Sunday 6 November 2011

How to beat William Lane Craig!

Opinions may be divided about the outcome of the debate between William Lane Craig and Stephen Law on 21st October 2011, particularly about whether it really contributes in a meaningful way to the debate about whether God (with a big G) exists.

But surely nobody can deny that Law managed to use the conventional debate format very expertly, giving Craig one of the greatest challenges he has ever faced.  This is the first time that I thought I had detected signs of nervousness from one of the world's most formidable debaters, as he realised that his plan of campaign was not going to work in the way he expected.  It seems to me that he recognised the quality of his opponent quite early!

Even the Church of England's publication 'The Church Times' has acknowledged that Craig's performance was far from sparkling, and they questioned why he had not used another line of argument that had worked well against a a previous opponent.  I feel certain that it would not have made any difference.  Of course they neglected to acknowledge Law's debating skill, but of course nobody would pretend that they were commenting on the skill of debating.  They were defending the point of view that they could never be expected to abandon, whatever happened in the context of a formal debate.

In my opinion Stephen Law out-performed even the great Christopher Hitchens in his demolition of Craig, very carefully avoiding being drawn into the onslaught of illogical nonsense as has happened to so many before him.  He simply dismissed the Cosmological Argument neatly as the nonsense that most people recognise it to be!

In the Q&A at the end he observed:

"What so often happens in these debates is that people, atheists, allow them to be sucked into detailed conversations about exactly what is wrong with the cosmological argument, and lose sight of the larger structure of the argument.  Even if it is true that there is such a creator, there is abundant evidence that it is not an all powerful all-good god."

For me, that was the strategy that worked best for him.  He addressed Craig's other two arguments about objective morality and the evidence for the resurrection politely and firmly by making a good logical case that the existence of an evil god could no more be disproved than the existence of Craig's good God.

Sadly I was not able to attend in person, but the appearance of the audio on Youtube has given us all the opportunity to hear a worthy performance.


Small note:  Wasn't it funny that Craig had some difficulty in understanding some of Law's typically English figures of speech and had to ask for them to be repeated.

Another note (not so small): Here's a link to Stephen Law's blog about the event.

and a link about WLC's campaign in the Oxford area

Related posts:
Why would an atheist want to hear William Lane Craig speak?
William Lane Craig to visit
Probably no Dawkins
By far most scholars . . . 

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

This strategy of avoiding Craig's arguments is nothing new (see debates with Harris and Hitchens for eg if i remember correctly they even spoke about George Bush in the debate!)

Craig on the other hand focuses relentlesly on the arguments put forward by the other side and tries to refute them. (whether he succeeds or not he has a go).

I prefer watching debates where the 2 speakers try to engage with what the other person actually says.....

Anonymous said...

Having said that i think Stephen Law debated well. Craig seemed to avoid answering the if God does exist - then 'He' is evil argument. Either he hasn't thought about this objection before... or he decided that since his first 2 arguements were uncontested that he doesn't need to.... or maybe he left it up to the audiense to decide the nature of God - having made the uncontested point that he does exist....

Plasma Engineer said...

I think if Craig wants people to discuss things then he ought to choose something less jaded than the Cosmological argument. It starts from premises that are questionable and ends with a conclusion that doesn't even follow from the premises. What's the point of getting drawn into such nonsense?

Incidentally, under the name of the Kalem argument, it was originally used to 'prove' that Allah existed.

Derby Sceptic said...

I don't claim to be at the top of the class with logic, but every thing I know about logic shows the Kalam Cosmological argument doesn't fall under the heading of logic at all. As PE pointed out the initial premises are questionable and as for the final leap of faith!

That is the point - it presupposes faith rather than logically reaching a conclusion.

Hilary said...

The problem with all of this is that the centrality of the Christian Faith which is what I particularly focus on, is of course the life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Now as for the 'God is evil' argument, it is impossible to understand the Old Testament (which is predominently where atheists argue from all time in vain attempts to prove their point) without studying it in the light of the character and personality of Jesus Christ. In fact, remember the Christian faith is, whilst in in sense on the shoulders of the Jewish faith, still nevertheless built/founded on the person of Jesus Christ who is "the image of the invisible God". If you want to know what God is like, then read the Gospels and read the words of Jesus. See his character, see how He responds to people, situations His own crucifixion.

There is a tremendous book which I have mentioned before by a man called Frank Morrison, titled "Who Moved the Stone" which takes into consideration all the opposing arguments for the resurrection, and shows why each is wrong one by one, until finally coming to the overwhelming conclusion that the only real solution to who moved the stone away from the burial place of Jesus, was that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, and that this small group of frightened followers who all but deserted Him reformed to become a world changing, dynamic, radical group of believers with a power that they themselves could never have mustered unless it had come from outsied of themselves.

Any dismissal of the reality of the person of Jesus, or of the crucifixion or of the resurrection simply shows you have not truly studied in detail the Gospels and the letters of Paul and co.

I recommend this book "Who moved the Stone" as a very human approach, and an appreciation of all the detail recorded in the Gospels which, if not studied and read carefully can be overlooked, and which, on careful reading reveals the sequence of events of the last 7 days before the Resurrection of Christ.

To dismiss this book would be to dismiss a very fascinating approach which I have not seen in any other book I have read on the subject. Perhaps because Frank Morrison does such a thorough work and the book has been reprinted many times.

