It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I agree with what I think some of you are going to say: you wouldn't give him the time of day. However, there exists a wide audience that thinks of him as some kind of god. I myself was called out by a friend of mine here a long time ago (who is no longer active here) for giving him way too much credit. I said that Theoretical Physicist Sean Carroll beat him with ease in their debate, although according to Sean Carroll, this was not a debate. You can watch it here:
I had only looked at a bit of what he had done back then, but recently, after looking at a lot of his work, I have a hard time finding him sincere, much like what Philosopher and Epistemologist Peter Boghossian finds about most Christian Apologetics. I find him an overrated, arrogant, pompous master of nonsense, in my opinion. I can understand why Dawkins doesn't have any time for him either, especially regarding his silly questions and some of the horrific things he has said based on literal interpretations of scripture that most educated theologians would never dream of saying.
He hasn't said anything different from what every other religious person has ever said in any debate except in the way he says it, which is like some amateur high school debate format.
Every single argument he has made, every single claim against atheism, is nothing new; nothing that hasn't already been said by any other religious person; all old, all failed, and substantially refuted time and time again! I am going to create a debate soon about all these failed theist arguments in another thread, but here, this is my take on WLC.
In summary, he seems to me to be more interested in just winning debates than being a true theist and/or actually finding truth. And he has a wide audience that finds him impressive, and which he has had some great success in reasoning them into unreasonable positions.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Got to admire that about him. And the thing is when atheists are being pure A-holes to him, he doesn't reciprocate their a-holyness. He is always the kindest and easy going debater I have seen. And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.
Your right, he doesn't really say anything too revolutionary, but he very knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific disciplines and can talk cosmology, philosophy, or quantum physics with whomever he is debating.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
For whatever reason this is where religion takes otherwise intelligent people. They develop this weird ability to say a lot without saying anything, and it becomes their standard speech pattern. Kind of like politicians do. It has been painful to watch the evolution of Jordan Peterson who used to be a very concrete and strong thinker, but recently have delved deep into Christianity and adopted the same habit of saying things that sound profound but have no substance.
Have you ever witnessed a student answering a question on the topic he had no clue about? Where the student was desperately trying to come up with something, anything, to fill the silence? This is how all these religious debaters come across to me. And I have no patience for that. I am a technical guy: either your stuff works, or it does not. If you want to present a programming project to me, give me the deliverable, run it and show the results. Talking for two hours about how your code is supposed to work and having no actual running code - please do it in front of the mirror if you have to.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
PS: Quntum Physics should not come into debates about something unfalsifiable. If you paid any attention you might find Sean Caroll here correcting WLC on outdated and/or irrelevent scientific stuff. AKA
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would recommend watching the video mentioned. It's rather amusing actually how you got one actual scientist discussing with what someone thinks science is.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
When I was a theist I did admire him, though I wasn't much into fact checking back then. I 'believed' he was as smart as atheists like Dawkins, Hichens and others who wrote, lectured and debated. With equal arrogance. But then I grew up. Applied critical thinking to the bible and what people like Craig was saying. Forgot most of the details but during that time I factchecked some comments he had made concerning the cosmos. Several things he seemed to misrepresent what was actually being taught in academia and one thing in particular he flat lied about. The best of my recollection it was about what an astronomer said while pondering a question and Craig reported it as the guy became convinced of god. Read "a case for christ' by Lee Strobel during this time as well. More god of the gaps with personal stories, conjecture... Bottom line it became apparent after many years of anguish everything these guys do is for the edification of the church, nothing more. Besides the obvious of course, dollars of the faithful.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Alternatively if you wan't to have more fun and just goof off a bit this video where Dawkins is trolling Sam Harris during his debate WLC is rather amusing:
PS: On another note, it was interesting to find out that Shermer used be strong theist.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I also don't find him sincere. For him it's more about fame, fans, etc. I think this is one of the reasons why Dawkins refuses to debate or even just discus with him. And this is a guy that has debated actual scholars, bishops, etc. WLC is a try-hard IMO that has a flock of gullible sheep that fool for his nonsense.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here is someone commenting on WLC's debating abilities:
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks for the video.(s) I think I'll pass some time reexamining some of the old debates for fun. Sean Carrol systematically destroys Craig but he don't even realize it. No wonder Carrol said it was no debate. LOL
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your right, he doesn't really say anything too revolutionary, but he very knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific disciplines and can talk cosmology, philosophy, or quantum physics with whomever he is debating.
Just can't back it up.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You just keep them coming don't ye.
Just because someone might be popular among a larrge array of people doesn't make what they say any less bullsh!t.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks, watching the video in its entirety is going to be painful, but I will do so when I have a reason to celebrate something with some strong alcohol! From the few snippets I have looked at, things are worse than I thought. Here is an excerpt from Craig's opening speech:
Meaningless mishmash of scientific terms. Deepak Chopra would be proud!
The fact that a couple of other people tried to argue along these lines on this website in the past, also having no clue about the terms they were invoking, suggests that this is a very popular set of arguments in some community. I thought originally that these were just a couple of people who genuinely tried to understand the physics of it, but just did not have a sufficient background to grasp it... Turns out, even these are not their own ideas, but ideas they adopted from their religious authorities.
I do not know, I just have increasingly little patience for this kind of thing over time. I am interested in ideas with substance, and this is just a bunch of nonsense in silver coating.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The fact that a couple of other people tried to argue along these lines on this website in the past, also having no clue about the terms they were invoking, suggests that this is a very popular set of arguments in some community. I thought originally that these were just a couple of people who genuinely tried to understand the physics of it, but just did not have a sufficient background to grasp it... Turns out, even these are not their own ideas, but ideas they adopted from their religious authorities.
That is what they do. Back when I attended services they would take trips and/or pass out videos. (dvd's) I wasn't too interested in those days prior to becoming an apostate though. Didn't care much what atheists had to say till I started questioning things.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just because someone might be popular among a larrge array of people doesn't make what they say any less bullsh!t.
He's popular because he wins debates with some of the most well know cosmologists and atheists around. That's why Sean Carroll said he was a good debater and why Sam Harris said that William Lane Craig had put the fear of God in many of his atheists friends.
Good debaters debate the issue before them. They don't feel the need to trash people. Lane has been publicly debating for 30 years . He wouldn't be asked to debate against the top scientific minds if he wasn't any good.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here is a very short and simple introduction to de Sitter space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space
I do not know about Dr Craig - maybe for him this is like elementary school math - but I need a strong drink to get through even a chunk of this article.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Does not matter if he had written 1,000 books when what he is talking about makes no sense whatsoever. I could write 1,000 books on the construction of passenger planes in South Korea; if I was a persuasive enough speaker and had a large enough loyal audience, I am sure some of them would read these books and even find them profound - but anyone who knows anything about aerospace engineering would say that, from the engineering perspective, I am a complete nutcase. And he would be right.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yup, we have just had two presidents in a row who won tens of millions of votes by acting like senile grandpas, one with schizophrenia, another with dementia.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am a complete nutcase.
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree then.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I wish I could agree with you. I wish I could get my dream job by just telling my future employer, "Hey, look, I have N publications, so I know what I am talking about. Hire me!" Unfortunately, this kind of stuff only works in two areas of life: media space and politics. Everywhere else you have to walk the talk.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
William Lane Craig claims faith and reason are compatible.
On the contrary, faith relies on personal conviction and belief in the absence of empirical evidence, while reason emphasizes gathering and analyzing evidence to support conclusions. This fundamental difference in obtaining knowledge is a show-stopper.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yeah, he is often inconsistent. He has at other times admitted that faith is not based evidence, or rationality. I guess that's another cue to him being insincere.
