BrachioPEP
Member
I like Dr. William Lane Craig. He’s a really nice guy. He is beautifully eloquent. He is an outstanding debater – possibly world class. There are respected atheists who consider that he rarely if ever loses a debate and respect him.
He is always calm and collected and listens attentively and makes notes in his debates out of respect for his adversary and their arguments and he, ‘generally’ addresses the issues raised.
The thesis of both of his doctorates (one in theology and one in philosophy) are the basis of his debates. Namely, the historicity of Jesus/validity of the resurrection and the Kalam cosmological argument.
Those who watch him a lot may be able to see his strategy (beyond the very restrictive debate topics he argues and framework of the debate he favours/requests/insists on). And few are able to deal with it.
Dr. Craig is almost 71 as of writing and I hope he continues to have a long and fruitful life. But if things do not change in debates, he will go down as a foremost believer who successfully held his own and the flag with little if any challengers.
We can look back on people who are now deceased and kick ourselves that they evaded scrutiny, or were not challenged by the best or right people and were peerless. But we have a living person on top of his game who’s claims seem unchallengeable (to many who see or debate him).
No, debates do not reveal the truth or better science, merely the better orator, wordsmith or presentation. But still. To those non theists with knock down arguments, there’s a public forum to bring them if you can. But like Randi or Ra’s challenges, there are few takers willing to take the forum. They’re all in the crowd presenting petty arguments or hiding somewhere.
His arguments may do less well in written exchange and no doubt many can find faults in his logic or elsewhere, but a bunch of nobodies writing on forums will not make history or move his likely status.
I see no compelling reason to believe in God, even after hearing a lot from Dr. Craig and others. So are his arguments compelling? Are they riddled with philosophical jargon? Does he evade the issues or have good cases? Or are his opponents (or the stage) just not fitting to meet the challenge?
Here we see a clip of him (more as a swordsmith than a wordsmith) asking, what we should be asking, “Is there no-one else?”
Here’s a very recent chat with him and Cameron on Capturing Christianity. Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) also got to chat with him on the Kalam Cosmological argument in June, too. Both attached.
This post welcomes anything on the man, his work or arguments, flaws, debates and ways to counter him (in practise, not just theory).
He is always calm and collected and listens attentively and makes notes in his debates out of respect for his adversary and their arguments and he, ‘generally’ addresses the issues raised.
The thesis of both of his doctorates (one in theology and one in philosophy) are the basis of his debates. Namely, the historicity of Jesus/validity of the resurrection and the Kalam cosmological argument.
Those who watch him a lot may be able to see his strategy (beyond the very restrictive debate topics he argues and framework of the debate he favours/requests/insists on). And few are able to deal with it.
Dr. Craig is almost 71 as of writing and I hope he continues to have a long and fruitful life. But if things do not change in debates, he will go down as a foremost believer who successfully held his own and the flag with little if any challengers.
We can look back on people who are now deceased and kick ourselves that they evaded scrutiny, or were not challenged by the best or right people and were peerless. But we have a living person on top of his game who’s claims seem unchallengeable (to many who see or debate him).
No, debates do not reveal the truth or better science, merely the better orator, wordsmith or presentation. But still. To those non theists with knock down arguments, there’s a public forum to bring them if you can. But like Randi or Ra’s challenges, there are few takers willing to take the forum. They’re all in the crowd presenting petty arguments or hiding somewhere.
His arguments may do less well in written exchange and no doubt many can find faults in his logic or elsewhere, but a bunch of nobodies writing on forums will not make history or move his likely status.
I see no compelling reason to believe in God, even after hearing a lot from Dr. Craig and others. So are his arguments compelling? Are they riddled with philosophical jargon? Does he evade the issues or have good cases? Or are his opponents (or the stage) just not fitting to meet the challenge?
Here we see a clip of him (more as a swordsmith than a wordsmith) asking, what we should be asking, “Is there no-one else?”
Here’s a very recent chat with him and Cameron on Capturing Christianity. Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) also got to chat with him on the Kalam Cosmological argument in June, too. Both attached.
This post welcomes anything on the man, his work or arguments, flaws, debates and ways to counter him (in practise, not just theory).