Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prof. William Lane Craig

Options
  • 22-08-2012 8:51am
    #1
    Midlife Crashes
    Registered Users Posts: 954 ✭✭✭


    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.


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭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:



  • Options
    #5
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


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


  • Options
    #6
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #8
    Chazz Michael Michaels
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #10
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Or stupid.

    How arrogant!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Onesimus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #13
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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]


  • Options
    #14
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #15
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Options
    #18
    Onesimus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #20
    Onesimus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #21
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #23
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #24
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #25
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #26
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #27
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #28
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


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


  • Options
    #29
    Midlife Crashes
    Registered Users Posts: 954 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #30
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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****).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement