Doctor William Lane Craig

How well known and popular is this guy amongst American Catholics?

I (English in England :D) came across him when looking up debates. I found him very impressive… :slight_smile:

I’ve never heard of him and I’m from the US.

There are lots of debates of him on YouTube, but he tends to use the se argument which, is ,‘it’s true because it’s true’ no evidence

I’ve heard of him but not seen any of his debates. I’ve heard good things about him, though.

As in the same argument you are using to discredit him as a philosopher?

Craig is quite well known and has doctorate degrees in both theology and philosophy, which, I assume, means he clearly understands the difference between a fallacy and a valid argument.

Aprilfloyd, please provide an example of where Craig falls prey to a fallacy in his writing or debate, rather than just claiming “it’s true because [you say] it’s true.”

^^^ this is an incorrect biased opinion of someone who obviously doesn’t like WLC

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_7qitTSpi5zMYhdxad6Hqykt34nkXjWqRag6nVNZ-jBDsrLEijQ

if this is true why does he trump Christopher Hitchens in debates destroy Sam Harris, and if why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate him.

William Lane Craig is a smart guy , great speaker and gives Atheists a run for there money -

he is not a Catholic but he is favorable to Catholics and supports the Pope and what hes done (Benny XVI)

he stated he does not agree with the Council of Trent of Justification but its an easy issue to debate I think it would hurt his career to change religions and his focus is not on Christianity but disproving Atheism and Islam which is why he probably wont become a Catholic IMHO

I guess we watch different debates , Harris, Hitchens, et al use evidence and have expressed that they would change their mind if verifiable evidence was produced
Lane Craig is clever, it’s his arguements that need supporting. I enjoy watching
Him. And saw him in debates with Dawkins. From what I can read Dawkins does not feel it is worthwhile to debate him as he does not feel he is same bracket as say lennox.

I think Hitchens wiped the floor with him

-gasp- :eek: -choke- :eek::eek: -suffocate- :eek:

Are you seriously kidding? Is that what you really, truly see?

In every single debate I have seen of an atheist, the atheist ALWAYS turns to emotional response and sets up a straw man argument with an entirely incorrect view of religion to destroy. I have never, in my life, seen an atheist’s argument use facts, reason, or logic.

Furthermore, provided with large amounts of evidence to prove the existence of God, they somehow manage to keep their mind so closed that they can’t even make a succinct and correct response to the evidence!

What gets me about him is I saw a video where he talked about speaking at a school. He had presented his usual argument (1. Everything that begins has a cause. 2. The universe began. 3. Ergo, the universe has a cause.) then stating that this cause must be the Judeo-Christian god. He then explained that someone asked what caused God, and he was so laughably incredulous about that question.

Obviously, most of the people here will disagree with me on these matters; but even those that disagree on the answer to “What caused God?” it’s a reasonable philosophical question to ask. Instead he comes off as condescending and unwilling to address the question.

God doesn’t have a cause. He had no beginning.

Right. I understand that’s what all of the Abrahamic faiths and many non-Abrahamic faiths believe. The problem is the point of these exercises is to not take anything for granted, and as a philosopher this should be rule number one for William Lane Craig. Instead he guffaws a braying mule to even suggest such a question.

Philisophically, believers and non-believers are going to completely disagree on the answer but we should be able to agree that in a discussion like that it’s a reasonable question to throw out there.

“Using” evidence is not the same as using sound arguments. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that many find compelling, but which does not amount to anything like a proof or even a logically convincing argument.

Hitchens, et al, are/were quite willing to accept the most meager evidence in support of an atheist position, but completely abstain from accepting a greater abundance of better quality evidence to support a theist position.

You could not have seen Craig in “debates” with Dawkins because they have never debated each other, although Dawkins and Craig were involved in a panel discussion on atheism featuring 6 (I think) panelists which did not bring them into direct debate.

Hitchens never “wiped the floor” with Craig except to the most biased analyst. They were quite evenly matched and Craig did a masterful job diffusing Hitchen’s important points. Harris was not even close and neither were Grayling, Atkins, Price, Stenger or Krauss among the other distinguished atheists he has encountered.

I don’t think you quite understand what we are getting at. According to the Cosmological Argument, there MUST be a non-contingent being who was uncaused for the universe to come into existence. If there was no such being, then there could be no universe according to this argument.

Since I’ve given this argument so many times before, I’ll just copy a chunk of text I’ve said before:

When an event is caused, logically it must have had a beginning, because if it had no beginning then it could not have been caused by anything. Therefore, it is impossible to have an infinite series of caused events, because each of them must have been caused by something, and if this is taken on to infinity the question of what started it all remains unanswered. Therefore, the Cosmological Argument says that there must be an uncaused cause which began the entire process, and that uncaused cause is God.

So, I’ve narrowed down that there must be a non-contingent being, because there cannot be an infinite series of caused events. Besides, human reason does not admit the idea that nothing could turn into something, or nothing could be moved by nothing. It is a self-evident truth that if there ever had been nothing then there could never be anything.

Except that the gist of the cosmological argument is to demonstrate, logically, the need for an uncaused cause. So your question amounts to asking, “Why shouldn’t an uncaused cause also have a cause?” Which is like asking, “Why do triangles have to have three sides?” or “Why can’t there be married bachelors?” That is tantamount to an admission that you don’t understand the point of the argument in the first place.

You should read Krauss on this point

That last sentence has an incorrect pronoun. :smiley:

Since man evolved to the point of saying “God created the universe,” there has been another man asking “Then who created God?” One logically follows the other. The answer that usually follows that question is, “He has always been.” Despite the fact that chirstians (even within a denomination) have vastly different ideas as to the nature of God, I’m not asking him to defend his definition of God as eternal. I’m just asking him to a) not act surprised that this question that’s been around since the dawn of time was asked, b) realize that the more assumptions made the weaker the argument, and c) answer the question posed to him with a modicum of class.

If you listen to any of his arguments, he never actually logically demonstrates that the uncaused cause is his interpetation of God. He just assumes that to be the case – just as he assumes the universe had a beginning.

Off-topic:
“Why can’t there be married bachelors?”
A man is married in the Catholic Church. He later files for a divorce. The state recognizes the divorce, the church does not. The state considers him a bachelor and the church considers him married.

I was referring to the debate in spain.

I did not think of atheism as a position.

To my knowledge there has never been any evidence produced and peer reviewed and now accepted as proof for god. As a Catholic, the most I can say is gods are man made fictions, but religion can offer a way to live and historically it formed some of man’s earliest attempts at a civil structure

I was referring to the debate in spain.

I did not think of atheism as a position.

To my knowledge there has never been any evidence produced and peer reviewed and now accepted as proof for god. As a Catholic, the most I can say is gods are man made fictions, but religion can offer a way to live and historically it formed some of man’s earliest attempts at a civil structure

I’m curious how you can be a Catholic if you believe gods are man made fictions?

Hitchens wiped the floor with him… even Hitchens know he didn’t do well and said at least he had the b**ls to go up and debate him unlike Dawkins.

Lennox and Dawkins went back and forth and they both raised some valid points but Lennox was giving him more a hard time than I think would be good for his image which is why I think Dawkins no longer debates Lennox

I also just got the book God-less dilusion which rips aparts Dawkins book

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.