William Lane Craig

[Anonymous No.10546437]

What are /Lit/s thoughts on Dr. WLC?

[Anonymous No.10546445]

the human shotgun

[Anonymous No.10546446]

>>10546437
The Mr. Rogers of Apologetics

[Anonymous No.10546449]

He helped turn me into a Christian

[Anonymous No.10546454]

A dumbass

[Anonymous No.10546459]

>>10546449
lol

[Anonymous No.10546470]

>>10546446
lol this

[Anonymous No.10546477]

>>10546437
He speaks well, but all protestants should hang.

[Anonymous No.10546491]

it's not a very sophisticated or intellectual criticism but i hate his stupid fucking face

[Anonymous No.10546497]

>>10546449
He's very intelligent. To this day I still can't think of how there can be objective morality without God, and how the Kalam cosmological argument is flawed

[Anonymous No.10546501]

He could be cast as a benign step-dad pretty easily.

[Anonymous No.10546532]

His arguments for creation ex nihilo are very good.

[Anonymous No.10546543]

>>10546532
summary and/or link?

i always found the idea of creation ex nihilo completely untenable (and im not an atheist); i lean toward the existence of a prima materia, although strictly speaking im a nondualist (advaita) so the whole question of creation is pretty superfluous for me anyway

[Anonymous No.10546610]

>>10546437
Apologetics is for pseudo intellectuals. After facing the reality of death they mean nothing. Intellectual arguments fade into the abyss and all is left is your instincts (unless you throw those away, in which case you might as well jump in after your intellectual arguments).

[Anonymous No.10546623]

>>10546543
He has a book called "Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration". I don't know of a link offhand that gives a comprehensive summary of all the lines of argumentation/evidence presented in that book.

[Anonymous No.10546639]

>>10546446
lmao

[Anonymous No.10546659]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-fUNF7fGNU
>>10546497
>>10546532

[Anonymous No.10546665]

>>10546659
what the fuck

[Anonymous No.10546677]

>>10546659
Is this supposed to be funny? You realise you have to be 18 to browse here

[Anonymous No.10546680]

>>10546665

It's just noise coming from the internet. Ignore it. Your having a good life depends on your ability to drown out noise such as this and focus on what matters.

[Anonymous No.10546690]

>>10546437
>protestant
No thanks.

[Anonymous No.10546756]

>>10546497
objective morality is a spook used to keep the proles in line. you're a prole. nothing to see here.

[Anonymous No.10546761]

>>10546659
The atheist shows its true nature as emotionally driven rebel. Color me surprised.

[Anonymous No.10546768]

>>10546756
Objective morality exists to keep your children safe. Though I'm not sure why survival isn't a spook in itself.
That said, spooks are great, necessary and useful.

[Anonymous No.10546784]

>>10546756
That's definitely an argument

[Anonymous No.10546791]

>>10546756
it's not 1950 anymore, capitalism keeps people in control through hedonism, egotism and the promise of impossible wealth. muh edgy stirnerfags are actually the ideal sheeple, because they are atomised people with no convictions

[Anonymous No.10546803]

>ex nihilo needs an explaination!
there was never 'nothing', there is no 'true vacuum', there is always something, even empty space is a turbid quantum garden

>kalam
basically a special case of ignorance of the above, using the big bang as a justification for the argument betrays a misunderstanding of physics

>he can't address the 'Riddle of Epicurus' without misunderstanding it as 'the problem of evil'
the riddle of epicurus is not the same as the problem of evil, if the thing you're talking about doesn't meet the criteria Epicurus set, you're playing a stupid language game to talk about 'God' where you walk into Jordan Peterson territory

[Anonymous No.10546807]

>>10546437
I haven't read his books but when speaking to a general audience during debates he resorts to using nauseating debate tactics such as making condensed, convoluted arguments based on dubious assertions all spoken too hastily to process, and then makes unjustified leaps assuming those arguments are true. The audience or opponent has no chance of scrutinizing his lines of reasoning, and any further arguments made by his opponent are nullified by him because they don't address his own previously stated justification for his beliefs. This is fine if you're doing competitive debate since debate is 99% asians w/ thick accents reading as fast as possible, but when you're on a stage debating for an audience you should at least be able to articulate your ideas in a way that your audience can follow along which is public speaking 101.

