If William Lane Craig came to the R/P, who should debate him?

[wildphucker]

Just wondering, if WLC came to the R/P for a debate (written style, one post constitutes an opener/argument, a few days given to respond, maximum number of posts each etc) on a typical R/P topic, say existence of God, validity of Christianity,etc.

Who on here should debate him? Anyone up to the task?

[Mr Beer]

I don't how the guy debates...would the atheist need an expert knowledge of science and religion or just a good layman's grasp and the ability to think logically?

[Boffothe]

Debating WLC is as simple as debating any christian.

Noble, Goodhearted Atheist: So let me get this straight, you believe that it's possible to walk on water
Ig'nant Christian Swine: Yes absolutely
Everyone else: hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha FATALITY

I hereby nominate myself

[lasher]

Debating WLC is as simple as debating any christian.

Noble, Goodhearted Atheist: So let me get this straight, you believe that it's possible to walk on water
Ig'nant Christian Swine: Yes absolutely
Everyone else: hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha FATALITY

I hereby nominate myself

You would lose to WLC. Badly. Probably worse than most atheitards on this forum.

[Boffothe]

You would lose to WLC. Badly. Probably worse than most atheitards on this forum.

I just showed you that I would win with ease, nice troll attempt tho

[MrRIP]

You would need someone who focuses on science and has done research opposite to what WLC believes. I don't know who here really cares that much about religion other that mister collie and he's no athirst

[MrRIP]

Someone should post some of his debates with prominent athiests

[lasher]

Someone should post some of his debates with prominent athiests

Youtube search button broken again?

[Kelei]

WLC makes some semi-compelling arguements for the possibility of an intelligent creator, however he in no way, shape or form provides any argument that makes an intelligent creator necessary, it's important to distinguish between the two. All he proves is that a creator is possible, he does not prove that a creator actually exists. He also argues for a generic creator, his arguments don't support any particular God so even if some people are convinced by his arguments (I'm not) that a God exists it does not follow logically that it must the the Christian God or any other specific God.

It's also important to remember that WLC is an expert debater yet only an average philosopher, any time he debates someone with less debating skill he is likely to win (even when he debates better philosophers), not because his arguments/philosophies are necessarily better but because he is simply better at debating.

It's not fair to expect a scientist or philosopher to beat an expert debater in a debate, it's unlikely to ever happen. WLC should create a work of philosophy and allow a large collection of philosophers to review it, if he were to do this he would most likely be shot down rather easily, instead he demands they do battle on his terms (in a 1v1 debate situation where he has a massive advantage).

[Boffothe]

Someone should post some of his debates with prominent athiests

I can't find the video on youtube, but I found a transcript of one of his more famous debates. I didn't really find WLC that impressive in it, but I may be biased.

Hitchens: So let me get this straight, you believe that it's possible to walk on water
Craig: Yes absolutely
Moderator: hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha FATALITY

[wwjcd]

WLC makes some semi-compelling arguements for the possibility of an intelligent creator, however he in no way, shape or form provides any argument that makes an intelligent creator necessary, it's important to distinguish between the two. All he proves is that a creator is possible, he does not prove that a creator actually exists. He also argues for a generic creator, his arguments don't support any particular God so even if some people are convinced by his arguments (I'm not) that a God exists it does not follow logically that it must the the Christian God or any other specific God.

It's also important to remember that WLC is an expert debater yet only an average philosopher, any time he debates someone with less debating skill he is likely to win (even when he debates better philosophers), not because his arguments/philosophies are necessarily better but because he is simply better at debating.

It's not fair to expect a scientist or philosopher to beat an expert debater in a debate, it's unlikely to ever happen. WLC should create a work of philosophy and allow a large collection of philosophers to review it, if he were to do this he would most likely be shot down rather easily, instead he demands they do battle on his terms (in a 1v1 debate situation where he has a massive advantage).

And therein lies the issue, any retard can make a compelling argument for the existence of a God, I wanna see him make a compelling argument for the existence of his specific God in all of his three forms.

[Mr Beer]

It's also important to remember that WLC is an expert debater yet only an average philosopher, any time he debates someone with less debating skill he is likely to win (even when he debates better philosophers), not because his arguments/philosophies are necessarily better but because he is simply better at debating.

It's not fair to expect a scientist or philosopher to beat an expert debater in a debate, it's unlikely to ever happen. WLC should create a work of philosophy and allow a large collection of philosophers to review it, if he were to do this he would most likely be shot down rather easily, instead he demands they do battle on his terms (in a 1v1 debate situation where he has a massive advantage).

But in OP's proposed format WLC would not have his debating skill edge or at least it would be vastly blunted by having to write everything down and the opponent having days to formulate responses.

[MrRIP]

Youtube search button broken again?

Dickhead replies still working for you?

I was hoping you would post some of his better debates because he made an exceptional point that one time.

Came across this interesting meme

[MrRIP]

But in OP's proposed format WLC would not have his debating skill edge or at least it would be vastly blunted by having to write everything down and the opponent having days to formulate responses.

He'd probably lose to someone with average reasoning and enough care to Do a bunch of research to show how wrong he is. I'm listening to his debate with Richard carrier in 09 right now. I don't like the way this is going already

[wwjcd]

Dickhead replies still working for you?

I was hoping you would post some of his better debates because he made an exceptional point that one time.

Came across this interesting meme

ITT, bald *******s get owned.

[MrRIP]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437

Andrew at Evaluating Christianity has put up some excellent posts of advice on how to debate William Lane Craig (one, two, three, four, five). The reason Craig wins all his debates with atheists is not because his arguments are sound, but because he is a masterful debater. Craig has been honing his debate skills literally since high school. Not only that, but he is a Ph.D. philosopher and encyclopedic historian: an expert on the two subjects he debates, the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.

Let me repeat. Craig has done 20+ years of Ph.D+ level research in the two fields he debates, has published hundreds of academic books and papers on both subjects, and has been debating since high school.

So yeah, that�s right. You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Richard Carrier? Austin Dacey? Quentin Smith? Bart Ehrman? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Louise Antony? Christopher Hitchens? Eddie Tabash? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Frank Zindler? Gerd Ludermann? Hector Avalos? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.

�What about some people who would like to debate Craig?�

Mark Smith? John Loftus? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.

�Okay, well, is anyone qualified to debate William Lane Craig?�

Nobody comes to mind�

The atheist�s only hope in debating William Lane Craig is to offer better arguments. Remember, Craig is defending the theory that an ancient Semitic sky god created the universe with his magical powers, let it evolve in violence and meaninglessness for billions of years, then intervened quite recently by sending a man-god to earth, who rose from the dead into a new body with superpowers and now talks to you and grants you wishes as your invisible friend. That is literally what he has to defend, so one would think that even without equal debating skills an atheist would stand a chance to defeat that theory.

But here�s the thrust of what Andrew and I are trying to say: You can�t just know the arguments to win a debate (though many atheists fail at even this, anyway). You must also know how to debate. It�s a skill. If you haven�t specifically studied and practiced debating for several years, then you suck at debates. You might think you can debate because you �win� little arguments with uber-ignorant Christian fundamentalists, but trust me: you suck at debates. Your suckage will be especially obvious if you debate a master like William Lane Craig.

[lasher]

Dickhead replies still working for you?

I was hoping you would post some of his better debates because he made an exceptional point that one time.

Came across this interesting meme

panties in a bunch much?

Here's two of his most lulzy moments.

[Meatros]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437

But here�s the thrust of what Andrew and I are trying to say: You can�t just know the arguments to win a debate (though many atheists fail at even this, anyway). You must also know how to debate. It�s a skill. If you haven�t specifically studied and practiced debating for several years, then you suck at debates. You might think you can debate because you �win� little arguments with uber-ignorant Christian fundamentalists, but trust me: you suck at debates. Your suckage will be especially obvious if you debate a master like William Lane Craig.

