William Lane Craig’s Debates (Reviews)
William Lane Craig is a prolific Christian philosopher, apologist, author, and public debater. He is the best debater – on any topic – that I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments.
I’m not the only one who thinks Craig has won nearly all his debates. For some atheists, it is rather maddening.
Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it (and for this, I respect him). He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say. Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won. His opponents are never that organized or clear.
This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time. So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig.
Atheists underestimate Craig. They think it will be easy to win an argument with anyone who has a wish-granting invisible friend. Atheists do not properly prepare for Craig’s arguments, and they do not prepare for his remarkable skill and experience in live debates.
Personally, I’d like to thank Dr. Craig for raising the level of debate on this issue. Though he makes many patently absurd arguments, they are no less absurd than some of the bad arguments made by his opponents, and they are usually more relevant to the central point. Atheists tend to ramble on about irrelevant topics when they debate Dr. Craig.
Below, I’ve written quick reviews for each of Craig’s recorded debates. (Not updated to cover his 2009 debates. Also see my reviews of his debates with Mike Begon and Shelly Kagan.)
Craig’s debates – the good
Craig vs. Sinnott-Armstrong [book]
A superb debate. Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong took statements from two of their debates, then clarified and expanded them to form the back-and-forth chapters of this book. Sinnott-Armstrong is the only one who comes close to Craig’s degree of organization, and he starts off with a bang by pointing out 3 major problems that are common to all Craig’s arguments.
Craig vs. Dacey [video]
Craig gives his usual arguments. Dacey responds with 5 facts that fit better with atheism than with theism: the hiddenness of God, the success of science, the mind-brain connection, evolution, and the abundance of pointless suffering. Craig says that it’s possible to fit all these with Christian theism.
Dacey responds to the First Cause argument by saying that some scientists think the Big Bang does not explain the initial bang, but rather what happened after the bang. That’s true, but there are better arguments against First Cause arguments, and Craig easily dispatches this weak complaint.
About fine-tuning, Dacey says we might someday in the future discover how physical properties emerged from simple rules. There are so many good arguments against fine-tuning, and again Dacey chooses just about the weakest counter-argument he could have picked.
Dacey does a better job of responding to Craig’s arguments from morality and the Resurrection, but he doesn’t have enough time to more fully rebut them.
In general, Dacey does a better job of being clear and organized than most of Craig’s other opponents, but in the end Craig is still more organized and had good-sounding responses to Dacey’s arguments that Dacey didn’t get a chance to rebut.
Craig vs. Dacey (2) [audio]
Dacey gives the same arguments as in their previous debate, and Craig sticks to only 2 arguments: Kalam and the Resurrection. Craig thoroughly rebuts Dacey’s arguments, usually by a retreat to the possible, and Dacey doesn’t really call him on it.
This debate is mostly a repeat of their previous debate, but a little better. Craig seems to win this one simply by presenting more information and argument than Dacey does – basically, by talking faster. Also, Dacey again misses lots of great responses to the Kalam argument, and instead focuses on a mathematical disagreement that ends with “Yes it is.” “No it’s not.” “Yes it is.” “No it’s not.” What a waste. I would ignore the math; it’s irrelevant.
Craig vs. Price [audio]
A great debate between two people who really know their stuff. Price does a good job of pointing out the dishonesty of Craig’s approach, but as expected he does not organize his arguments as well as Craig and thereby loses.
Craig vs. Bradley [audio, transcript]
How can a good God torture forever those who’ve never heard of him? This is a hard question for Craig to answer, and Bradley is a good debater – on both the emotional and intellectual levels. Craig is beaten up pretty badly in the Q&A session. This might be a debate that Craig lost. It’s too bad Bradley never clearly pointed out Craig’s constant retreat to the possible with something like an analogy to Hitler: sure, it’s logically possible that Hitler’s genocide actually resulted in more moral good than evil, but are we rational to think so? Craig survived on the weakness of Bradley’s final speech and the strength of his own.
It’s too bad there’s no video for this one, because both debaters frequently refer to slides.
Craig vs. Parsons [audio]
This is the other debate Craig may have lost. He certainly lost it on logic, though he probably won on rhetoric and organization (as he always does). Parsons is full of logic, common sense, and passion.
