Dr. Craig Reveals His Debate Tactics

Nate Sala, a former debate coach, interviews Dr. Craig on his approach to debating and the tools he uses to do so effectively.
Special thanks to Nate Sala for this interview. Check out his website wisedisciple.org/
#williamlanecraig #reasonablefaith #debate #atheism
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg

[@TheAusugn]

Craig brought me to Christianity. I sincerely cannot thank him enough for what he does.

[@alexjoneschannel]

Very cool, now you should journey down the path of Catholicism as it is the church Jesus Himself founded

[@gailpurcell1649]

The angels are rejoicing and so am I!

[@gailpurcell1649]

@Scott Seufert I did not need any when I accepted Christ when I was 13. I always believed in God and even though I attended a church with my family, I never heard the gospel (Jesus Christ paid the penalty of death for my sins, gives me forgiveness, a restored relationship with God, and eternal life) until a couple who volunteered with the church youth group brought in an elder from Calvary Chapel who explained it to those who wanted to listen. As soon as I heard the good news, I accepted Christ. Since then the physical evidence for me is that everything exists and it didn't come from nothing. Also, all of the fine tuning that is required and the complexity of everything shows how amazing God is. Walking with God for 54 years, I have seen God and the truth of His Word work in my life in so many ways and that is as powerful an evidence as the universe existing for me.

[@gailpurcell1649]

@Scott Seufert Your reply was placed under my response, so it was natural for me to think that you were commenting on my post. Since you are not really looking for truth, I will let you take up your debate with Dr. Craig. All of your reasons cannot answer the question as to why anything exists that is finite without there being a cause. You cannot answer the big questions as to the meaning of life. All of your theories come from an idea that there is intelligence and purpose, but your belief system doesn't allow for either.

[@macysondheim]

Atheism is the only true religion

[@presupping4eva]

God bless Dr. William Lane Craig.

[@jessekim509]

i hope our generation and future generations will be blessed with more warriors like Dr. Craig God bless this man

[@alexjoneschannel]

We have Trent Horn now

[@DarkArcticTV]

@@alexjoneschannel hes not popular enough

[@bryanoldenburg9870]

A unique and invaluable conversation! Emboldening folks (young and old) to become effective apologists is a great thing in-and-of-itself. To equip them with essential debate skills is the cherry on the proverbial sundae! This was one of your top ten videos RF!

[@filtech6469]

More power to you Dr. Craig... You are a tower of light to Christian and beacon of dazzling light to Atheists...

[@pattube]

I have the utmost respect for Dr. William Lane Craig. Although we differ theologically (e.g. I'm Reformed, he's a Molinist), I've always appreciated his debates with all sorts of opponents from atheists, scientists, philosophers, and much more. His debates almost always reflect tremendous philosophical acumen, seasoned debate prowess, and Christian gentlemanliness. He's shaped a generation or more of Christian thinkers, apologists, leaders, and other intellectuals. It's amazing to have someone of his sophistication share his tactics and strategies like this with the entire world. A free first rate education.

[@theologyscienceandpropheti6808]

Great conversation...great stories as well!

[@7bambam7]

Our Lord has led Dr Craig to his Reasonable Faith and it has become Something so many rely on for answers and enlightenment.

[@alexjoneschannel]

He just needs to stop being a heretic and submit to Rome

[@alexjoneschannel]

@Tate Kaliebe "In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same was also head-that is also why he is called Cepheus ['Rock']-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of Holy Church" -The schism of the Donatists 2:2 (AD 367) Cope

[@MereApologetics]

Thank you for this video. I just did my first debate, and definitely could have used this beforehand

[@alexjoneschannel]

Be a Catholic then you have fullness of truth and it's easy dubs then

[@AleInBywater]

Coming from a highly secular country, WLC - his kind and genuine person and his apologetics - is one of the biggest reasons i remained a christian after my teenage years.

[@DartNoobo]

I know it is an old comment, but may I ask why did you not have sufficient support in your religious community? Mybae there was none for you?

[@AleInBywater]

@@DartNoobo Norway is one of the most secular countries on earth. It is easy to do like the culture when you are the only christ believing person in class. Furthermore, I remember certain teachers being hostile to "creationists" like they called christians, saying they were anti-science, irrational, proponents of circular reasoning. Of course, all of those are wrong, but before being teached by WLC and others, you stood no chance towards a 50 YO with a masters degree in science. You start to believe their deception.

