I can tell you are right up on it. You take the opportunity and then boil it down for the rest of us.
And yet he (at least) holds his own against this atheist youtube star on this very topic.
youtu.be/eOfVBqGPwi0?t=4222
There is a difference between being a skilled debater (which nobody I know of denies that WLC is) and a philosopher. A skilled debater just needs a sufficient number of rhetorical tricks to obscure the flaws in their argument, a philosopher needs to address those flaws.
4 Likes
Youāve obviously never perused the comment section of a YouTube debate between Craig and an atheist.
In the link I provided above (although it doesnāt really appear as a link for some reason) Craig is not debating. He is having a philosophical conversation with a highly regarded undergrad in philosophy at Oxford.
Just to name a few of his debates with philosophers, Craig debated Austin Dacey, Shelly Kagan, Alex Rosenberg, Erik Wielenberg, and Graham Oppy.
And for a laugh, if atheists can laugh at their own, which of these two are attempting to deploy, as you call them, rhetorical tricks?
I wanted to include these as well, but am unable to edit my comment while it awaits approval.
Craig is often critiqued for essentially presenting the same material in debate after debate. In this case his alleged (are you alledging this) rhetorical tricks should have been ready targets for rebuttal. It would be wonderful if you are alleging rhetorical tricks on the part of Craig, that youād point some out.
On the other hand, here are two of the 4 horsemen (with allusion to a 3rd) with their acknowledgment of Craig as formidable.
Christopher Hitchens On William Lane Craig (Mirror: Birdieupon) - YouTube and
The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig - YouTube
I split out comments unrelated to cosmology (well, most of them) to a new thread.
Theyāre just being polite. Craig is a babbling idiot. Iād love to debate him. Heād cry like a little girl. Go ahead and present his best arguments right here. I will eviscerate them as I would do him in a debate and as I have done to the people here who have challenged me.
Youāre impressed with WLCās ability to best a philosophy undergrad? Thatās a low bar.
1 Like
I did say ānobody I know ofā. Am I expected to know of every troll commenting on āa YouTube debate between Craig and an atheistā? And I would further note that you did not even to bother citing an actual troll on an actual video denying that WLC is a skilled debater.
Your statement therefore would seem to do nothing to cast doubt on my statement.
-
As you have not provided an accessible link, I am in in no position to comment on the contents.
-
I did not state that WLC does nothing other than debating.
This statement therefore would seem to do nothing to cast doubt on my statement.
[My emphasis]
This statement would seem to do nothing to cast doubt on my statement.
You expect me to slog through an hour and a half video, just to see what rhetorical tricks WLC may, or may not, employ? You really are having "a laugh*. 
But in any case, I never said that WLC employed rhetorical tricks with each and every breath.
This statement therefore would seem to do nothing to cast doubt on my statement.
WLC, although his qualifications are in philosophy, is known primarily for his contributions to the field of apologetics, not philosophy. Apologists, including WLC, have a reputation for twisting logic to fit their predetermined theological aims. This makes it rather difficult to take them seriously as philosophers.
1 Like
I hope youāll be able to concede that the undergrad (Alex OāConnor) performs vastly better than the Ph.D. (Lewis Wolpert.)
I love that someone loved your comment. I hope you get a bunch more. For me at least, it demonstrates the utter partisanship of these board participants.
He is not āanyā undergrad, but one highly regarded. Especially among atheistās as Alex is an atheist himself.
Did you even look at the link? Is it possible that an individual could have capability far beyond his official credentials? Did you notice that the comment was rebutting the apparent claim that Craig relies upon rhetorical tricks? (Note that with scientific rigor there are no examples of Craigās rhetorical tricks) Did you note that the bar was not set only upon the qualifications of an undergrad but 5 philosophers who hold a Ph.D?
Seem that atheists can only handle theism if it can be portrayed as a position held only by fools.
Oh, how I wish there were more atheists that could mirror at least a modicum of objectivity toward those who see things differently.
Thomas Nagel might serve as an example:
"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isnāt just that I donāt believe in God and, naturally, hope that Iām right in my belief. Itās that I hope there is no God! I donāt want there to be a God; I donāt want the universe to be like that.ā(āThe Last Wordā by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)ā
Iāve been periodically browsing the content over here at Peaceful Science every since I heard @swamidass in a youtube debate acclaiming (hopefully I suppose) the virtue of Peaceful Science. Although skeptical, Iāve been able to wish, concur and commiserate with Joshua that such an exercise as Peaceful science was a thing that one could actually do something to foster. At times it appears a military rule is required to prevent vitriol from being directed toward those of a most-favored status. As I recall, the preamble to the dialog with Winston Ewart and possibly similar with comments toward Ann Gauger. Iām glad that this respect for them was asked for. How effective the request was in being followed, I donāt know. The need for the special request is what interests me.
Not to rain on Joshās wish that such a thing as Peaceful Science could be possible, I just have no reason to think that such a thing is possible. Sorry Josh.
I find your response to me to be the classic pompous bombast that gives reason for my skepticism. It is fantastic to see how gracious Hitchens was by comparison.
@Sam, We have our failings, but we also have a great many successes; positive discussions between people of very different views. I think you will find the quality of discussion here to be better than un-moderated forums on similar topics, and infinitely better than sites that donāt allow any discussion at all.
Of course, moderation does not solve all problems. We canāt follow every word nor do we want that level of control. Moderation works best when users cooperate to reasonable standards. The includes participating in moderation by limiting comments, asking other to behave more politely, and using the flag button to summon moderators for assistance. If someone is being a pompous bombast you have multiple options to try to make the situation better.
A basic fact of the Internet is that people like to argue. We recognize this and try to facilitate friendly argumtation to the extent this is possible, and sideline those who canāt play nice. As Joshua likes to say, āIt can be a rowdy place,ā but it can also be a place for constructive dialogue. What you get out of the discussion often depends on what you bring to it. I understand you do not think the ideal of Peaceful Science is possible, but I think we do a fair job. If this is failure, when what does success look like?
2 Likes
I thought there was a higher standard in mind for Peaceful Science than the need to police it in order to have it peaceful. Maybe I was being naive.
Of course, there is nothing particularly principled about a peaceful place that needs to rely upon policing to maintain the desired police.
It hardly seems to meet the ideal of the beauty of Peaceful Science to only be able to maintain peace by employing more stringent policing.
I want to be as clear as I can be - Iām not blaming the moderators or the goal of Peaceful Science. Your phrase āwe have our failingsā would almost indicate that if you did your job better, these failings would be avoided. This has no similarity to what Iām thinking. I do believe that Peaceful Science is probably as good as it can be given that it is populated by mere people.
I wouldnāt know what to measure that against.
Iām unaware of these. Are you sure? Very different views on what? Have any atheists ever said anything not derogatory about anything ID? What is your metric?
Sure. Acknowledged. Again, not sure how I expected Peaceful Science to be better, and probably never really expected it to be so. In fact, I donāt know how anyone should expect it to be so. I may have been rather bedazzled with Joshuaās description of the https://youtu.be/wXU2Z3GVNFM?t=2701 in fact here Joshua says how it was a ābeautiful thingā, https://youtu.be/wXU2Z3GVNFM?t=2753 It doesnāt sound like there was any moderation required to achieve the ābeautiful thingā that Joshua referred to.
I hope it is clear that I donāt expect this.
I didnāt know that this flagging was even possible. However, regardless, I have no desire to use it. I worked as a construction worker my entire working career and it is pretty hard to offend me. Iām not offended or worried about being so. What really bugs me is that āsmart peopleā make such ridiculous examples. Iām quite happy about the bombastic comment,
I know Joshua has a high regard for Bill Craig as Josh refers to him as, and Iām quite certain that he will find the comment as ridiculous as I do.
Although not in any way āoffendedā it is just so disappointing that conversations come to this stoop to level. Iām no scientist, but that doesnāt mean that some egregious levels of partisan drivel go undetected.
I know that there was a discussion about the meaning of āpeacefulā as opposed to āreconciliationā. These type of comments here leave me with the impression that both are somewhat pretentcious.
I hope that isnāt overly harsh. I too wish for the perfect world qualities that was on display at the meeting Joshua referred to in the video.
This may have been alleged, but not by me. Therefore I have no obligation whatsoever to accept this as a premise when addressing you āevidenceā.
But even if I did accept it, that he āessentially present[s] the same material in debate after debateā is not the same as claiming that he uses the same rhetorical tricks.
