Prof. William Lane Craig

Midlife Crashes

I was wondering I anyone could suggest some books/debates involving this guy.
Out of the few debates I've seen from him he has always disposed of them easily (Hitchens, Zindler ) Are there any debates in which both sides make good arguments and would be interesting to watch?

Thank You.

doctoremma

Midlife Crashes wrote: »

I was wondering I anyone could suggest some books/debates involving this guy.
Out of the few debates I've seen from him he has always disposed of them easily (Hitchens, Zindler ) Are there any debates in which both sides make good arguments and would be interesting to watch?

Thank You.

You will never find anyone "winning" a debate against this guy, largely because he's a very dishonest debater (if rather charismatic in action!). He's the king of the Gish Gallop (Google this or see the slightly comedy definition below*).

Please, re-watch the debates you have access to more closely and see if you genuinely think he has addressed his opponent's points fairly.

*Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bull**** in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.

1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bull**** and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bull****. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're bull****, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bull**** into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.
From Urban Dictionary.

Gumbi

Agreed. He almost never says anything of substance. He seems to be attempting to bewilder his opponent with fancy words. (childishly, in a sense). Anyone with a brain can see that when viewing it objectively.

I'll try to find an example of this.

Andrewf20

Gumbi wrote: »

Agreed. He almost never says anything of substance. He seems to be attempting to bewilder his opponent with fancy words. (childishly, in a sense). Anyone with a brain can see that when viewing it objectively.

I'll try to find an example of this.

Qualiasoup touches on concerns with some points made by W L Craig here at the start of this video and at 6mins 52 secs & 11mins 30 secs:

Fanny Cradock

Craig has a podcast called Reasonable Faith. Each episode is fairly short (15 mins or so) and of varying quality.

Chazz Michael Michaels

His arguments would only make sense if you wanted them to be true before you heard them. A dishonest man.

Fanny Cradock

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

His arguments would only make sense if you wanted them to be true before you heard them. A dishonest man.

Given that you haven't offered a critique of any of his arguments, it's a little rich for you to say that they are are only convincing to the intellectually dishonest. Questioning Craig's honesty seems to be the standard line amongst some.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that you haven't offered a critique of any of his arguments, it's a little rich for you to say that they are are only convincing to the intellectually dishonest.

That isn't what I said. What I said was that if you are already a creationist/ID then you are going to believe whatever that side of the debate says, because if you don't, then what you believe could be wrong (God). And he is well known for being dishonest, as are many on that side (kent hovind, AiG, etc). They can't back their arguments with facts, so they instead bear false witness. If you want examples, have an oul Google, I gave up watching these peoples videos years ago.

Fanny Cradock

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

That isn't what I said.

You stated that his arguments only make sense if you want them to be true, which qualifies as claiming that anyone who finds his arguments convincing (which ones exactly?) is intellectually dishonest.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You stated that his arguments only make sense if you want them to be true, which qualifies as claiming that anyone who finds his arguments convincing (which ones exactly?) is intellectually dishonest.

Or stupid.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

Or stupid.

How arrogant!

Onesimus

I've discovered that no atheist ( even when they lose against Craig in debate ) will be convinced. This because the power of the will is quite awesome and they simply don't want to believe in God. But are quite happy just to insult Craig anyway and just call him a ''gish gallop'' just because of the great command of the English language he seems to have that is absent of the need to ''joke'' about atheism and insult it. This annoys them I think.

Fanny Cradock

I'll admit that I don't always find Craig convincing. I guess in your world, doctoremma, that only makes me partially stupid.

But let's recap on your contribution to this thread thus far. Firstly, you have attacked Craig by quoting no less an authority than the Urban Dictionary. Secondly, you called people stupid or intellectually dishonest if they found any of Craig's arguments convincing.

I see.

Well argued!

[IMG]http://gifs.gifbin.com/1233928590_citizen kane clapping.gif[/IMG]

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How arrogant!

Not really. Either people are being intellectually dishonest (they know their preconceptions are being fed) or are genuinely incapable of seeing through the bobbins. Which given the completely explicit nature of his BS, renders anyone unable to see it as, um, naive at least.

doctoremma

Onesimus wrote: »

I've discovered that no atheist ( even when they lose against Craig in debate ) will be convinced. This because the power of the will is quite awesome and they simply don't want to believe in God

No it's not, it's because his arguments are entirely unconvincing.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll admit that I don't always find Craig convincing. I guess in your world, doctoremma, that only makes me partially stupid.