[@PassingBy1118]

Dr Craig is one of the best debaters I have ever seen. He is always well-prepared, articulate, focused, and succinct with his arguments. He is also remarkably calm, composed, respectful. I have never heard a snarky or condescending remark. In contrast, it is such a pain listening to the likes of Daniel Dennett, or Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins, and especially the late Christopher Hitchins. It almost always didn't take long for them to launch into insults of Christianity, Christians, religion, making fun of God, and Dr Craig himself. Listening to Christopher Hitchins was like listening to your half-drunk regular at the local on a Friday night ranting about anything he doesn't like or object to. There was a certain self-righteous, mightier/holier-than-thou, condescending attitude towards just about anybody who is not him, and his arguments were remarkably shallow - good enough for a tabloid and political publication like Slate, but certainly not going to fool anyone beyond the average 'I-freaking-love-science' fringe lunatics. Lawrence Krauss, I thought, was incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. To deny a proposition, he would willingly deny the science he has been championing. I recall that he even asked how do you know what happened at the Big Bang, and how can anyone even know...which was a rather odd rhetorical question for an astrophysicist. At that moment, I thought to myself - why should anyone listen to anything he has to say, when he profess to not knowing his area of expertise. It's like confessing that his theoretical astrophysics is a phony discipline. Even if you can't strictly prove something, surely you can argue a case where one proposition is more likely to be true than the alternative? Krauss basically cut his nose to spite his face, which was pretty childish. I think the only reason their fans (the likes of Krauss, Hitchins and Dawkins) continue to have faith in them is that they share the same mean-spiritedness and misplaced superiority complex towards those who believe in a creator God, even if they have no evidence for their beliefs. They just think that they are on the winning side and it makes them feel good. Just like the 'I-freaking-love-science' lunatics - mostly under-educated folks of average intelligence, who believe that by declaring their faith in science (or rather scientism), it somehow suddenly, makes them intellectually superior, just by sheer association.

[@sloanjackson8]

Love it!!! Great editing 🤪

[@lolserm]

Este video merece muchos más likes. Dios lo bendiga Dr. Craig!

[@ojibwayinca8487]

I loved this. It was original, informative, and provided a fine amount of material to return to in the future.

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

Awesome!

[@fletchernorwood445]

This is really great stuff!! Absolutely amazing knowledge and wisdom!!

[@prime_time_youtube]

Wow, this is a very interesting aspect of Dr. Craig that is commonly ignored!

[@clintgreive]

Two favourite debators: WLC (Classical) and Greg Bahnsen (Pressupositional).

[@Micahproductions]

As a former debater (shout out to my league Stoa!) and now a debate coach myself, it was encouraging to see how many things I was taught as a debater be brought up in this conversation. It's evident Dr. Craig is well trained in debate theory. These really aren't "debate tactics" as they are just debate basics. The one thing I will say is I don't know if I can recommend going to a college debate class. College debate has become a nightmare and has lost all focus on truth, well rounded arguments, and rhetoric. And who knew Dr. Craig pre flows! I loved everything about this video.

[@oliverdimartino7194]

Yooooo Micah, fancy seeing you here

[@Micahproductions]

@@oliverdimartino7194 YOOO Oliver! Fancy seeing you here as well. Fun fact, I actually got to talk to Dr. Craig about this video at the Evangelical Philosophical Society!

[@oliverdimartino7194]

@@Micahproductions You lucky duck! I was recently casually reading one of my professor's blogs, and he included a selfie with Bill Craig in the background at a fancy scholar dinner. That's my 2 degrees of separation story

[@AstariahJW]

Debating gets nowhere Bible warns not to debate

[@Micahproductions]

@@AstariahJW And where in the world does the Bible say that? It actually says Pauls's custom was to go to the temple and reason from the scriptures.

[@jeancarlo1367]

God bless you guys !

[@alphonsofrett2757]

Thanks again for sharing your hard work

[@djr113]

I just want Dr. Craig to reveal his shirt supplier

[@lukasrodriguez5864]

possibly Kent Hovind, I mean DOCTOR Kent Hovind

[@EverythingNT]

Where could one find these “briefs” Dr. Craig uses for his debates? I’m sure Christian’s would benefit well if there was a way to see them themselves and apply them to apologetics.