As for the claim faith and reason are compatible that translates to "pretending know stuff about which you don't know is reasonable."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is fine to adjust one's delivery based on the audience, but saying one thing in front of one audience and its negation in front of another is a manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes. Also worth noting, (it's been alluded to but I'm going to say it flat out) any debate Craig 'wins' is based on people polled who doesn't understand a thing he says. Otherwise they wouldn't give him the win. For instance where Craig said this debate isn't about natural vs theism so he won't elaborate on certain questions. Paraphrased of course but the whole purpose of all his debates are to elevate creation via a deity above natural scientific methods. So he flat out lies to avoid questions.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
One the claims he makes is that the atheism position is illusionary while also stating that the belief in god is a rational one. This is just one of numerous claims of the same kind. This should give you a clue as to how far his intellectual ability spans
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I mean, I think one should give the devil his due: Craig is a very good orator and definitely a highly intelligent and well-read thinker. The problem is, his arguments are incoherent: behind all this eloquence lies lack of substance. I do not think that he necessarily follows a well thought strategy when debating his opponents. It is just his style, to throw around sentences that sound profound to those who are already on his side, and give a pause to those who are not, but who cannot match his vocabulary and willingness to use it out of context. It does not help that the format of these debates is such that he can speak for 10-20 minutes uninterrupted, and he is able to cram in a lot of nonsensical arguments during that time, making it impossible for his opponents to refute him - for if they take time to refute everything he says, they will have no time left to make their own arguments.
This is one of the reasons I nowadays just prefer focusing on concrete disciplines with clear results. In things like debating, philosophy, arts one can get away with almost anything as long as it is properly presented: one can take a canvas, throw some dirt at it, come up with a beautiful story on how that dirt represents the struggles of starving children in Africa - and voila, we have an internationally recognized exhibition! I like disciplines in which the result is relatively binary. In chess, if you win, you win, and it does not matter who your opponent thinks should have won. If you build a bridge and it collapses, then it collapses: the nature does not care about how you think engineering should work.
Debating Craig, it is very hard to get anywhere. You may get the audience to accept supremacy of your arguments - and he will just go to another city, assembles another audience and keep talking. There is no objective metric that one can use and conclude that his arguments are full of contradictions.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@GiantMan (AKA Argumentum Ad Logicam).
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would not say that people of faith are unique in this respect: all "ideologically possessed" (a.k.a. overly invested in their ideological group belonging) people tend to hold double standards and be insincere. But there is something about people of faith, in addition to that, pretending to know far more than they do. They will talk about scientific concepts that they do not understand, make big claims about what "atheists believe" based on a tiny sample of atheists they have talked to, assume things about their opponents that there is no evidence to support... It is like their epistemology is grounded in wishful thinking: "I want X to be true, and if I have enough faith, then X will become true".
They also really like dodging direct questions. You ask a person of faith whether they would murder someone if god ordered them to - and they will start dancing around, never giving "yes" or "no" or even "maybe" or "depends" answer. You ask them whether, if they learned that there was no god tomorrow, they would lose all of their morals and went on a killing spree - they will switch the subject. You ask them how they know that the [Holy Book 1] is the right book and not [Holy Book 2] - and they will make a circular argument for how [Holy Book 1] proves itself to be the right book, and refuse to explain how the same argument does not apply to [Holy Book 2].
I would summarize all of this by saying this: it is very hard to have an honest discussion with a person of faith. A good conversation is like a friendly sparring: you send a few jabs your partner's way, your partner blocks or counters them, then you receive a few jabs - and so on. A conversation with a person of faith is typically more like shadow boxing: you jump around and throw punches, and they just fly through the air, as your partner has already left the ring.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@GianMan
I am sorry but what part of "Thoughts/opinions on a person?" confuses you? I would be happy to help. .
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"As for the teleological argument, again, he didn't respond to what I said in my last speech with respect to the fine-tuning being well-established in science, and that the fact we're going towards nothingness, as he puts it, is an atheistic assumption, not a Christian assumption, and therefore doesn't do anything to disprove design".
