/lit/ - Literature

not a bad looking guy

>>5577498

Some of his academic work is decent, everything else is really bad philosophy.

>>5577498


atleast hes white.

Instead of seeking what is genuinely true, he develops sophisticated arguments to justify his faith-based beliefs.

He speaks well

>>5577498
gets raped in every debate with an atheist

hahaha topkek OP

>>5577531
Maybe he came to his faith-based beliefs through pursuit of genuine truth? You parrot nonsensical shit to fit in on /lit/ I can't forget how you based your views on Kierkegaard of wikipedia page of him instead of reading anything by him.

I dislike Craig, but I admit that he's a decent analytic philosopher, hasn't watched any of cliche fad atheism nutjobs vs christian nutjobs debates so you won't get my opinion on that matter.

>>5577559
This is an objectively false statement

>>5577531
FAGGOT
A
G
G
O
T

>>5577703
Then provide an example of a debate with an atheist in which WLC does not get raped.

I know a lot about this guy from when I first got into philosophy (yeah, the whole God thing).

Found him compelling at first, but that was before I became apt enough to see that none of his 'five arguments' work. Am willing to discuss this with you OP

>>5577498

>there have been times in history when killing every man, woman, and child/baby, and animal in a foreign Nation is morally justifiable. - WLC

Ridiculous human being.

WLC seems to think that lying to a load of people who can't analyze his arguments properly is the lesser of two evils as it may make them believers and save them from eternal damnation

>>5577753

WLC is great at those first cause arguments and cosmology shit. But whenever he starts talking about morals, problem of evil, biblical laws he sounds like the voice of insanity.

It's really strange watching him argue so logically one moment and then turn to a complete retard as the subject changes.

>>5579668
So, there is no proof of him ever not getting raped by an atheist in a debate...

>>5577522
dat nose tho. and head and mouth and everything

>>5579684

I don't think there is. I think what happens is he rapes himself in his debates as the topic switches to any sort of morality issue, or if he has to justify atrocities in the bible, or if he has to justify the divinity of Jesus, it's just pure illogical mishmash.

I think he "wins" most of his debates though. But that's because he uses very sophisticated arguments that take a lot of philosophy to refute. There is literature that refutes them of course, but the atheists he debates aren't familiar with the technicalities.

So what happens is they just talk past each other and WLC gets the upper hand.

>>5579668
>WLC is great at those first cause arguments and cosmology shit
No he isn't. His arguments are riddled with subtle fallacies, carefully hidden by rhetoric

>>5579723
>with subtle fallacies, carefully hidden by rhetoric

yes, but his opponents barely EVER point them out. Which is why he's a good "debater" a terrible philosopher, but that's another issue.

>>5579743
Iv never understood this. Why don't the opponents point this out? I cant believe some of the shit craig gets away with.

That said, Craig gets his ass handed to him in this debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

>>5579826
>>5579826

this was really good, specially once they got going arguing each other.

At the end you can tell WLC was impressed and at a loss for good responses.