The list of dishonest rhetorical tricks WLC has been accused of is quite lengthy. That cited article in fact suggests that:
Given that Craigās arguments are easily debunked, it may seem surprising that heās often touted as having āwonā debates against well-known opponents. However, a major reason for this perception is that Craig makes heavy use of aggressive U.S. high school debating tactics, something which most of his opponents are too polite to either stoop to or to call out (one exception was the blunt denunciation of Craigās tactics by Lawrence Krauss). Unless the audience is attuned to the polite phrasing usually employed in academia, the severity of the criticism leveled against Craig by his opponents can easily be missed.
For these reasons, I do not accept your assertion that:
For this you cite two youtube videos which are described as:
The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig
Christopher Hitchens did a pre-interview before he debated William Lane Craig. Apparently, Hitchens had rather kind words to say about Craigā¦
[My emphasis]
They can therefore reasonably be presumed to be saying that he is āformidableā as a debater. Again, nothing you have presented casts doubt on my original statement.
In closing I have to ask, if WLC is a āserious philosopherā (the original point that I was highly skeptical of), why does he spend such an inordinate amount of time on Youtube and/or in debates (often with or against undergraduates, obscure atheists, non-philosophers, and so forth)? Whilst Iām not suggesting that a serious philosopher cannot post the (occasional) Youtube video, engage in the (occasional) debate, or publish the (occasional) popular-audience book, I would expect a serious philosopher to spend more of their time on more serious philosophical pursuits. WLC rather gives the appearance of an attention-seeking showman.
3 Likes
Canāt say I can recall any instances. But I also canāt recall any atheists saying positive things about flat-earthers. Whose fault do you think that is? The moderators?
4 Likes
No one can be sure as to what happened in the past. We all can speculate.
I speculate that Newtons law applies. If there is spin, how could it spin if you didnāt have a road to push against to get the skate board rolling. and as soon as you do that your road would move the opposite way.
If God was a big stone the size of the universe and he spun it, he would be left spinning UNLESS he spun half left and half right. but that same force would have to come from somewhere.
fluid Hydraulics makes it appear that you can play with that but it does not show that there is force being applied to the tires of your tractor in different ways.
Our spiral galaxy is something very special but there must be as much turning the opposite way
The Proof of God would be the ability to organize that spin. There could be no way to start a spin. Consider a block. With no spin. no Enthalpy. I cant see any more dangerous thing for A God with two spinning tops than to introduce friction between them and cancel out that opposite motion. You would literally cause your death. Once stopped. how could you move again.
I could see God reaching his hand out from the top Top and causing a spin to the right then jumping to the bottom Top and reaching out his hand to create another spin creating differenceā¦ All well and good. We have a universe but if it all eventually comes to a zero sum game he has killed a part of himself.
Maybe that is the symbolism found in Jesus Dying on a cross. That God gave his life so others could live. maybe it was something for God to wind the music box to hear it play but it cost him everything or at least a portion of his Enthalpy. The measure of the universe would be the Entropy, the sacrifice of God.
I donāt know if God is two spinning tops. but for sure I know the people who think they know sure dont know.
Hi Tim,
I want to respond to you but have run out of time.
I will be out of internet range for the most part for the next several days. I just wanted to say that I am not ignoring your posts.
Thanks.
Thanks for that apt analogy, @Faizal_Ali . I was going to say something but could not think of anything that pointed.
If the measure of the decency of people is going to be whether they are prepared to mouth kind platitudes about an outrageous lie, then itās going to be harder to come up with that sort of decency. The reason nobody has anything good to say about ID Creationism is that thereās nothing good to say about it.
5 Likes
Well, I appreciate your candor. It is even more pessimistic regarding the likelihood of objectivity than I think warranted. One might be warranted to think that you think the moderators block anything positive that might be said about ID.
One reason for optimism is my recollection of a positive blurb on the back of Beheās first book. I lent my copy and never got it back, and searching Iām not positive, but it seems it might have been this,
āI felt that Professor Beheās book has done a better job of explaining existing science than others of its kind. I agree with him that conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed. I disagreed with him about the idea that one needed to invoke intelligent designer or a supernatural cause to find an answerā
Iām not saying that I read this through rose colored glasses and see it as overwhelming support, but Shapiro and others have credited Behe with highlighting problems that others may wish to gloss over.
What about
and
failed to remove, from your mind, the idea that I might blame the moderators.
Although not dealing specifically with origins, another concession that not all theist are nut bars comes from Thomas Nagel,
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isnāt just that I donāt believe in God and, naturally, hope that Iām right in my belief. Itās that I hope there is no God! I donāt want there to be a God; I donāt want the universe to be like that.ā
[Mod edit to remove title font]