That is how it works for these guys: if an argument is unpleasant to deal with, just say that it is an atheistic argument, so, as a theist, you do not have to agree with it!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
LOL Very much like asking them which god is this imagined fine tuning pointing to? They're pounding their chest after speaking on how supposedly complexity leads to a designer but then nothing but crickets when asked by who, your god? Just-saying won't even answer it and claims his faith has nothing to do with it. Problem being his faith is the only reason he debates this stuff in the first place. If they can't be honest with themselves they're not going to honest with anyone else.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Their argument is self-defeating. If complexity indicates intelligent design, then something as complex as an omnipotent and omniscient creature (god) would itself indicate intelligent design - but then they will say that god does not require a designer because of some "he is eternal" kind of nonsense...
It is a perfect example of starting with the conclusion and then arriving at the reasoning that is supposed to lead to it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I sometimes do have a hard time understanding why anyone would think he is a highly intelligent person. To me, there is nothing intelligent about claims such as "The belief in God is a rational one," "Atheism is illusory," "That is an atheist argument," "Life has no meaning if you are an atheist," and so forth. That being said, I guess intelligent people can say dum things. But he does tend to do it a lot. But then again, as you said, it seems to depend on what audience he is appealing to and you can sometimes notice inconsistencies with what he says. Based on the latter that is intellectual dishonesty probaby could be more the case. I guess pretty much the same with the likes of Deepak Chopra, David Icke, cold readers, psychics, tarrort readers, paranormal investigators, and so on.
FYI @justsayin, WLC may well do well in debates according to many audiences, but that doesn't really mean anything. As for Sean Carroll's comment, I wouldn't read too much into that. I agree with Sean Carroll on everything he said in the discussion and afterward. Now, if WLC is really good with arguments regarding the existence of God and where he tries to use science to prove this, then perhaps now he should start publishing in scientific, peer-reviewed journals for analysis, eh? Oh, and good luck to him with that!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It comes down to this. Science wants to deliver substantiated discoveries at the end of the day. That's their only concern. Theism on the other hand has something to prove. A. God exists. B. They're not foolish for believing. C. Scientific knowledge can be draped in the garments of religion. That's a pretty tall order for theist so naturally any imperfection found in the sciences will be claimed a victory for at least one of the hundreds of gods man created.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That just reminded me of something (sorry to bring his name up again lol) Peter Boghossian said in his book "A Manual for Creating Atheists," which was about one of the differences between science and theism. Theism often goes out of its way to find things that confirm its beliefs are true, whereas science attempts to disprove hypotheses and actually gets credited for it among peers. In contrast, if theists did the same, they would likely be excommunicated, shamed, etc.
PS: As for that book, I initially thought it might be seen by some as somewhat provocative. However, after reading, I don't see it that way at all. Peter is one of the most relaxed individuals I have ever read, and I have recently watched some of his material. After reading this book (almost at the end now), I would say "A Manual for Creating Atheists" can essentially be translated to mean exactly this: "A manual for helping people to stop pretending to know things about which they are ignorant, to be honest about the limits of their knowledge regarding truth, and how to reason more effectively." Because that is exactly what his aim in the book is! I highly recommend it!  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would definitely distinguish him from outright scammers/actors like Deepak Chopra, or David Icke, or Alex Jones. I think that he genuinely believes in the things he says most of the time; his critical thinking simply does not apply to the statements he wants to be true.
And I completely agree with your second paragraph (even though it was not addressed to me). One can win a debate by putting in a good show, but that does not win an argument. Sure, Alex Jones has enough experience in shutting down even the best debaters out there by going full berserk on them, so, in a certain sense, he "wins" such exchanges - but no one with a semblance of rationality would consider his arguments superior to those of his targets.