The argument is about how he debates, which is with shameless dishonesty. The 'substance' of his arguments, well, I don't agree with much but that's by the by. He is a poster boy for anti-intellectualism and neither side should offer him any of their time.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But let's recap on your contribution to this thread thus far. Firstly, you have attacked Craig by quoting no less an authority than the Urban Dictionary.

I attacked his debating style. Did you miss the part where I stated it was a 'comedy reference'? By all means, post your own definition of the Gish Gallop and let's see how wrong Urban Dictionary was.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

I've discovered that no atheist ( even when they lose against Craig in debate ) will be convinced. This because the power of the will is quite awesome and they simply don't want to believe in God. But are quite happy just to insult Craig anyway and just call him a ''gish gallop'' just because of the great command of the English language he seems to have that is absent of the need to ''joke'' about atheism and insult it. This annoys them I think.

We insult him because he uses silly, long discredited and childish arguments as well as dishonest tactics and yet is silly lauded as an "intellectual".

What arguments of his do you feel should be convincing and why?

Onesimus

doctoremma wrote: »

Not really. Either people are being intellectually dishonest (they know their preconceptions are being fed) or are genuinely incapable of seeing through the bobbins. Which given the completely explicit nature of his BS, renders anyone unable to see it as, um, naive at least.

Same thing could be said of atheist arguments. Except for the bad manners. Craig it seems doesnt need the bad manners, he addresses the arguments and topic at hand. Whereas most atheists he debates when they find themselves unable to respond, retort to insults as well as changing the subject and fail to address his response altogether.

doctoremma

Onesimus wrote: »

Same thing could be said of atheist arguments. Except for the bad manners. Craig it seems doesnt need the bad manners, he addresses the arguments and topic at hand. Whereas most atheists he debates when they find themselves unable to respond, retort to insults as well as changing the subject and fail to address his response altogether.

This is a Poe, right?

Onesimus

doctoremma wrote: »

No it's not, it's because his arguments are entirely unconvincing.

Every Argument to the Militant atheist is unconvincing. Mainly because they don't want to believe in God. The idea is horrid to them.

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

Same thing could be said of atheist arguments. Except for the bad manners. Craig it seems doesnt need the bad manners, he addresses the arguments and topic at hand. Whereas most atheists he debates when they find themselves unable to respond, retort to insults as well as changing the subject and fail to address his response altogether.

Most people don't respond to Craig because he speaks complete gibberish and believes Atheists aren't capable of being moral (hah).

Anyway, weren't you making a few claims over on AA about Atheists needing to prove the lack of existence of a God, but seemed to have gotten totally confused about what the burden of proof is?

doctoremma

Onesimus wrote: »

Every Argument to the Militant atheist is unconvincing. Mainly because they don't want to believe in God. The idea is horrid to them.

What I want to believe has no bearing on what is true.

And you're kidding, right? I'd love to think that god was real: I have lost friends and family, I have suffered pain and stress, I have felt alone and in need. So yeah, I'd love to think there was someone there, a reason for it all to be happening.

Bannasidhe

Onesimus wrote: »

Every Argument to the Militant atheist is unconvincing. Mainly because they don't want to believe in God. The idea is horrid to them.

Onesimus as a matter of interest do believe all atheists are militant?
If so may I ask why?

If not can you please define what you see as the difference between a militant and a non-militant atheist?

I ask because you have referred to 'militant atheists' a number of time in this thread (and others) so I would be grateful if you would clarify you mean by that term.

I do not find the idea of believing in God horrific by the way - I find it implausible.

doctoremma

Sonics2k wrote: »

Anyway, weren't you making a few claims over on AA about Atheists needing to prove the lack of existence of a God, but seemed to have gotten totally confused about what the burden of proof is?

And then run away.

Gish galloped away?

Benny_Cake

Folks, if you want to get into a general debate regarding the existence or non-existence of God, that is what the megathread is for. Let's leave this thread for discussing William Lane Craig specifically, bearing in mind the OP's question. Thanks!

Bannasidhe

Benny can I please ask if Onesimus answers my question as he has referred to militant atheists in the context of debating with Craig?

MagicMarker

I'm not posting this as an argument for or against the existence of god, but merely to highlight how WLC can manipulate arguments to suit himself.

Turtwig

Tomorrow is Bill's birthday! ! !:eek:

Midlife Crashes

Out of the debates i've seen from him (Five now), I have noticed that he is always much more organized than his opponents and he takes advantage of this. He seemingly has a comeback for everything an atheist might say. I have never seen an opponent clearly and concisely expose a flaw in Dr.Craigs points. To me he is unquestionably the best Christian debater that I have seen.

In the debate versus Cavin it seemed as though Craig was debating an amateur. Within the first five minutes it was clear that Craig had won this argument after shooting down probably ten of Cavins points in that time.

Versus Barrier, Craig walked over him due to his superior intellect.

The debate versus Zindler was rather good but Zindler was not as well organized and many of his points didn't seem to apply to the topic that was being discussed.

If anyone could suggest some more to watch that would be great

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

You will never find anyone "winning" a debate against this guy, largely because he's a very dishonest debater (if rather charismatic in action!). He's the king of the Gish Gallop (Google this or see the slightly comedy definition below*).

Please, re-watch the debates you have access to more closely and see if you genuinely think he has addressed his opponent's points fairly.

*Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bull**** in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.

1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bull**** and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bull****. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're bull****, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bull**** into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.
From Urban Dictionary.

The "Gish Gallop" stuff you've actually given is nonsense. It doesn't even mention what's wrong with William Lane Craig's argument.

After having looked at the debate with Sam Harris a while ago, it was clear that Craig had the better argument. It seems like excuse making to me. Craig is a better debater. As for those claiming he doesn't have any academic credentials (as Dawkins tried to do in his Guardian article when he refused to debate Craig) the man is one of the leading philosophers of religion and is widely published in that field.

I heard Craig speak in London last October, and I thought he argued his points well. You've yet to show that any of his points were nonsensical (or as the Urban Dictionary put it bull****).

philologos

philologos wrote: »

The "Gish Gallop" stuff you've actually given is nonsense. It doesn't even mention what's wrong with William Lane Craig's argument.

What's wrong with it is that it's a dishonest tactic.

philologos wrote: »

After having looked at the debate with Sam Harris a while ago, it was clear that Craig had the better argument. It seems like excuse making to me. Craig is a better debater. As for those claiming he doesn't have any academic credentials (as Dawkins tried to do in his Guardian article when he refused to debate Craig) the man is one of the leading philosophers of religion and is widely published in that field.

But being a good debater doesn't make you points good, or mean that they would stand up to detailed scrutiny.

For example in a live debate you could throw out a hundred misunderstandings and misrepresented points in the time it would take to explain how just one of those points was misrepresented and misunderstood.

philologos wrote: »

I heard Craig speak in London last October, and I thought he argued his points well. You've yet to show that any of his points were nonsensical (or as you put it bull****).

So which of his points are particularly convincing?

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

The "Gish Gallop" stuff you've actually given is nonsense. It doesn't even mention what's wrong with William Lane Craig's argument.

After having looked at the debate with Sam Harris a while ago, it was clear that Craig had the better argument. It seems like excuse making to me. Craig is a better debater. As for those claiming he doesn't have any academic credentials (as Dawkins tried to do in his Guardian article when he refused to debate Craig) the man is one of the leading philosophers of religion and is widely published in that field.

I heard Craig speak in London last October, and I thought he argued his points well. You've yet to show that any of his points were nonsensical (or as the Urban Dictionary put it bull****).

Forgive me, but isn't the point of these debates to convince the opposition of the validity of one's position and thereby bring them over to ones own side?

If that is the point then the consensus of the opposition in that Craig failed to convince them. Phil - you may have found his arguments convincing but you are both already on the same side - you both believe in the existence of God. Has Craig convinced an Atheist? - that would be the measure of his skill, reasoning and abilities.

Or he may be just interested in flim-flamming and diversionary tactics in order to score temporary points off his opponents as many here believe. But in doing so he is playing to his own gallery and not convincing the unconvinced.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

What's wrong with it is that it's a dishonest tactic.

It's a poor argument insofar as it doesn't apply to Craig in any meaningful sense.

King Mob wrote: »

But being a good debater doesn't make you points good, or mean that they would stand up to detailed scrutiny.

Except that his arguments were excellent in comparison to Harris'.

King Mob wrote: »

For example in a live debate you could throw out a hundred misunderstandings and misrepresented points in the time it would take to explain how just one of those points was misrepresented and misunderstood.

It sounds like meaningless excuse making.

King Mob wrote: »

So which of his points are particularly convincing?

The argument he makes in the debate Sam Harris in respect to the objective grounding for morality is excellent. It was made by many many others before Craig, for example C.S Lewis makes it in his Mere Christianity. I've yet to find a decent atheist response which deals with this, on or off of boards.ie.

Edit: N.B - This was one point that caused me to wake up in respect to my former agnosticism.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

It's a poor argument insofar as it doesn't apply to Craig in any meaningful sense.

He bombards opponents with information overload, he hides the lack of specific answers in this information overload, he doesn't allow his opponents time to rebut the myriad points he has raised. This is the epitome of the Gish Gallop.

Gumbi

It isn't referring to any specific argument he makes, rather that which he does in general.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

He bombards opponents with information overload, he hides the lack of specific answers in this information overload, he doesn't allow his opponents time to rebut the myriad points he has raised. This is the epitome of the Gish Gallop.

This seriously sounds like excuse making. The reality of the matter is, if Harris and others had a better argument, they'd be able to convince reasonable people of their conclusions.

Gumbi: Precisely why I find it deeply unconvincing.

Gumbi

philologos wrote: »

This seriously sounds like excuse making. The reality of the matter is, if Harris and others had a better argument, they'd be able to convince reasonable people of their conclusions.

Gumbi: Precisely why I find it deeply unconvincing.

It's not excuse-making. There are better theistic debaters out there that don't use such tactics - no-one is denying that; at least, I'm not.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

This seriously sounds like excuse making. The reality of the matter is, if Harris and others had a better argument, they'd be able to convince reasonable people of their conclusions.

That's fine if you think that, if you admire such tactics. I'd be pretty confident that if you were to see Dawkins indulge in such underhanded and frankly disappointing behaviour, you'd be the first to cry 'No fair'.

doctoremma

Gumbi wrote: »

It's not excuse-making. There are better theistic debaters out there that don't use such tactics - no-one is denying that; at least, I'm not.

Agree completely.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

It's a poor argument insofar as it doesn't apply to Craig in any meaningful sense.

Except it does. Craig employs that tactic often.

philologos wrote: »

Except that his arguments were excellent in comparison to Harris'.

That seems to be pretty subjective, and based more on the flash of how he presented the argument rather than the meat.

philologos wrote: »

The argument he makes in the debate Sam Harris in respect to the objective grounding for morality is excellent. It was made by many many others before Craig, for example C.S Lewis makes it in his Mere Christianity. I've yet to find a decent atheist response which deals with this, on or off of boards.ie.

Edit: N.B - This was one point that caused me to wake up in respect to my former agnosticism.

But it's not a convincing argument. It is comprehensively demolished by the excellent video posted earlier in the thread.
But even if his argument held up, he should still know better than to use it.
As a professor of philosophy he should be able to recognise an appeal to consequence and know why that form of argument is fallacious.
I've only a bachelor's and I can do that.

philologos

Gumbi wrote: »

It's not excuse-making. There are better theistic debaters out there that don't use such tactics - no-one is denying that; at least, I'm not.

It's very clearly excuse making. The reality is that Craig can argue his case extremely well in comparison to many atheists. I think Craig is a problem for atheists insofar as they refuse to consider that Christians can actually defend their faith.

For the record, I think the Bible is enough. God has assured us that faith comes by hearing the word of God. However, it is nice to have people like Craig show that there are logical foundations to trusting in God in the 21st century.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

It's very clearly excuse making. The reality is that Craig can argue his case extremely well in comparison to many atheists. I think Craig is a problem for atheists insofar as they refuse to consider that Christians can actually defend their faith.

For the record, I think the Bible is enough. God has assured us that faith comes by hearing the word of God. However, it is nice to have people like Craig show that there are logical foundations to trusting in God in the 21st century.

I repeat my question - is Craig successful if he fails to convince atheists?
What is the point otherwise?

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I repeat my question - is Craig successful if he fails to convince atheists?
What is the point otherwise?

I've answered your question already. The Christian position on morality when explained by authors such as C.S Lewis and Craig, was part of the reason why as an agnostic I was wakened up to the inconsistency of holding that position.

philologos

King Mob - 40 seconds in and I already see a problem with that video. I'm going to watch it all, and take some notes and come back on it.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

I've answered your question already. The Christian position on morality when explained by authors such as C.S Lewis and Craig, was part of the reason why as an agnostic I was wakened up to the inconsistency of holding that position.

With the greatest of respect Phil - you did not answer my question.

Being agnostic is not the same as being an atheist.

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

I did specifically as if Craig has convinced an Atheist.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With the greatest of respect Phil - you did not answer my question.

Being agnostic is not the same as being an atheist.

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

I did specifically as if Craig has convinced an Atheist.

Let's make it clearer then, I wasn't sure that a God existed, and I didn't live as if one existed and had any real role in respect to my life. You can decide which category that fits into. The reality is that these arguments have helped non-believers come to Christ. I don't believe these arguments have primacy over the Bible though in convicting people to accept Jesus as their Lord, but they certainly help.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

King Mob - 40 seconds in and I already see a problem with that video. I'm going to watch it all, and take some notes and come back on it.

Phil, given your track record, you can understand why I'm skeptical of that.

Feel free to address the fact that the argument that's convinced you is in fact an appeal to consequence and therefore a dishonest argument.

Midlife Crashes

Something that I have just noticed while reading the comments on some of craigs videos is that regardless of who actually won the debate, the atheists are going to clam that the evolutionist won. Kinda disappointing when you realize that even while looking at them from an objective view, Craig has in my mind never lost a debate.

A particular example of this is in the debate vs Hitchens. Hitchens never puts forward a coherent rebuttal to any of Craigs points, yet still he supposedly won.

An example of one of the top comments. "It's the trembling evident Craig's voice throughout the cross-examination section that's the real clincher. Not only did Hitchen's wipe the floor with Craig.....but he probably did it with the best part of a bottle of JW black label and Perrier inside him !"

This was the worst performance that I have seen against the Prof and in no way did Hitchens "Wipe the floor with him"

GCU Flexible Demeanour

philologos wrote: »

The argument he makes in the debate Sam Harris in respect to the objective grounding for morality is excellent. It was made by many many others before Craig, for example C.S Lewis makes it in his Mere Christianity. I've yet to find a decent atheist response which deals with this, on or off of boards.ie.

I probably should acquaint myself with some of the source material, but I'd be surprised with an atheist trying to make an argument for an objective grounding for morality. I'd expect our contention would have to be to agree that, without a deity, no objective morality exists.

Its just, with no consensus over which deity is the real one, theists don't really have an objective morality either. They can only subjectively assert that their morality is the true, objective one.

All that I've posted may be irrelevant - but I find the thread somewhat short on links to where this individual's argument(s) might be set out. I'd suspect they must end up where all such arguments must end up - even if we accept the proposition that the universe has some cause, there's absolutely nothing to link that proposition to any human religion.

Now, I may be misjudging the situation. If this individual's contention is simply that people like Dawkins overstate their case, and don't understand why many choose to follow a religion, then he's probably right. If he's saying he has a line of argument that proves beyond reasonable doubt that his brand of religion is the right one, I'd suspect he's not.

Sorry to sound so lazy (I just am on these matters), but is there some quick source that would enable someone to judge if there's any point in taking an interest in this professor's work?

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Let's make it clearer then, I wasn't sure that a God existed, and I didn't live as if one existed and had any real role in respect to my life. You can decide which category that fits into. The reality is that these arguments have helped non-believers come to Christ. I don't believe these arguments have primacy over the Bible though in convicting people to accept Jesus as their Lord, but they certainly help.

How you lived is immaterial, the fact is you were not sure whether God existed or not. But were open to be convinced either way perhaps, but I suspect (correct me if I am wrong) that you were predisposed to believe.

I am utterly convinced God does not exist - ergo I am an atheist.

Would you class us both (you back then obviously) as 'unbelievers'? That's quite confusing if so - it would be more precise to say you were an 'unsure' but I was/am 'sure'.

Craig's arguments do not convince me. I find he is all smart aleck tactics but little substance. It would appear my fellow atheists posting here feel the same way.

Fanny Cradock

Sonics2k wrote: »

Most people don't respond to Craig because he speaks complete gibberish and believes Atheists aren't capable of being moral (hah).

Please show me one quote where Craig states that atheists are incapable of being moral. Go on! Just the one will do.

Why I ask is that any time I have heard Craig talk about morality he has been at pains to explain that atheists can be kind, caring and wonderfully moral individuals. In other words, he has said exactly the opposite of what you have claimed.

In fact, what Craig has said is that objective morality can not exist in an amoral universe. Now if there is some flaw in Craig's argument then please explain.

The question here is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? I am not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? I certainly think that we can. Rather the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?

Craig, 1996 debate