[@Micahproductions]

As a debater, Dr. Craig creates these briefs for himself. I'm sure he's never thought about actually releasing those. The only reason I can think of for not wanting to release briefs is that his opponent has them and can prepare against not only his arguments but the arguments against their own arguments. It could put Craig at a serious disadvantage in the debate.

[@nsp74]

"the LORD trained my hand for battle"-David

[@ericruggiero360]

Dr. Craig should publish his argument briefs.

[@ultimatesurvivor4683]

"Far from raising the epistemic bar that christianity must meet, I lower it. If there's just one chance in a million that christianity is true, it is worth believing in."

[@royhiggins7270]

When the Civil War starts between those fighting to perserve American Democracy and those who want to turn America into a theocracy which side are you willing to die for? “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk - that’s not in the Constitution.” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) Lauren Boebert calls for laws to enforce "biblical citizenship training" in our schools. “We’re not bending the knee to the two percent anymore,” said Andrew Torba, founder of the right-wing-friendly social platform Gab, referring to Jewish people in the United States. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, told a Christian gathering last November, “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God and one religion under God.” The 10-year-old Ohio girl who crossed state lines to receive an abortion in Indiana should have carried her pregnancy to term and would be required to do so under a model law written for state legislatures considering more restrictive abortion measures, according to the general counsel for the National Right to Life. Former President Donald Trump said during a speech on Saturday that "Americans kneel to God" alone, as the concept of Christian nationalism continues to gain traction among conservatives. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is attended a rally in Pennsylvania with state Sen. Doug Mastriano. Mastriano has praised Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab and a self-described Christian nationalist. Desantis is the most insidious of them all because he knows better. Jesus is the mascot of the Trump-Republican Taliban! Do you think America should survive?

[@NoChance18]

"Far from raising the bar (or the epistemic standard) that Christianity must meet to be believed: I lower it!" - William Lane Craig.

[@bengreen171]

can't wait for the stream of Craig fans trying to tell you how what he literally said doesn't mean what it literally means. Get ready for a lecture about 'pragmatism'.

[@EssenceofPureFlavor]

In other words, he makes it easier to believe. GASP!

[@2994485]

I watched the Craig-Ehrman debate again. I’ll revise my statement by changing the word “invariably” to “usually” debates atheists instead of ex-Christians. At any rate, I found Ehrman’s arguments far more persuasive. Craig presents four facts as evidence for the resurrection: 1. Jesus’ burial - But this “fact,” is evidence of his burial, and no evidence at all of his resurrection. 2. The empty tomb - A very plausible natural explanation: The Romans agreed to letting the body be taken by Joseph of Arimathea but then realized Christians are going to make a shrine out of the tomb. To forestall any further such growth of Christianity, they decided to roll away the stone during the night and get rid of the body. 3. His post-mortem appearances - But multiple attestations by believers is not the same thing as multiple attestations by neutral observers. Say a person starts a sentence with, “Muslim scholars universally acknowledge that…” Will the Christian think that is strong evidence for the truth of Islam? Of course not. 4. The origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection - If willingness to die for a belief system is the criterion for religious truth, then we have a clear winner - radical Islam. Personally, I come at the resurrection from a different a different angle: If Jesus rose from the dead, then he would indeed be the Son of God. If he was the Son of God, then virtually everything he taught would be correct, wise, and true. But, it is not. Therefore, he is not the Son of God and did not rise from the dead. A few of his profoundly untrue teachings: 1. That the world would end in his lifetime, which it did not. 2. That the Old Testament God is the true God, which cannot be so, because this God commanded the slaughter of entire tribes, including their animals. 3. That belief is more important than behavior, which unjustly sends the thief on the cross to heaven, but the good atheist to hell. 4. That faith is so powerful that you can move a literal mountain with it, or walk on water, which no Christian has ever demonstrated to me despite my respectful requests. 5. That the doctrine of hell represents a loving God, which it does not. Eternal conscious torment is not an expression of love, but of obscene, extremist hatred. To me, Jesus was a charismatic and courageous man, but he was a religious extremist, who constantly overstated for the sake of impact, at the expense of truth.

[@starshkr46]

Might not have been intentional, but that clickbait thumbnail is hilarious.

[@Ghatius]

Hi Craig. Is it possible to get recomendation on great books for learning the art of debating?

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Since Dr. Craig hasn't given any such recommendations, this would be a good question to submit for Question of the Week! - RF Admin www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/submit-question

[@bird401]

One of his debate tactics is to malign and condescend to his opponent. He uses that one a lot.

[@kenandzafic3948]

Actually it's the most common lie, Craig doesn't belittle his opponents at all, this applies mostly to atheists, because I rarely see atheists having respect for others.

[@bird401]

@@kenandzafic3948 It’s safe to say that we’re not going to agree on any of this. Perhaps we go by drastically different definitions of certain words, such as belittle and condescend. What’s more, I don’t hesitate to criticize his opponents when they act in a similar manner. Anybody who says “they do it, but we don’t” isn’t paying attention.

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@bird401 I use the definition that is used all over the world.

[@bird401]

@@kenandzafic3948 Well, I’m not going to buck a world standard. It would have been more to the point for me to say that different things lead us to label something as, for example, “condescension.” As with partisan squabbles, so sometimes with religious differences. But hey, at least were not part of rival Isis factions, primed to destroy each other. So there’s that.

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

Haven't seen the debates but imagine they go in with "it's dumb and delusional". Seems one could talk circles around it. I think the issue is likely religious people do tend to represent that so it's a quick and easy sell.

[@samuelcallai4209]

I thought that Krauss was the living joke, but after hearing what Sean Carol did I'm not so sure anymore.

[@Beyond_Right]

What did he do?

[@royhiggins7270]

A honest question for Christians... How long is a reasonable amount of time to wait until the return of Christ before humanity moves on to actual taking responsiblity for making the world better? Christians have been saying Christ's return is any day now for centuries. Please as reasonable people do you have to have an honest timeline? The answer can't be forever or until the earth dies!!

[@wolfscreed6664]

Hey it's David Lee Roth! I didn't know he was Christian

[@2994485]

I have noticed something interesting. Craig’s debates are invariably against atheists, where starting points and worldviews are very different, and the issue of God’s existence can never really be pinned down. But Craig does not debate Christianity itself with ex-Christians, because there the issue can be resolved. (For example, the Bible condones slavery in Lev. 25:44-46, referring to human beings as “property” of other human beings. No legitimate God would ever refer to human beings as “property.” Thus, Christianity cannot be true.) Seems to me that Craig will not debate an ex-Christian, because subconsciously he knows he has a losing position, and he does not want Christianity to come out poorly, which it would. And he expounds on the truth of Christianity only in front of a Christian audience. If anyone knows of a public debate between Craig and an ex-Christian, on Christianity itself, please let me know. Neither will Craig debate the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Why? Because he knows it’s an indefensible position when taken out of the biased Christian bubble.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Here is Dr. Craig debating an ex-Christian: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4iYkKGAjrh-r80. - RF Admin

[@2994485]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thanks. I’m pretty sure I saw that one years ago, but I will watch it again.

[@JM-jj3eg]

"No legitimate God would ever refer to human beings as “property.” Thus, Christianity cannot be true." This is an objection to the reliability of the Bible (based on morality), an objection that many Christians may agree with, not the existence of God.

[@2994485]

@@JM-jj3eg Yes, I know. I’m not objecting to the existence of God (I’m a non-Christian theist). I am objecting to the CHRISTIAN God. I repeat: No God that condones slavery (Lev 25:44-46) can be the true God. To me, that’s obvious; these are human beings claiming to speak for God, not God. Furthermore, Jesus never spoke out against slavery, so regardless of the moral reliability of the Bible, Jesus himself fails to qualify as a spokesperson for God. He had no problem with slavery. Luke 12:47, Luke 17:7-10.

[@JM-jj3eg]

@@2994485 Lol, Jesus didn't "speak out" against war, against rape and against cannibalism for that matter. How can you read the Sermon on the Mount and thnk that Jesus would be ok with slavery - or any form of oppression? Matthew 25:40.

[@sirmrs6952]

🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐

[@phenomenal17playz]

I really love Dr. William lane debunking atheists

[@Jewonastick]

Debunking atheists? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god..... How can you debunk a disbelief?

[@lukasrodriguez5864]

@@Jewonastick maybe by demonstrating that God exists but we all know he's not capable of doing so

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@lukasrodriguez5864 Then show where the problem is in, say, Leibniz's cosmological argument, you can surely challenge us incompetent Christians.