Lastly, I will add that, while it may appear that me, you and other critics of Dr. Craig are hard on him only because of his religiosity, it certainly is not the case. I have talked to some incredible Christian (and other religious) debaters, ones who offer very interesting insights into the relationship between humans and stories, ones who listen carefully to their opponents' points and concede theirs when they are clearly wrong. Dr. Craig simply is not such person.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@ZeusAres42
Thank you I appreciate that. Though it's been around 6 years since I fell from grace there are still lingering issues. Most of my family for instance are still believers and I was very active in the church myself. It's been difficult trying to explain. One of the most enlightening things on the other hand about coming to a rational epiphany is how much atheists are discriminated against. There is a definite air or superiority that believers have and that's why I believe, they see a non believers confidence in the sciences as an affront to their faith. Hence the 'arrogance' branding simply because of a persons confidence in their 'none' stance.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This from a Chatbot was rather interesting:
"Critical Examination of William Lane Craig's Apologetics:
Selective Use of Philosophical Arguments:
Handling of Biblical Criticisms and Inconsistencies:
Comparative Religion and Exclusivity Claims:
Philosophical and Empirical Gaps:
Engagement with Scientific Critiques:
Conclusion:
In summary, critics argue that William Lane Craig's defense of Christianity, while sophisticated and influential, does not adequately address the empirical and logical challenges posed by the diversity of religious claims and the internal inconsistencies within Christian doctrine. By focusing on philosophical arguments for generic theism and attempting to bridge the gap to Christianity through specific claims like the resurrection, Craig's apologetics may overlook or dismiss the comparable depth and complexity of other religions. This selective approach raises questions about the empirical robustness and logical consistency of exclusively endorsing Christianity in the face of a pluralistic religious landscape. Critics advocate for a more open and empirically grounded engagement with the challenges and inconsistencies across religious traditions, emphasizing the importance of consistency in the application of critical standards to all religious claims."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In reading that memories of debates I had some 15 years ago came flooding through my mind. Of course back then I was on the other side LOL.
It was what began to open my eyes to the truth though. As time went on along with doubt, I began to realize I was being tempted, and then went on to manipulate what was being said in science to spin it in my direction. Not my proudest moment for sure. I had to confront the fact I was being deceitful in arguing on behalf of the supposed god of truth. Now this is the kicker, now that I do not believe in god, I'm no longer tempted that way. If I don't know I don't know. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Doesn't prove anything one way or another about gods existence. When I became atheist is when I stopped being afraid of being wrong and no longer was tempted to deceive.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just looking at some of what I had just posted I am reminded of what Christopher Hitchens said once which is "if you accept/assume the premises then everything else follows logically." This then reminded me of this fun quiz question I did a while back albeit the following is a modified version of it that I came up with:
"All people with brown hair are bad-tempered. My uncle has brown hair. Therefore, my uncle is bad-tempered." While this argument is logically valid, its strength is undermined by the truth value of its premises, particularly the initial one.
Similarly, within Christianity, as well as in numerous other religions, there are arguments that appear logically valid if their premises are accepted as true. However, this logical validity does not necessarily attest to the truth value of these arguments. Moreover, many religions present premises that, once accepted, lead to conclusions that logically follow within the context of that specific religion. Yet, these conclusions often stand in direct contradiction to those derived from the premises of other religions.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This reminds me of a discussion I had with an Objectivist on reddit once. One point that we both agreed on was that any reasonable epistemology has to be grounded in very simple, self-evident assumptions. In mathematics, for instance, the axioms we accept to be true are as basic as the Axiom of Empty Set, which basically posits that "nothing" is a valid concept - many people will wonder why it even needs to be stated. In Objectivism, the basic premise is that our senses give us information about the world: in essence, that we are not 100% hallucinating all the time. Starting with this premise, it is possible to start studying patterns of those senses and building a model of the world that matches them.
In contrary, religious assumptions are highly complex and unobvious. "The Bible is the word of god, and god is a creature that created the Universe" - that is a bizarre premise to start with. Why not "The toilet paper roll in my bathroom is the child of Lolth, and Lolth is a giant spider that haunts our nightmares"?
Seems like the fundamental assumptions in religion are tasked not with setting one on the quest towards the truth however inconvenient it can be, but with arriving at a specific desirable conclusion. That is a terrible epistemological approach.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra