The William Lane Craig Debates

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I notice that with every creationist debate (such as with the debates with William Lane Craig), the end result always seems to be that Craig doesn't see how his arguments have been refuted and he still sees them as still standing while the other debater sees his/her arguments as still standing and having instead refuting Craig's. I am thinking here that why this is would be because one side has a rational mindset while the other side has an irrational mindset. I think Craig and all the other debaters supporting creationism have the irrational mindset. If there were somehow a way to pinpoint this irrationality rather than just simply leaving the conclusion of this debate as a "I think my arguments are right and they hold up while yours are wrong" situation, then we would be able to declare a loser of the debate. If William Craig just thinks his arguments are correct since he has a strong faith in God without any more logical arguments to back up his already established arguments, then that is the irrational mindset right there. He would lose the debate.

 

[McBell]

I suspect that it has more to do with Craig thinking his winning a debate some how proves gods existence.

 

[Laika]

it will be because they are using a different "epistemology" (theory of knowledge) to decide what is and isn't true. At a guess, they aren't irrational, but will have a certain internal logical consistency to their arguements. However, given that science has a implict bias towards interpreting the evidence as processes arising from natural sources, and to discount 'revelation' as evidence, it will certainly look 'crazy'.

 

[George-ananda]

I think Craig and all the other debaters supporting creationism have the irrational mindset. .

Craig, from my understanding does not deny evolution. Where do you see him going irrational on this issue?

 

[jonathan180iq]

William Lane Craig is a good debater because he sets up his arguments under very confined questions and circumstances which virtually make it impossible to refute him.
He employs a lot of false dichotomy's and flawed premises and then won't accept any answer that doesn't follow his originally flawed requirements. He also does a lot of research on his debate counterpart and will use excerpts from their own works in attempts to discredit them when they've backed him into a corner. He also seems to know most of their moves and prepares for them ahead of time, which makes him seem invincible under the right conditions.

He's a very good orator and obviously a very intelligent man, which lends even more credence to his bull**** ideas, especially in front of crowds biased in his favor. I've only seen one or two debates of his where I walked away feeling like he was soundly beaten, and that's openly admitting my bias against him, which I think says a lot.

He knows how to play the game and is very good at it.

 

[picnic]

it will be because they are using a different "epistemology" (theory of knowledge) to decide what is and isn't true. At a guess, they aren't irrational, but will have a certain internal logical consistency to their arguements. However, given that science has a implict bias towards interpreting the evidence as processes arising from natural sources, and to discount 'revelation' as evidence, it will certainly look 'crazy'.

Is there a way of evaluating epistemologies to show that one is superior?

For example, could a person use Craig's epistemology to prove something is true that everybody would acknowledge as absurd?

 

[dust1n]

Is there a way of evaluating epistemologies to show that one is superior?

For example, could a person use Craig's epistemology to prove something is true that everybody would acknowledge as absurd?

Kalam cosmological argument[edit]
Craig is best known for his use of a version of the cosmological argument, which he coined the "Kalam cosmological argument" in recognition of its medievalIslamic history.

In The Kalām Cosmological Argument, he formulates the argument in the following manner:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[24]

Philosophically, Craig uses two traditional arguments to show that time is finite: he argues that the existence of an actual infinite is metaphysically impossible, and that forming an actual infinite through successive addition is metaphysically impossible.[25]

Granting the strict logical consistency of post-Cantorian, axiomatized infinite set theory, Craig says that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible due to the counter-intuitive absurdities that would arise.[26] Craig uses an example of Hilbert's Hotel, which can be fully occupied and yet, through the transposition of lodgers, accommodate an infinite number of guests. Craig argues that by envisioning different groups of guests checking out of the hotel, one could subtract identical quantities from identical quantities and have non-identical quantities as remainders, which is absurd.[27]Stating that the mathematical conventions stipulated to ensure the logical consistency of transfinite arithmetic have no ontological force, Craig believes that finitism is most plausibly true, and the series of past events must be finite, which he argues indicates the universe began to exist.[28]

Craig says that just as it is impossible, despite the proponents of "super-tasks," to count to infinity, so it is metaphysically impossible to count down from infinity.[29] Craig says that an inversion of the story of Tristram Shandy is a counter-intuitive absurdity that could result from the formation of an actual infinite. Craig claims that if the universe were eternal, an infinite number of events would have occurred before the present moment, which he says is impossible.[30]

One of Craig's contributions to the kalam cosmological argument is his reference to astrophysics in support of the universe's beginning, namely theexpansion of the universe and thermodynamics.[31]

Craig says that the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric Big Bang model predicts a cosmic singularity, which marks the origin of the universe in the finite past.[32] Craig says that competing models which do not imply an origin of the universe have either proved to be untenable (such as the steady state model and vacuum fluctuation models) or implied the beginning of the universe they were designed to avoid (oscillating models, inflationary models,quantum gravity models). Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem of 2003 requires that any universe which has on average been in a state ofcosmic expansion cannot be eternal.[33]

Craig believes that recent discoveries about the expansion of the universe and relativity theory support his view that thermodynamic properties of the universe show it is not eternal.[34][35] Craig says that postulating a multiverse of worlds in varying thermodynamic states encounter the problem of Boltzmann brains—that it becomes highly probable for any observer that the universe is only an illusion of his own brain, a solipsistic conclusion Craig says no rationalperson would embrace.[36]

Based on these arguments, Craig concludes that the premise that the universe began to exist is more plausible than not, and conjoined with premise 1, the beginning of the universe implies the existence of a cause. Craig claims that, due to its nature, the cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of enormous power, which he refers to as God.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig


Due to the nature of the thing I've never seen before, and have no way of knowing about it's nature, I safely conclude it is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

 

[picnic]

Kalam cosmological argument[edit]
Craig is best known for his use of a version of the cosmological argument, which he coined the "Kalam cosmological argument" in recognition of its medievalIslamic history.

In The Kalām Cosmological Argument, he formulates the argument in the following manner:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[24]

Philosophically, Craig uses two traditional arguments to show that time is finite: he argues that the existence of an actual infinite is metaphysically impossible, and that forming an actual infinite through successive addition is metaphysically impossible.[25]

Granting the strict logical consistency of post-Cantorian, axiomatized infinite set theory, Craig says that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible due to the counter-intuitive absurdities that would arise.[26] Craig uses an example of Hilbert's Hotel, which can be fully occupied and yet, through the transposition of lodgers, accommodate an infinite number of guests. Craig argues that by envisioning different groups of guests checking out of the hotel, one could subtract identical quantities from identical quantities and have non-identical quantities as remainders, which is absurd.[27]Stating that the mathematical conventions stipulated to ensure the logical consistency of transfinite arithmetic have no ontological force, Craig believes that finitism is most plausibly true, and the series of past events must be finite, which he argues indicates the universe began to exist.[28]

Craig says that just as it is impossible, despite the proponents of "super-tasks," to count to infinity, so it is metaphysically impossible to count down from infinity.[29] Craig says that an inversion of the story of Tristram Shandy is a counter-intuitive absurdity that could result from the formation of an actual infinite. Craig claims that if the universe were eternal, an infinite number of events would have occurred before the present moment, which he says is impossible.[30]

One of Craig's contributions to the kalam cosmological argument is his reference to astrophysics in support of the universe's beginning, namely theexpansion of the universe and thermodynamics.[31]

Craig says that the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric Big Bang model predicts a cosmic singularity, which marks the origin of the universe in the finite past.[32] Craig says that competing models which do not imply an origin of the universe have either proved to be untenable (such as the steady state model and vacuum fluctuation models) or implied the beginning of the universe they were designed to avoid (oscillating models, inflationary models,quantum gravity models). Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem of 2003 requires that any universe which has on average been in a state ofcosmic expansion cannot be eternal.[33]

Craig believes that recent discoveries about the expansion of the universe and relativity theory support his view that thermodynamic properties of the universe show it is not eternal.[34][35] Craig says that postulating a multiverse of worlds in varying thermodynamic states encounter the problem of Boltzmann brains—that it becomes highly probable for any observer that the universe is only an illusion of his own brain, a solipsistic conclusion Craig says no rationalperson would embrace.[36]