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@Jewonastick This definition of atheism is really funny, because it tries to portray atheism as a neutral position, but then you must never say that God does not exist, or that religion is wrong. Also according to your definition the steering wheel of my car is an atheist and a very good one at that.

[@Jewonastick]

@@kenandzafic3948 I'm an atheist and I would never say that there is no god... Why? Simple: cause I don't have evidence to support that claim and don't know of any method to investigate it. I can definitely say that a religion is wrong when that religion collides with science. That has nothing to do with atheism.

[@ivaxnog6157]

Hugh Nibley

[@gfujigo]

Da GOAT 🐐 😊 WLC

[@samuelcallai4209]

why goat?

[@velkyn1]

WLC's tactics are nothing special. he simply lies, makes presuppositions, and then runs away when he fails. I do so love his "empty tomb" argument. Poor dear, he can't even show the tomb exists, much less that it was ever "full".

[@velkyn1]

@C L "Those were the events recently by the people there." no idea what this means.

[@kinetic7609]

You mean you can't go back in time thousands of years and observe said events unfolding? Wow, who would've thought. Anyways, this is a historical argument, and when making a good historical case you can only utilize all available recorded documentation and personal accounts given and preserved by the people living at the time, which Craig has done. Perhaps you were unaware of the distinction between a forensic argument and an empirical one.

[@velkyn1]

@@kinetic7609 there is no historical documentation about your magic god and its garden up to its imaginary tomb, or for the supposed "end times", dear. It's myth, like any other cultures about how the world came to be. So, hmmm, since no one can go back in time, it seems that any myth can be true then and no reason to think that what Craig's invented is true.

[@kinetic7609]

@@velkyn1 "There is no historical documentation". False, the consensus among the vast majority of historians is that Jesus did in fact exist, and more importantly, we have a great deal of historical evidence to support this. "Since we can't go back in time, it seems that any myth can be true". This claim is illogical, we don't need to go back in time to investigate the validity of said historical figure / scenario.

[@velkyn1]

@@kinetic7609 So, Kin, do you worship a delusional jewish guy who thought he was the messiah? I'm going to guess not and thus your appeal to the 'historical jesus" fails as evidence for your cult. There is no historical evidence to support your magical being, but do present what you think is this supposed "evidence". I'll be happy to show how it fails since all apologists make the same claims and same mistakes. Thanks for admitting that the christian lie that we need to have seen dinosaurs, evolution, the big bang, to know it happened is false since nope we dn't need to go back in time to see that. We can look at actual evidence, something that chrisitans don't have for their supposed messiah, god, etc. ""There is no historical documentation". False, the consensus among the vast majority of historians is that Jesus did in fact exist, and more importantly, we have a great deal of historical evidence to support this. "Since we can't go back in time, it seems that any myth can be true". This claim is illogical, we don't need to go back in time to investigate the validity of said historical figure / scenario."

[@fotoman777]

The most compelling argument for the non-existence of God is the fact that you need double PHD's like Craig to publish questionable and obscure philosophical arguments in peer reviewed journals to establish the "probability" of his existence. Why would we expect God to bother making his existence known any other way other than through Craig?

[@VeritasVivet]

It does not logically follow from “This guy makes arguments in favor of God’s existence” to “God does not exist”. To believe so is beyond laughable.

[@137chuckm]

To me number one Dr. Craig wants to please God through Jesus Christ. He wants to be humble before God and before men. He also searches for the truth and seems to be successful at that search for truth. A lot of people don't like what he says because if they admitted that Jesus Christ is real and risen from the dead that means they need to convert. And that can only happen by the grace of God for that person. EPHESIANS 2: 8,9

[@Jewonastick]

Ah, so now the comments on the new videos are shut down? Pathetic

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Which videos have the comments turned off? - RF Admin

[@Jewonastick]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg on the latest video where William Lame Craig is trying a desperate attempt to do some damage control.....

[@Beyond_Right]

@@ReasonableFaithOrgI have noticed the recent ones are turned off as well

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@Beyond_Right Thanks for the heads up. Checking them now. - RF Admin

[@zmack1830]

I thought laying down the truth is much more important than tricking the opponent debater with tactics in order to win!!!

[@gfujigo]

WLC is not talking about tricks, but rather preparation and good principles of discourse. What tricks do you think he mentions?

