illogical pattern:
1. Atheist: "I only believe that which is supported by evidence"
2. Atheist: "I do not believe in God"
(This is where Craig points out there is no evidence that God does not exist)
3. Atheist: "You cannot prove a negative, but I still believe that God doesn't exist"
(This is where Craig points out that you do believe things that aren't supported by evidence then)
4. "Yeah but you can't prove a negative, so you're using semantics, and you're employing philosophical tricks, you're trying to make me show evidence for a negative and it cannot be done. "
(Craig points out that it is unfortunate that you can't prove negatives, but none the less, you can't; and you still believe that God doesn't exist, therefore you believe in a world view that has no evidence... by definition; you even just admitted it in detail. You cannot prove that God doesn't, but you believe that God doesn't exist).
5) "I'm real mad, because you tricked me. I'm going to just reiterate that I only believe things that are supported by evidence. I'm also going to call you 'delusional' and tell everyone that no 'real intellectual' should debate with you, because it gives you credibility. I'm so tired of you using 'LOGIC' in your debates. You should be using "science", and my Naturalistic World View. Even if there is no evidence.
...
Fallacy of conflation in point 3).
Delete"I do not believe in god" (implying no belief) =/= "[I believe] god does not exist" (implying affirmative belief in there being no of god(s)).
Craig does everything he can to project, bait or trick his opponent into taking the latter position, or being perceived to by the audience and then equivocating that position with his own, instead of providing any actual basis for his arguments.
He deliberately and methodically (ironically) tries to slip premises into the debate unchallenged, such as (taking from the Lawrence Krauss debates):
That his concept of philosophical nothingness is actually reasonable, let alone possible, i.e that everything actually came from his proposed 'nothing' (for which he provides no justification);
That god is exempt from 'somethingness' in his 'nothing' and that some unknown natural process isn't (which would be a more likely possibility due to the axiom of Occam's Razor);
That extra universal conditions are possible wherein a 'God' can be eternal, and from which they can intercede within the (/our) universe.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI do not believe you did not kill Tom. I do not have any evidence to support a conclusion that you did, but I also do not have any evidence to support that you did not. Because I don't have evidence to show you did not then I shall believe you did. Just as I shall believe you killed Dick and Harry as well.
I've never seen William Lane Craig even seem like he belonged on stage in a debate. He doesn't debate anyone or anything. He talks to himself about things he believes are true and presents little to no relevant evidence. He wastes everyone's time really. I agree with anyone whose stance is to refuse to debate him.
ReplyDeleteLove how scared all these atheists are of WLC. If you can't present your viewpoint on a stage in such a way that you don't look like a laughingstock next to him, then yes--be very, very afraid. :)
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me that creationists think they need to have the last word in a thread, even when responding to threads old and buried.
Delete