Based on these arguments, Craig concludes that the premise that the universe began to exist is more plausible than not, and conjoined with premise 1, the beginning of the universe implies the existence of a cause. Craig claims that, due to its nature, the cause must be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of enormous power, which he refers to as God.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig


Due to the nature of the thing I've never seen before, and have no way of knowing about it's nature, I safely conclude it is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

It seems to me that Craig is simply adding a little modern razzle-dazzle to the usual first cause argument?

The flaw IMO is that time and causality are two faces of the same coin. Seeking a cause for the beginning of a universe that includes time is like looking for time before time was created. There CANNOT be a first cause of time, because that would mean time exists before time.

I think what this shows is that time and causality don't actually exist. Maybe the past, present, and future simply exist and are fully deterministic? It's like leafing through a book that is already written? (Not presenting myself as an expert in any way BTW LOL)

 

[dust1n]

It seems to me that Craig is simply adding a little modern razzle-dazzle to the usual first cause argument?

The flaw IMO is that time and causality are two faces of the same coin. Seeking a cause for the beginning of a universe that includes time is like looking for time before time was created. There CANNOT be a first cause of time, because that would mean time exists before time.

I think what this shows is that time and causality don't actually exist. Maybe the past, present, and future simply exist and are fully deterministic? It's like leafing through a book that is already written? (Not presenting myself as an expert in any way BTW LOL)

The important thing to note is:

"Philosophically, Craig uses two traditional arguments to show that time is finite: he argues that the existence of an actual infinite is metaphysically impossible, and that forming an actual infinite through successive addition is metaphysically impossible.[25]"

And then adds it to the Cosmological argument.

Then apparently tries to apply a set of necessary ontological qualities to the existence of a posited necessary being in place of a first cause.

Because time and space are not infinite metaphysically (and he is making the metaphysical claim that any sort of existence preceding the universe as we know it cannot be infinite in any sense, that it doesn't go infinitely) so in an immaterial existence lies the first cause, which must have a certain set of metaphysical qualities to satisfy his metaphysical claims.

 

[Skwim]

I notice that with every creationist debate (such as with the debates with William Lane Craig), the end result always seems to be that Craig doesn't see how his arguments have been refuted and he still sees them as still standing while the other debater sees his/her arguments as still standing and having instead refuting Craig's. I am thinking here that why this is would be because one side has a rational mindset while the other side has an irrational mindset. I think Craig and all the other debaters supporting creationism have the irrational mindset. If there were somehow a way to pinpoint this irrationality rather than just simply leaving the conclusion of this debate as a "I think my arguments are right and they hold up while yours are wrong" situation, then we would be able to declare a loser of the debate. If William Craig just thinks his arguments are correct since he has a strong faith in God without any more logical arguments to back up his already established arguments, then that is the irrational mindset right there. He would lose the debate.

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

― Jonathan Swift

 

[Skwim]

Craig, from my understanding does not deny evolution. Where do you see him going irrational on this issue?

One doesn't become a fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (and he is) by not denying evolution and not supporting intelligent design.


.

 

[dust1n]

Warning: Boring.

 

[George-ananda]

One doesn't become a fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (and he is) by not denying evolution and not supporting intelligent design.


.

Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible things to many.

 

[Skwim]

Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible things to many.

Perhaps, but the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture's brand of ID is. "Its 'Teach the Controversy' campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects." [4][5][6][7][8]
Source: Wikipedia

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I have a question here. Isn't Craig's arguments all philosophical? In other words, can we only support the idea of the afterlife and God's existence through philosophical arguments alone? If that is the case, then couldn't we just also make philosophical arguments for any imaginary thing to make it look true? Craig has made the existence of God seemingly true to himself through his own philosophical arguments. But if he were to make philosophical arguments for other imaginary things to make them look just as or even more seemingly true, then perhaps he would begin to see how the idea of God's existence is just as random as any other imaginary idea. The fact is, you can make anything look seemingly true through philosophical arguments. But that doesn't necessarily make those said things true.