[Anonymous No.10546808]

>>10546437
>William Lane Craig
I am from Europe. Who is this man? I suppose he's some smart but polarising American guy who is trendy this decade?

[Anonymous No.10546811]

>>10546803
>even empty space is a turbid quantum garden
empty space isn't nothing, it's space

[Anonymous No.10546818]

>>10546808
Christian apologist known for debating big name atheists back in the days when New Atheism was the trend

[Anonymous No.10546820]

'nothing' is a linguistic term usually used to denote empty space in the abstract

"I looked on the table to see if my keys were there, but there was nothing on it"

"We had nothing in the fridge, so I've eaten nothing this afternoon"

"There is nothing on my criminal record"

[Anonymous No.10546828]

>>10546437
>>10546446

[Anonymous No.10546829]

>>10546820
meant for
>>10546811

[Anonymous No.10546839]

>>10546803
God is omnipotent. Hence,even if He did not exist, it would be well within His power to make Himself Real.

[Anonymous No.10546843]

>>10546818
I do love a good debate. Any noteworthy ones currently on youtube? I just found one where he says that if god doesn't exist, then life is absurd and without objective purpose. I'm not sure if I should delve further into his arguments.

[Anonymous No.10546845]

>>10546839
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[Anonymous No.10546852]

>>10546820
it's a philosophical term and it means NOTHING, a complete lack of anything, a lack of both objects and conditions and potential things, NOTHING. it also means NO SPACE

[Anonymous No.10546856]

>>10546845
God is not the Question, He is the Answer that at once precedes and follows the Question.

[Anonymous No.10546871]

>>10546852
>it's a philosophical term

no the word 'nothing' was invented out of utility to describe lack of something in reference to another space, and it's conception in the abstract as referring to anything other than this was btfo by Parmenides

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing#Parmenides

[Anonymous No.10546878]

>>10546856
>muh spooky esotericism because modern life got too boring for me

[Anonymous No.10546891]

>>10546871
>the word 'nothing' was invented out of utility to describe lack of something in reference to another space
1. you have no historical records proving that the word was invented for that purpose
2. it doesn't matter in the first place what it was invented for, because you can still give it other meanings later on
>it's conception in the abstract as referring to anything other than this was btfo by Parmenides
it's irrelevant whether this or that author "refuted" it. i dont even believe in creation ex nihilo cuz i think its stupid, but the term nothing doesnt just mean empty space in the context of a philosophical debate

[Anonymous No.10546897]

>>10546878
esotericism preceded modernity, so if anything it would be
>muh comforting modernity because i can't into esotericism

[Anonymous No.10546905]

>>10546897
yeah dude europe was witches and broomsticks before modern plumbing

[Anonymous No.10546926]

>>10546905
Europe was without plumbing until we killed the witches.

[Anonymous No.10546935]

>>10546807
I have no trouble following him in his debates. I can't think of a single unjustified leap he makes. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's thorough in 'justifying' his arguments. It's not 2008 anymore. Crying "Gish gallop" whenever you don't understand a Christian apologist doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.10546939]

>>10546905
>modernity means plumbing

[Anonymous No.10546976]

>>10546437
Really smart, but he gish gallops like a motherfucker in debates.

[Anonymous No.10547088]

>>10546497
>To this day I still can't think of how there can be objective morality without God

Try reading any major ethical work written in the last 4 centuries.

[Anonymous No.10547171]

>>10546935
Live debate for entertainment is not the same as high school debate; if I'm watching you debate an atheist, and your case totally rests on your supposed philosophical proof there is a God, then explain your reasoning in a way so that it doesn't sound like you're just blatantly full of shit. Otherwise I don't care enough to pay attention to you.

[Anonymous No.10547182]

pseud
at least he makes nuatheists butthurt

[Anonymous No.10547183]

>>10546761
>thinks it's worth anyone's time to have an actual "debate" with contrarian meme catholics on /lit/

[Anonymous No.10547185]

>>10547171
Jesus Christ dude

[Anonymous No.10547191]

>>10546843
He gets pretty much slaughered by Shelly Kagan and Sean Carroll, see below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKObSeim2w

[Anonymous No.10547196]

>>10547191
which is the biggest slaughter iyo

[Anonymous No.10547206]

>>10546497
>>10547088
And if you think only God can do the work of being the basis for moral values/facts you should read up on the stillborn status of divine command theory.
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj/papers/Euthyphro.pdf
https://philosophy.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/philosophy/resources/documents/Maitzen_DCM.pdf
>>10547196
Both in different ways, Kagan schools Craig on ethics and Carroll on (his malformed) metaphysics and cosmology. I'd say the Carroll debate is better for laughs since he's a better performer than Kagan.