If you are genuinely interested in the Christian Faith, this is a book to read. If all you are interested in is scoring points in arguments then you will remain ignorant of the finer points and are simply arguing for arguing sake which in my opinion is a complete and utter waste of time.

Derby Sceptic said...

@Hilary You say that the Old Testament can only be understood by understanding Jesus. Presumably in order to do this we need to refer to the bible. Do we not therefore have a recursive argument in which you need the book to explain how to understand the book, and so on ad-infinitum?

Anonymous said...

Craig's very first few words against the possibility of infinite regression disproves the god he is trying to argue for. Moron.

Hilary said...

Hi D.S. Not ad-infinitum no, but certainly the Old Testament was/is a shadow of the New Testament and it is completely possible to become a Christian and live the Christian life from only ever reading the New Testament. Well of course it is also possible to become a Christian without ever reading the New Testament as several of my friends have done. But the point I am making is that the O.T can only be interpreted in the light of the New, and in the light of Jesus Christ. What I mean by that is that Jesus challenged and fulfilled many aspects of the O.T. The group of religious leaders called the Pharisees were very religious but were more about rules and regs than about the heart of God which was compassion and Jesus challenged them at every turn. However He also dug deep into the roots of the human psyche but did so with vast amounts of compassion to those who were truly striving to live a godly life. To those who were putting the letter of the law over and above acts of kindness etc Jesus called them hypocrites etc...as I believe He would do and does do today to those who have ears to listen...

...and it is terribly easy for every human being to begin to make judgements about another isn't it...such as describing them as morons etc lol which as I have repeadedly said, never adds a great deal to the argument does it really :)

Hilary said...

So...to anonymous...would you like to expand on your argument...rather than just throw insults around :)

Plasma Engineer said...

That particular Anonymous hasn't made her message entirely clear. I'm not entirely certain the Craig's tosh about infinity is worthy of any comment, let alone proves anything.

Plasma Engineer said...

To summarise @Hilary's claims about Jesus and the OT, I think it comes down to the two words "consubstantial" and "co-eternal". We are supposed to believe that Jesus was there all along, and that he is 'of one substance with the father'. Claims of a sequential historical narrative (that the OT was written before the NT) are a distraction. Am I right?

Frank Morrison's no-doubt-excellent book "Who Moved the Stone" would be interesting reading if we wanted to understand the nuances of the NT. But to me, these nuances are an irrelevance compared with the manifest inconsistencies that we can observe. To claim that it is amazing to see how much consistency there is simply flies in the face of the evidence.

There is some cross correlation with a newer post - http://somethingsurprising.blogspot.com/2011/11/by-far-most-scholars.html

Plasma Engineer said...

re: the last paragraph of @Hilary's comment at 17:51, it is a non-sequiter to suggest that you can be either 'genuinely interested in the Christian Faith' or 'scoring points' against it. This is the fallacy of the missing middle.

My interest is in the truth, and the more the discussion continues, the more convinced I am that atheism is the way forward.

Mark said...

One thing about Craig that really gets up my right nostril: at the beginning, when it's customary to compliment the opposing speaker, he compliments Law - for agreeing with him!!

He did this in the debate with Harris too.

He's creepy..

Hilary said...

Hi Mark, I agree that to compliment the opposing debater would perhaps tend more to give the impression of a gimmicky kind of intro rather than the reality that the opposing debater is in fact, opposing. That would annoy me too.

pohlish said...

incorrect.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of moron
"1. usually offensive : a person affected with mild mental retardation.
2. a very stupid person"
William Lane Craig, regardless of your personal feelings on his arguments for the creation of the universe, is not a moron. I would call you a moron sir for suggesting such an ill conceived notion, but I also think the ability to post on Infinite regression would show your intelligence above that of mental retardation. So I will only say that you are incorrect in your slander.

Plasma Engineer said...

Sadly, anonymous comments are not always worth reading. The final word almost made me delete that comment but the first sentence seemed more interesting. Anyway - Craig is not stupid, even if I don't agree with him.

T-Herbert said...

What Hilary is trying to present is if one refutes God's goodness and grace one would have to look at Jesus which is God 'manifested in the flesh' - Paul. To truly label God (an infinite and non-natural being) with natural qualities one needs to look more at his natural manifestation and not what he did in the old testament. I think a very good argument for how compassionate God is towards us is the fact he loved the world so much he allowed the execution of his son so that we might be able to go to Heaven-John 3:16. In laymen's terms, God essentially wrapped himself in dirt, then fellowshipped with dirt, in order that dirt might be able to spend eternity with him. That, to me is remarkable, and I think that any non-incredulous person can not refute this as evidence of how compassionate God is.

Plasma Engineer said...

Thanks for that latest comment which I frankly find to be nonsense. However, it inspired today's blog post . . . http://somethingsurprising.blogspot.com/2013/03/remarkable-faith-claims-culpable.html

Cara mudah obati sariawan said...

try to understand your post, wait i will give feedback next later

Photoofcars.com said...

download Nissan leaf car backgrounds desktop hd wallpapers

but i still believe that god are here :D

usaha es krim rumahan 2015 said...

finding god?
peluang usaha es krim rumahan tanpa modal try to hear and listen dr. zakir naik