Craig vs. Tabash [audio, video]
Tabash does a better job than most, but he spends more time attacking God’s morality and peripheral doctrines like souls and hell than he does debating Craig’s arguments for God’s existence.
Craig vs. Stenger [audio]
A good debate in which Stenger doesn’t let Craig get away with as much bullshit as he usually does, but Craig still wins due to superior skill, speed, and organization.
Craig’s debates – the bad
Craig vs. Zindler [audio, video]
Zindler makes some great points, but he suffers due to the superior organization and rhetoric of Craig’s presentation, which shows most of Zindler’s points to be irrelevant to the immediate topic of the debate. If you make mistakes like this, Craig will make you pay for them.
Craig vs. Crossley [audio, video]
Craig makes his own well-developed case for the Resurrection of Jesus, and then there is some good historical back-and-forth between the two. Again, Craig wins by way of superior organization and rhetoric.
Craig vs. Brown [audio]
At first, Brown rambles and says very little that is relevant to the question “Does God exist?” Craig has the playing field all to himself. Brown stands on the sidelines, watching Craig do slam dunks and yelling “You suck!” By his second speech, Brown begins to engage in the debate, but he cannot possibly catch up.
Craig vs. Shook [audio, video]
Both Shook and Craig make bad arguments here, but Craig does a better job of exposing Shook’s bad arguments, especially when Shook talks about naturalism and morality.
Craig vs. Slezak [audio, video]
Slezak starts off strong, but then starts to lose quickly, and in his summary he forgets to remind his audience of all the good points he made up front.
Craig vs. Cavin [audio]
Surprisingly, one of Craig’s most interesting debates is with someone who defends the idea that Jesus’ Resurrection was faked by an unknown identical twin. Cavin does a decent job showing why Craig’s magical Resurrection hypothesis is even more ad-hoc and implausible than alternative theories, but Craig’s rebuttals show why he is one of the best debaters in the world. In his first rebuttal, Craig demolishes about 20 different points made by Cavin – in a clear, convincing, well-organized way – in the space of 8 minutes. Cavin can’t possibly keep up with that.
Craig vs. Ahmed [audio]
Ahmed opens quite well. His response to Craig’s moral argument, in particular, is perfect: “Dr. Craig says that objective moral values exist, and I think we all know it. Now that might pass for an argument at Talbot Theological Seminary, and it might pass for an argument in the White House, but this is Cambridge, and it will not pass for an argument here.” But starting with Craig’s first rebuttal, Craig starts to pull ahead due to his superior organization, denser content, and better rhetoric.
Craig vs. Avalos [audio]
Craig begins by embarrassing Avalos by showing how Avalos combated a previous opponent by demanding that he be able to recognize Biblical manuscripts by sight – which is not how scholars work with Biblical texts anyway. Avalos comes out swinging, citing very specific parts of Craig’s work and trying to put Craig in uneasy situations. Craig responds calmly and confidently, and reminds the audience that almost nothing Avalos has said (1) builds a case against the Resurrection, nor (2) rebuts the arguments Craig gave in this debate. Avalos focuses on a linguistic disagreement with Craig – but of course nobody in the audience can tell who is right, and it wasn’t even part of Craig’s case in the debate.
Also, Avalos is kind of a dick at certain times, which doesn’t help him. His language attacks Craig more than Craig’s arguments. After Craig gives his final speech, Avalos jumps in on Craig’s applause and says, without any humor, “I very much appreciate your applause for me, thank you.” Smooth, Avalos.
Craig vs. Kurtz [audio]
As usual, Craig argues against the moral ontology of atheistic philosophy, while Kurtz defends the view that nevertheless, atheists can choose to live morally. They are two ships passing in the night.
Craig vs. Draper [audio]
Draper makes a semi-weak case for naturalism, which Craig further weakens. Draper is unable to properly address all of Craig’s arguments. As usual, Craig wins with superior debating skill.
Craig vs. Ehrman [audio, video, transcript]
Craig gives his usual case for the Resurrection. Ehrman mostly argues against the historicity of miracles, and spends very little time refuting Craig’s points. But perhaps because Ehrman keeps his case very simple, he ends up sounding more convincing than many of his predecessors. The first question in the Q&A is from up-and-coming apologist Mike Licona.