 

[Skwim]

I have a question here. Isn't Craig's arguments all philosophical? In other words, can we only support the idea of the afterlife and God's existence through philosophical arguments alone? If that is the case, then couldn't we just also make philosophical arguments for any imaginary thing to make it look true? Craig has made the existence of God seemingly true to himself through his own philosophical arguments. But if he were to make philosophical arguments for other imaginary things to make them look just as or even more seemingly true, then perhaps he would begin to see how the idea of God's existence is just as random as any other imaginary idea. The fact is, you can make anything look seemingly true through philosophical arguments. But that doesn't necessarily make those said things true.

Viewing the video in dust1n's post, #12, Craig is arguing from incredulity (start at the 2:50 mark), a position even those lacking a high school education often employ. Incredulity is generally a result of ignorance or the refusal to acknowledge evidence.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Viewing the video in dust1n's post, #12, Craig is arguing from incredulity (start at the 2:50 mark), a position even those lacking a high school education often employ. Incredulity is generally a result of ignorance or the refusal to acknowledge evidence.

Thanks for answering my first question of that post. But could you also address the rest of the post?

 

[Skwim]

Thanks for answering my first question of that post. But could you also address the rest of the post?

I'm not all that familiar with Craig's remarks so I can't speak to them. However, you did say,

"If there were somehow a way to pinpoint this irrationality rather than just simply leaving the conclusion of this debate as a "I think my arguments are right and they hold up while yours are wrong" situation, then we would be able to declare a loser of the debate."

One can certainly consider the "irrationality," but it wouldn't lead to any winner or loser. In main, the problem with creationists is that they're committed to a singular conclusion: "Creationism is correct because the Bible tells me so," and any conclusion other than this is, by default, wrong. Where they invariably go wrong is when they try to defend their position by going outside the Bible and attack their arch enemy, evolution, on its own turf: science. One of their biggest mistakes is their methodology which is nicely illustrated by this old cartoon.

Add to this, simple ignorance, purposeful deception, deliberate obfuscation, outright lies, and a host of other dishonest tactics and there is simply no way your evidence and reason will ever win them over.
Problem is, they have too much at stake in their faith to admit Biblical creationism could be wrong. Moreover, they aren't really looking to convince the evolutionist that they're right as much as continually convincing themselves. This why they care so much about evolution, whereas scientists don't give a fig about creationism---believe whatever you like---EXCEPT when its foisted on public schools. Institutions such as Craig's Discovery Institute would love nothing better than to get creationism taught in public school science classes. So don't look to win anything. Arguing with creationists is not unlike trying to explain something to a four-year-old kid who keeps asking "why?" It's a no-win situation.​

 

[Laika]

Is there a way of evaluating epistemologies to show that one is superior?

For example, could a person use Craig's epistemology to prove something is true that everybody would acknowledge as absurd?

The honest answer is I am not sure. Though I would happily assert that science is a superior epistemology/theory of knowledge than faith based on the accumulated evidence and experience and our ability to apply our knowledge of the laws of nature to create technologies.

Someone can argue that the earth is flat, or 2+2=5 if they use the right epistemology. So yeah, I imagine so. once you start challanging the nature of knowledge and what is possible, you can prove almost anything. But "absurd" is relative to what we think is "normal". so the shock value changes depending on the person.

 

[Laika]

I have a question here. Isn't Craig's arguments all philosophical? In other words, can we only support the idea of the afterlife and God's existence through philosophical arguments alone? If that is the case, then couldn't we just also make philosophical arguments for any imaginary thing to make it look true? Craig has made the existence of God seemingly true to himself through his own philosophical arguments. But if he were to make philosophical arguments for other imaginary things to make them look just as or even more seemingly true, then perhaps he would begin to see how the idea of God's existence is just as random as any other imaginary idea. The fact is, you can make anything look seemingly true through philosophical arguments. But that doesn't necessarily make those said things true.

my point exactly, but you definetely said it better.