I agree with Luke's over all appraisal. I think that saying he's a good debater and leaving it at that is a bit misleading. The reason I say that is that it gives the appearance that it's all about rhetoric. It's not. What makes someone a good (great) debater is rhetoric AND familiarity with the argument AND all it's counters. It's like a chess game. Philosophers are generally more in tune with all the arguments and the subtleties of those arguments, which is why they are leagues better than the scientists that Craig goes up against.

Take the argument from evil, as an example. A scientist will say 'ah ha, the argument from evil disproves God' or that it provides compelling evidence against God or however they phrase it.
Craig fires back with a few choices: say a soul making theodicy or the free will defense.
The scientist, never having studied the philosophy, doesn't know how to counter these or counters these badly.
Craig pounds relentlessly on these points and wins this particular argument.

A philosopher would know how to counter these and perhaps throw in a new argument (say Law's evil God challenge). This will force debate inflation for Craig - he's going to have to spend time responding to the Evil God challenge. Which leaves him less time to refute the philosophers refutations of the soul making theodicy.

The fact of the matter is, Craig is very familiar with the counters, so he's got the first few steps down. He can spit them out and give himself time to deal with any new angle. This is why he wins. He's familiar with three areas (cosmology, christianity, and philosophy) whereas his opponents are usually good at one or two. So he's got three angles to start with (and considering he almost always leads off to set the debate) and he's a master of debate.

[Tamorlane]

Me.

[Meatros]

Someone should post some of his debates with prominent athiests

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=50

I'd say scientists tend to do the worst against WLC.

[GoJu]

I agree with Luke's over all appraisal. I think that saying he's a good debater and leaving it at that is a bit misleading. The reason I say that is that it gives the appearance that it's all about rhetoric. It's not. What makes someone a good (great) debater is rhetoric AND familiarity with the argument AND all it's counters. It's like a chess game. Philosophers are generally more in tune with all the arguments and the subtleties of those arguments, which is why they are leagues better than the scientists that Craig goes up against.

Take the argument from evil, as an example. A scientist will say 'ah ha, the argument from evil disproves God' or that it provides compelling evidence against God or however they phrase it.
Craig fires back with a few choices: say a soul making theodicy or the free will defense.
The scientist, never having studied the philosophy, doesn't know how to counter these or counters these badly.
Craig pounds relentlessly on these points and wins this particular argument.

A philosopher would know how to counter these and perhaps throw in a new argument (say Law's evil God challenge). This will force debate inflation for Craig - he's going to have to spend time responding to the Evil God challenge. Which leaves him less time to refute the philosophers refutations of the soul making theodicy.

The fact of the matter is, Craig is very familiar with the counters, so he's got the first few steps down. He can spit them out and give himself time to deal with any new angle. This is why he wins. He's familiar with three areas (cosmology, christianity, and philosophy) whereas his opponents are usually good at one or two. So he's got three angles to start with (and considering he almost always leads off to set the debate) and he's a master of debate.

He's not familiar with cosmology, he's familiar with buzzword arguments he uses to make a compelling sounding case using incorrect interpretations of cosmology.

I agree it's his debating skills that make him 'win', but not his arguments.

It's a moot point, Craig refuses to debate people without PhD's.

I think I could hold my own but I'm no philosopher so I would obviously try to stir the conversation away from what he knows and attempt to harp on the facts and interpretations he gets flat out wrong.

[MrRIP]

I agree with Luke's over all appraisal. I think that saying he's a good debater and leaving it at that is a bit misleading. The reason I say that is that it gives the appearance that it's all about rhetoric. It's not. What makes someone a good (great) debater is rhetoric AND familiarity with the argument AND all it's counters. It's like a chess game. Philosophers are generally more in tune with all the arguments and the subtleties of those arguments, which is why they are leagues better than the scientists that Craig goes up against.

Take the argument from evil, as an example. A scientist will say 'ah ha, the argument from evil disproves God' or that it provides compelling evidence against God or however they phrase it.
Craig fires back with a few choices: say a soul making theodicy or the free will defense.
The scientist, never having studied the philosophy, doesn't know how to counter these or counters these badly.
Craig pounds relentlessly on these points and wins this particular argument.

A philosopher would know how to counter these and perhaps throw in a new argument (say Law's evil God challenge). This will force debate inflation for Craig - he's going to have to spend time responding to the Evil God challenge. Which leaves him less time to refute the philosophers refutations of the soul making theodicy.

The fact of the matter is, Craig is very familiar with the counters, so he's got the first few steps down. He can spit them out and give himself time to deal with any new angle. This is why he wins. He's familiar with three areas (cosmology, christianity, and philosophy) whereas his opponents are usually good at one or two. So he's got three angles to start with (and considering he almost always leads off to set the debate) and he's a master of debate.

The rest of the article goes along with your post. Since the title is how to beat him in an argument.

[MrRIP]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=50

I'd say scientists tend to do the worst against WLC.

Yes. From what I have read is WLC has been embarrassing guys in debate simply because he is better at the task of debating, but he would be handled if there were academic paper arguments and rebuttals. I believe this is the consense here right

[DrTorpedo]

And therein lies the issue, any retard can make a compelling argument for the existence of a God, I wanna see him make a compelling argument for the existence of his specific God in all of his three forms.

Exactly this, it seems Theists are so hung up on trying to prove God that they miss what the real debate is. Proving to me that the God written in your holy text is the correct one.

[hooked4life]

Exactly this, it seems Theists are so hung up on trying to prove God that they miss what the real debate is. Proving to me that the God written in your holy text is the correct one.

I came in to post something like this - he could never "win" a debate about Christianity being correct.

[lasher]

I came in to post something like this - he could never "win" a debate about Christianity being correct.

Well, he's done several debates about the resurrection of Jesus, so I'd say your judgement there is pretty hasty.

[hooked4life]

Well, he's done several debates about the resurrection of Jesus, so I'd say your judgement there is pretty hasty.

no, just no. that's a factual claim - you can't "debate" to it. there is either hard proof or there isn't.

there isn't.

[RBLOCK]

Here are good ways to beat WLC in debate:

Cite Hawking's grand design as a theory for how matter emerges from a gravitational.void, ie nothingness is physically unstable and tends toward something. Not proven, but neither is deism.

Maintain during the debate that you are representing the position of atheism, not adeism. This way he cannot attempt to insist that the burden of evidence falls on you.

Protest to the audience when he mentions "experiential evidence" in his opening audience that your opponent is asking for an abusive double standard and has disqualified himself. He has no more legitimate argument on that front than an adeist who says "I have experienced with certainty that no supernatural forces exist. I know it beyond doubt."

Point out the inverse correlation between a nation's religiousity and its standard of living and education. Point out that the rule of law has not been eradicated in extremely religious countries like Denmark and the Czech Republic.

Turn his argument that atheism provides no objective morality. This would sound like this: "Turn: subjective morality a superior moral system to objective morality. Subjective morality based upon democratic consensus and the evolution of a society's moral ideals abolished slavery etc."

Finally, cite sources. Find evidence and authors that write on the subject of religion's physical and psychological harm. Read
evidence on the subject of what religion has done to homosexuals over the centuries. Point out infant genital cutting and institutional racism. WLC rarely cites sources.

Most importantly, issue this challenge: any action we both agree is moral, like charity, can be done be either a theist or a secular humanist. Meanwhile, actions which seem immoral can be avoided by a humanist with impunity, yet are often obligatory for theist (take your pick, manipulating children, symbolic cannibalization rituals, inhumane animal slaughter, genital cutting, slavery, subjugation of women, persecution of homosexuals).

[r0gue6]

no, just no. that's a factual claim - you can't "debate" to it. there is either hard proof or there isn't.

there isn't.

I would debate that most theists don't know the difference between fact and faith.

[SheHadMANHands]

Jf1