Craig vs. Hoover [audio]
Hoover does a good job of rebutting Craig’s claims, but again Craig wins on superior organization.
Craig vs. de Souza [video, audio]
de Souza is a good rhetorician, but Craig is both a good rhetorician and a careful logician. Craig is, once again, better practiced and prepared for anything de Souza can say.
Craig vs. Nielsen [transcript]
This debate on the problem of evil starts out okay, but then Craig brings out his moral argument which, once again, his atheist opponent has no proper response to at all.
Craig’s debates – the ugly
Craig vs. Flew [audio, video, book]
Craig gives his standard arguments (Kalam, fine-tuning, morality, Resurrection, personal revelation). Flew, instead of rebutting Craig’s arguments, goes on a weak, rambling rant about how we can’t know about things outside the universe, and about how eternal torture is bad. Flew’s talks are so confused he seems downright senile.
Craig vs. Cooke [audio, video]
Craig produces his usual arguments. Cooke does not try to disprove God, but instead argues that religious belief is a “barrier,” that it is arrogant, etc. Like many debates, Craig focuses on rational argument, and his opponent focuses on polemic.
Craig vs. Spong [audio, video]
Spong is a preacher, not a rational debater. He’s great to listen to, but he’s no match for Craig in tight, logical debate.
Craig vs. DiCarlo [video]
The topic here is not God’s existence, but: “Does God matter?” So, Craig focuses mostly on his “absurdity of life without God” material. DiCarlo seems confused about the topic, for he argues that, “God doesn’t matter because God doesn’t exist.” The whole debate is a mess, with lots of rambling and odd tangents – mostly the fault of DiCarlo.
Craig vs. Edwards [audio]
Not a debate, but a back-and-forth discussion. Edwards asks tough questions, Craig has answers.
Craig vs. Edwards (2) [audio]
Again, Edwards is clearly not prepared to take on such a formidable opponent.
Craig vs. Antony [audio 1 2, video 1 2]
Craig covers more ground and is of course better organized. Also, Antony never even bothers to defend her position that objective moral values exist without God. What is her meta-ethical theory? She never says!
Craig vs. Atkins [audio, video, videotape]
Atkins is more interested in lecturing about the nature and glory of science than in debating the existence of God. Atkins also does himself no favors by speaking with condescension.
Craig vs. Drange [audio, video]
Drange makes almost no case, talking about “hyper-universes” and other weirdness, and Craig walks all over him. Of course, Craig’s arguments are equally bizarre, but Drange does not do a good job of showing why.
Craig vs. Borg [audio]
Borg lectures about metaphor and the nature of the gospels, not once engaging the evidence for or against the Resurrection. Craig has the debate all to himself.
Craig vs. Barrier [audio]
Barrier is polemical and incoherent – especially when talking about morality. Barrier has no college degree – which isn’t necessarily bad – but it really shows here. Craig walks all over him.
Craig vs. Dayton [audio]
A debate on the problem of evil. Dayton has little to say, because he doesn’t think that the problem of evil disproves God, or even that it should persuade Christians! He makes some good points, and shows some good humor, but of course Craig makes more points, with better rhetoric and organization.
Craig vs. Ludermann [audio]
Here it is clear that another of Craig’s advantages is his skill at compressing his arguments. Ludermann says very little in his opening 20 minutes compared to Craig, and never really engages Craig’s arguments. In fact, Ludermann never explains his theory about the Resurrection, so Craig does it for him and then thoroughly smashes it! Meanwhile, Ludermann continues to mumble about assorted points, and doesn’t make it clear how any of them relate to the question of whether the Resurrection actually happened or not.
Craig vs. Ludermann (2) [audio]
Here, Ludermann performs just as poorly as in his previous debate with Craig.
Craig vs. Crossan [audio, book]
Crossan lectures, Craig argues. In the Q&A period, Crossan is particularly incoherent and evasive, refusing to answer such simple factual questions as, “During the Jurassic period, when there were no humans, did God exist?”
Craig vs. Hardin [audio]
Hardin lectures and gives memoirs, whereas Craig debates. Craig wins, hands-down.
Craig vs. Morgentaler [audio]
Morgentaler clearly has little experience in debate, and does not accept the structure and logic of debate. Craig walks all over him.
Craig vs. Washington [transcript]
Washington makes a few good points, but takes too long to make them, and makes them in a rather informal way that looks bad next to Craig’s clear and solid rhetoric.
Craig vs. Jesseph [transcript]
A very typical debate in which Craig’s opponent is not prepared for Craig’s skill, speed, or organization, and things just get worse for Jesseph as things go along and he falls further and further behind.
Craig vs. Curley [transcript]
Curley barely touches the question of the existence of God, instead preferring to argue about specific theological doctrines instead, and so Craig’s position remains mostly untouched by the end of the debate.
Craig vs. Pigliucci [transcript]
Another typical debate in which Craig’s skills totally smash his opponent. Atheists seem to think they need not prepare for a debate with Craig because he is just another wacko with an invisible friend who grants him magical wishes. I think they are all surprised by how plausible Craig can make such an absurd idea sound.
Craig vs. Tooley [transcript]
Tooley gets bogged down in very technical (and actually, wrong) objections to Craig’s arguments – for example he denies the Big Bang. Craig blows past him.
Craig vs. Smith [transcript]
Smith offers a highly technical response to Craig’s typical cosmological argument, one I’m not sure his audience could even appreciate. Craig’s superior rhetoric wins the day.
Craig vs. Smith (2) [transcript]
Even worse than the previous debate. Smith spends lots of time on some technical details, and meanwhile Craig blasts through which is usual train of well-organized and solid-sounding arguments, with a perfectly succinct and impressive rebuttal prepared for everything Smith could possibly say.
Craig vs. Taylor [transcript]
I don’t even understand the point of this debate, since Taylor already agrees with Craig that (1) Christian theism has a coherent account of moral ontology (Taylor just thinks it happens to be false), and that (2) atheistic morality is relative. Taylor tries to defend the idea that relative moral values can actually be something like “objective,” and of course Craig destroys all such attempts.
Craig vs. Payton [video, audio]
The host of the debate has to wring Payton’s neck to force him to offer actual arguments, whereas Craig is eager to demolish his opponent. Not much of a debate, more of a scattered interview.
Craig vs. Wolpert [video]
Wolpert has no idea how to do a debate. Wolpert is merely snarky, and Craig flogs him.
Summary
Craig has probably won all his debates. He makes many bad arguments, but so do his atheist opponents. It’s the job of each contender to show the flaws in his opponents’ arguments, and Craig consistently does this better than the atheists do.
He’s also more skilled at debating. Most atheist scholars are not experienced in debating, nor in being an apologist for atheism. On the contrary, Craig is one of the best debaters in the world, and has decades of experience with Christian apologetics.
Of course, another possible explanation for Craig’s success is that his arguments are sound, and God does exist. But I don’t think so, and in a later post I’ll show why. I’ll show how to properly respond to Craig’s arguments.
Note: I have not reviewed Craig’s debates with Muslims, since they are less interesting to me.
104 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Thanks for your pretty neat website, I like it ! I am looking forward to seeing how to properly respond to Craig’s arguments. Aurelien
I’ll show how to properly respond to Craig’s arguments.
I’m drooling in anticipation. nal
Now that you’ve spent all this time telling us how other people have poorly addressed or not adequately responded to Craig’s argument, I’d love to hear your ideas! Teleprompter
Great page like all your others, keep it up.
I disagree with the Crag vs. Shook debate being bad, however. I think Shook did a much better job against Craig, he called him out on his use of mathematical arguments really well and definitely had the crowd on his side (though of course I agree that doesn’t always mean he debated well).
But that debate was the one that sold me on Craig, I’m with you on respecting him and his skill. The thing that got me was Craig saying that evolution doesn’t have a problem with Christianity, and that gets a thumbs up from me. Knife Fight Colobus
I admire your willingness to admit that Craig is so dominant, but if he consistently wins with incorrect arguments and deceptive tactics, doesn’t that prove that debates are pretty much useless? Obviously these debates are just a ploy used by Christians to make atheism look bad, right? So why even be concerned about it? Why would Craig’s success be \maddening\ to atheists?