[Anonymous No.10547228]

>>10547206
both of those papers don't present very convincing arguments. I think the authors overestimate how concerned theists are about "arbitrariness" when God is the one being arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.10547262]

>>10546784
>Gender binary
Yikes, get off my board, redditor faggot.

[Anonymous No.10547272]

>>10547262
t.Soyboy

[Anonymous No.10547276]

>>10547272
holy fhajahahaha upvoate!

[Anonymous No.10547277]

>>10547206
Those 2 papers are a joke m8. This is 'the god delusion' tier garbage

[Anonymous No.10547299]

>>10547183
>worth
Atheists, please explain this? You are not the ubermensch, you can not create value.

[Anonymous No.10547378]

>>10546497
nice bait

[Anonymous No.10547381]

>>10547277
Great post.
>>10547228
>god is arbitrary
That's some grade A herecy right there.

[Anonymous No.10547385]

>>10547299
>you are not the ubermensch
I cant always expect dumb nigger faggots to comprehend the ways in which I AM THE UBERMENSCH. In fact, it seems more likely that slaves like you would never be able to grasp that, hence why I am the best.

[Anonymous No.10547844]

>>10547385
awww, babby thinks he's da best; who's über? Whoooooo's über :D? yas, you are big boy! ;-)

[Anonymous No.10548070]

>>10547381
>The Arbiter of all things is arbitrary
you got me

[Anonymous No.10548401]

>>10547844
You realize you willingly typed this on your keyboard right. Like thats how autistic you are.

Holy fucc

[Anonymous No.10549007]

>>10546445
well I certainly want to commit suicide every time he tries to use Bayesian analysis to prove the resurrection

[Anonymous No.10549014]

>>10546659
As someone who hates Craig I find this embarassing

[Anonymous No.10549029]

>>10546659

[Anonymous No.10549046]

>>10546839
Hey champ, are ya having fun with those words you found? Bed time's in an hour bud

[Anonymous No.10549055]

>>10547206
>euthyphro
Aquinas dealt with this 600 years ago.

[Anonymous No.10549058]

>>10547185
not until you can convince me he's literally God

[Anonymous No.10549059]

>>10546532
creatio ex nihilo is invalid. Please read up on your process theology, especially Keller.
Damn this board is behind on the stuff regarding anything but autistic analytic garbage.

[Anonymous No.10549060]

>>10547088
Not a single one of those are objective. They're intersubjective or based upon some contract. And Kant invokes a deistic god in his argument.

[Anonymous No.10549088]

>>10546871
>muh lawwwjik

[Anonymous No.10549091]

>>10546845
>muh lawwwwwwwwwwjikkkkkk

[Anonymous No.10549093]

>>10546803
>if the thing you're talking about doesn't meet the criteria Epicurus set, you're playing a stupid language game to talk about 'God' where you walk into Jordan Peterson territory
Fuck off, theological illiterate.

[Anonymous No.10549097]

>>10547171
Nobody cares what you think. kys

[Anonymous No.10549272]

>>10549055
>Aquinas
>dealt with anything
lmao, just read the paper and stfu

[Anonymous No.10549844]

He's the type of person who could convince others that eating shit is good for you because of his debate skills but any actual intelligent person would know shit is actually bad

[Anonymous No.10549892]

gets btfo by james white on a weekly basis
i don't understand molinism

[Anonymous No.10549900]

>>10546680
Good advice

[Anonymous No.10549909]

>>10549093
>theology
>literacy
Nigger you dont need to have surveyed the entire field of contemporary apologetics to btfo some idiotic ideas. That's like saying I need to read a car manual to know I don't need one.

[Anonymous No.10550010]

>>10549909
Yes you do. Apologetics isn't theology. You have no idea what you're talking about, worthless little STEMworm.