[@137chuckm]

What tricks?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@gfujigo WLC is what i call "new christian" that is he's not really interested in the religion, just selling books, atheist bashing, subscruptions and likes, he admitted himself all he really wants is to get into heaven.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@137chuckm listen to what he says and work out what the tricks are for yourself. basically apologetics is, atheists find holes in the plot of ANY religion and apologists look for excuses, like drowning babies is not a good idea, unless god does it of course, then it is right and proper. i call it "lying for god" if you can't see the carnaival act that is WLC, and turek, and their pals, then you're a bit blind.

[@NoChance18]

@@gfujigo He mentions using the Gish Gallop (though he doesn't explicitly call it that) in this interview. This is where he makes several poor arguments (typically WLC makes 5), in a debate with only timed discourse (no open discussion). Because of the time-limit, and the fact that debunking poor arguments takes longer than saying them, Craig simply declares that he's "won" on any arguments the opponent didn't have time to debunk. As WLC mentions in THIS interview, this is an intentional and the aim is to convince the audience his position is stronger than may otherwise be if the opponent had the time to properly respond. WLC also mentions controlling the framework/narrative in this interview. Not letting his opponent dictate the conversation in a way in which the evidence wouldn't look good for Christianity. When arguing in the affirmative: this is a debate trick because you're intentionally trying to keep the audience ignorant of certain facts. It's important to note that Craig vastly prefers the "formal debate" style used in competitive debate. In this kind of debate: actual truth is literally irrelevant, the point is to "win" in the eyes of the judges according to a strict point-scoring criteria. You can "win" these debates using a position that everyone knows for a fact is incorrect (like flat Earth) so long as you prepare better and score high enough. The fact that WLC prefers this kind of debate over open discussion is strong evidence that Craig is only in it to win, not to learn the truth.

[@jannenreuben7398]

He is a skilled debater, no doubt about it because he understands the rules and he sounds very plausible to the layman. However he knows he can't offer the slightest scrap of evidence for his main premise which is "God did everything" so like all educated theists he falls back on his well practiced tactics of evasion, fallacies, misdirection and trying to overpower his opponent with pure verbiage. He'd make a great politician.

[@Jewonastick]

Well said

[@No_BS_policy]

Materialism is much more fallacious than theism is.

[@Jewonastick]

@@No_BS_policy oh please elaborate

[@jannenreuben7398]

@@No_BS_policy That's an argument by assertion, just the kind of fallacy I was thinking of in my original post. Can you back it up with any evidence? At least materialism offers testable evidence for its assertions unlike theism, which can ONLY offer scripture, personal revelation and blind faith, all of which are highly unreliable means of establishing truth.

[@kinetic7609]

Can you provide me a cause aside from intelligence capable of producing code?

[@bengreen171]

Is it fake some condescending incomprehension, misrepresent mathematicians and physicians, claim his opponent is being absurd and failing to understand the issue, then smile and announce how intuitive Christianity is? Because that's basically all I've seen him do. That, and back pedal desperately after revealing how weak his epistemic standards are.

[@charlescarter2072]

What’s wrong? You sound hurt.

[@haywardjeblomey6505]

@@charlescarter2072 Do you have imaginary friends? How old are you?

[@bengreen171]

@@charlescarter2072 if you can't comprehend my perfectly clear comment, then you've got major issues.

[@nemrodx2185]

"Is it fake some condescending incomprehension, misrepresent mathematicians and physicians, claim his opponent is being absurd and failing to understand the issue, then smile and announce how intuitive Christianity is? Because that's basically all I've seen him do. That, and back pedal desperately after revealing how weak his epistemic standards are" This type of comment is a perfect demonstration of why the average atheist rejects God...he simply has a very high psychological barrier and prejudice. Many are dedicated to making simple statements without explaining or supporting them with anything. In other words, the barrier for many is not the evidence... it's just feelings.

[@derekallen4568]

Lol 😆 dr. Craig has spent to much time with camoron from capturing Christianity. (The hair)

[@tylerwest719]

I find Craig’s tactic of throwing out multiple arguments in his opening statement and declaring that his opponent must defeat all of them or else Craig wins, to be very dishonest. It may be an effective psychological tactic, but it takes seconds to make a claim but may take an hour to rebutt it. Craig knows his opponent has limited time and cannot address everything in such a short amount of time. So declaring yourself the winner based on such deception is dishonest, especially when your position is that you are an honest Christian.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

You've effectively accused Dr. Craig of Gish Galloping his opponents. If you watch paradigmatic examples of this tactic, you'll see that Dr. Craig does nothing of the sort. Depending on the proposition of the debate, he usually includes between 3 and 5 arguments, and these are almost always the same arguments he's been using for decades. It's inexplicable, then, why so many of his opponents seem incapable of dealing with these arguments at any appreciable depth. Moreover, Dr. Craig has to burn time explaining the terms and supports for his arguments, something his opponent doesn't have to do. Also, it's simply true that if his opponent doesn't rebut one of the arguments, then that point falls in his favor. That's just the way debate works. These are not dishonest debate tactics in any way, since both sides are following the same rules and have the same allotted periods of time. And Dr. Craig certainly has dozens more arguments he *could* bring to the table. The fact that he only brings between 3 and 5 is actually a measure of his desire to discuss these matters at a decent depth, rather than just scoring rhetorical points. What *is* dishonest is when an opponent quote-mines a scholar and intentionally redacts portions of the quote which go against his own point (eg Krauss). - RF Admin

[@tylerwest719]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg I said it was an effective tactic, didn’t I? Being effective doesn’t mean it’s not slimy and declaring yourself the winner is a slimy thing to do. END OF POINT. I’ve also noticed that when Craig has a free conversation instead of holding the mic for a preset amount of time, he is utterly unimpressive.

[@kinetic7609]

@@tylerwest719 No, you accused him of utilizing this tactic, which has been thoroughly rebutted above. The effectiveness of it is entirely irrelevant as Craig doesn't practice it. Who said Craig is declaring himself the winner? Lol. Is that how debates work? You just declare yourself the winner and everyone throws their hands up in the air and goes "well, he said he won, therefore he did". No, don't be silly, the winner is for the audience and judges to decide, and always has been. If the majority of spectators feel Craig won then they feel Craig won.

[@CptBerns]

Craig has never won one single debate. And he's afraid to debate Matt Dillahunty.

[@spacenie]

Evidence? I've heard that he's won plenty.

[@CptBerns]

@@spacenie All of his debates on youtube are evidence. He's never won any debate, ironically enough because he never presents any evidence. Sean Carroll just about wiped the floor with Craig.

[@No_BS_policy]

@@CptBerns that shows you didn't understand any of his arguments and why all his opponents' rebuttals were all failures. For example, the debate he had with Carrol in which the atheist failed to rebut Craig's point regarding why there isn't anything other than the universe that pops out of nothing uncaused. Carrol merely insisted that if a model works then there is no need to explain it which begs the question against the entire scientific endeavor.

[@CptBerns]

@@No_BS_policy It is you who don't understand what Dr. Carrol refuted several times. The universe didn't pop into existence out of nothing. Do some reading on the big bang. Dr. Carrol kept on repeating that the universe didn't pop into existence out of nothing and Craig kept on ignoring it, repeating the bicycles. It was laughable.

[@AstariahJW]

It's a game . It's really sad that these false teachers is mocking Gods word with these debates They dont care about biblical truth Satan is laughing seeing these debates go on The only thing these false teachers care about is winning the debate which puffs up there pride

[@jeffwilliams6681]

Evade, strawman, obfuscate, lie

[@gfujigo]

What do you mean?

[@MuhammadsMohel]

@@gfujigo clearly Jeff is pointing out four of the tactics often used by opponents of WLC.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@MuhammadsMohel lol. yeah, sure. go watch the videos interaction between rationality rules, capturing christianity and lane craig and decided for yourself whether RR has any skin in the game, or does WLC need desperately to make god look good - at any cost? who has something to gain from lying, atheists, who calll ALL religions a lie, or lane craig, who wants to get into heaven and sell books along the way?

[@mjdillaha]

The irony in this projection is hilarious.

[@deczen47]

example?

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

VILLAGE ATHEIST 😂

[@macysondheim]

Dr. Craig is the reason why I left Christianity & became a Muslim. You can tell the snake is completely lying through his teeth 🐍..

[@kenandzafic3948]

You preach the "religion of love" wonderfully.

[@kenandzafic3948]

How do you explain the morally flawed concept of God in Islam?