-
Recent entries
- our values:engaging in debate rationally, intelligently and with attention to evidence
- Doug Wilson asks
- Don’t let the facts get in the way
- William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair
- Why I ought ?
- Rob Bell -Resurrection
- Berlinski quote of the Month
- Expelled-No Intelligence allowed
- Introducing the Premier showing of the worlds first Labrador LUMIX TZ7 test
- Three cheers for the Trinity!
-
Browse popular tags
Add new tag Atheism Richard Dawkind Rainbow awe God Deity b christianity Christianity Theism William Lane Craig Cosmology Universe Materialism atheism Big Bang Hoyle Darwin Evolution John Angus Campbell Dawkins Tonybee William Lane Craig Athesism Christianity God UK Doug Wilson atheism christianity Hitchens Dawkins Dr David H Stern Edith Schaeffer Erwin Schrödinger Expelled-No Intelligence allowed Dr Steve Fuller Dr Keith Fox Dr Alistar Nobel Dr Susan Blackmore Dr Stephen C Meyer Intelligent Design Ben Stein Premier Radio Unbelievable Justin Brierley G.K.Chesterton God Howard Jacobson Jews judaism Messiah Messianic Nihilism Richard Dawkins The God Delusion Viktor Fran Richard Dawkins Creationists Holocaust deniers Evolution ID Intelligent design Church Islam Christianity Complex Specified Information William Dembski Science william lane craig Richard Dawkins Intelligent design cosmology philosophy christianity atheism -
Meta
I really don’t like making personal attacks on opponents, but William Lane Craig’s “arguments” in favour of God have been defeated so many times by so many people in print and at the lectern that I have little left but to fire ad homs.
Dawkins is right. Craig only wants to share a platform with him as part as his relentless drive for self promotion.
Now Craig is using Dawkins refusal to share a platform with him as a PR exercise.
Pathetic.
Hi MSP,
im not aware of any arguments that have successfully countered Craigs inferences to Gods existence.
I am also not aware of Dawkins supporting evidence regarding his opinion ‘Craig only wants to share a platform with him as part as his relentless drive for self promotion.’
My lack of awareness it appears is staggering.
As far as I am aware Craig is not seeking to set the debate up -but others have ..so it seems strange to say hes trying to pad out his CV ?As evidence for this -from bcc radio Ulster :http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-pqGImKLlI4
I’ve heard it. And I actually posted the following on Unbelievable? Facebook page earlier today:
3:30 Craig maintains his debates are academic affairs with no ad homs or rhetorical tricks.
5:45 Craig plays a rhetorical trick and prospective declares himself the winner of any debate with Dawkins in that were his opponent even to survive, it would be hailed as a victory by the atheist camp.
Good call refusing to sully your hands with such a demagogue and pseudo-intellectual, Richard.
I’m still suffering from a sense of blissful ignorance -as no further evidence has come to light regarding my initial comment :
‘I am also not aware of Dawkins supporting evidence regarding his opinion ‘Craig only wants to share a platform with him as part as his relentless drive for self promotion.’
My lack of awareness it appears is staggering.’
Where is the evidence ?
3:30:”They are always academic forums that are conducted with civility and respect…” I would be interested to know where Craig has not demonstrated those qualities ?Not that I am saying Craig is a paragon of virtue -hes just some guy you know ?
’5:45 Craig plays a rhetorical trick and prospective declares himself the winner of any debate with
Dawkin’s in that were his opponent even to survive, it would be hailed as a victory by the atheist camp.’
Re 5:45 I read that not as a rhetorical trick but as a no win situation for Craig as -his debating skills and arguments have been hyped by the media -that anything less that and a serious slap down would be seen as failure on Craig’s part.
Exactly. I really don’t understand how you managed to read it that way, Ed. Craig was clearly saying that anything *less* than a total defeat for Dawkins would, most likely, be considered a failure on his part.
Not exactly the best way to try and undermine an opponent, is it? By admitting there’s pressure on you to perform well.
Compare that to Dawkins, who’s made all sorts of insults on Craig’s intelligence and even the sound of his voice.
Sorry for the delay in replying. I was at Glastonbury last week and I don’t seem to be getting email notifications from Facebook and WordPress etc.
Refuting Craig’s 5 “arguments” is off-topic for this thread, but I usually recommend his debates against Vic Stenger on God’s existence and Bart Ehrman on the resurrection for examples of where Craig has his backside well and truly handed to him on a plate.
Stenger’s put-down about Craig taking polls of scholars at Bob Jones University during the Q & A would get a thumbs up from Boswell!
Given Craig’s track record of being less than honest, I do not believe him for one second when he says that he has played no part in the attempts to have Dawkins debate him.
hope you had a good time at Glasto
I dont want to become an appologist for Craig -but where is Craigs track record of being less than honest ?
I usually cite this absurd clip of Craig mining Barrow and Tipler’s The Anthropic Cosmological Principle to assert that human evolution is so improbable that if it happened it would have to miracle and therefore evidence for God.
Read the uploader’s description box that quotes the book’s very next sentence: “We should emphasize once again that the enormous improbability of the evolution of intelligent life in general and Homo sapiens in particular does not mean we should be amazed we exist at all. This would make as much sense as Elizabeth II being amazed she is Queen of England”.
And Craig is still pushing the myth than Hawking believes that the universe and space time began with the Big Bang, when the quote from The Nature of Space And Time read in full clearly shows that Hawking is talking about the effect on the public consciousness of his and Pemrose’s previous thesis, which they have now abandoned.
Here’s the latest news on the “Cowardly UK Atheists” saga. It’s a bizarre and disappointing set of events indeed!