Another question… To your knowledge, has an atheist ever used incorrect and inconsistent arguments, and yet still won a debate by using deceptive strategies and experience? Who and when? Thanks, I am enjoying your blog. Crazy Religious Nut
Debates can be pretty useless, but they are all we have! The history of philosophy is a series of 10,000 debates waged over many centuries. One some issues the best arguments have won and there is no more debate. On other issues the debate must go on.
Christian debaters are always out there to make atheists look bad, and many atheist debaters are out there to make Christians look bad, too.
Craig’s success maddens atheists for the same reason it would madden me to lose a game of chess who started the game without a queen. The atheist’s is clearly the easier position to defend, and yet against Craig the atheist consistently loses!
Has an atheist won a debate with bad arguments and manipulative tactics? I should think so, but the examples that leap to mind (e.g. Hitchens) are always opposed by much worse offenders (e.g. Dinesh D’Souza). lukeprog
Lukeprog, as a Christian I appreciate your honesty and frankness on Professor Craig’s debating skills – and your willingness to admit that maybe, just maybe, he might be on to something.
I’d really like to read your article on how you would refute his claims, because I have really listened carefully to his debates and investigated the claims made and cannot find anything \dishonest\ in what he is saying.
God bless you. Stratsheep
I'm a theist and I'm really impressed with your honesty in your reviews about the debates of William Lane Craig. Though I think the arguments of Craig are sound, I'm always open to new insights and responses so I'm quite interested in your responses to Craig's arguments, I'll add this site to my favorites! Kris
Just ran into this website and these post. Honestly one of the very first atheistic websites that does not leave me with a bad taste in any way! And that while I'm not a theist.
WLC is in my opinion by far the most gifted debater in the field, with that; he's very funny at times. For example the debate in which he tells that his wife is much hotter than his opponent is. Just love that! Marco
Underrated: Arif Ahmed v. Craig and Bart Ehrman v. Craig. They are two of the most entertaining and insightful debates I've heard.
I think Ahmed and Ehrman each took the upper hand because they spoke to the crowd and presented arguments that were both sound and easily understandable to a popular audience. Ahmed in particular showed Craig's arguments to be morally bankrupt and void of compassion.
From a personal standpoint, the Crossan debate had a special impact for me. I was in attendance and agreed with Craig at that point in my life, but Crossan's ideas stuck in my head. I picked up a few of his books 10 years later. He is now one of my favorite Biblical scholars. Geoffrey of Ballard
If you think WLC is such an able opponent, you should try debating him yourself. You know, I've seen atheist debates for nearly two decades and this is a rare dose of self-criticism from the godless side. James Vandenberg
I would get wasted, so bad. But I will have an upcoming series on how to beat William Lane Craig. lukeprog
I believe that Ahmed and Ehrman clearly won their debates. So much of Craig’s presentation depends on his selective quotation of sources. For example, he is happy to quote Martin Rees, who finds that the Universe is finely tuned, but not Steven Weinberg, who is unimpressed by fine tuning arguments.
Craig’s distinction between “natural” and “divine” mechanisms for the resurrection is similarly laughable. He explains that it is of course very unlikely that Jesus would be raised “naturally,” but the proposition that “God raised Jesus from the dead” is not at all unlikely. This strikes me as a bit like the following: “Surely the probability that Jack’s beanstalk would have reached the clouds is infinitesimal if we were using *ordinary beans*. But we have absolutely no basis to make such an estimation if he used *magic beans*, as our literary sources indicate.” Sam Meyerson
Luke – I agree completely with what you say.
WLC tends to win across the board. In particular, if you’re not really paying attention (casual listening on the train to work!) it appears that he’s making clear, specific, decisive points that are skewering the opponent. He has devastating debating ability and is well-practiced.
On closer inspection: he’s using the same points all the time. They *can* be argued against. He has a knack of making his opponent’s naturalistic bias seem unreasonable. (“What do you mean, the resurrection is unlikely a priori? If God did it, it seems perfectly reasonable that a dead man could come to life again. Remember that morality doesn’t have a proper grounding without something god-like writing it into our hearts. Look at the monkey…”. Etc. Only he words it far, far better…
Awesome site, by the way. How you have time for maintaining all those download links, I have no idea. snafu
William Lane Craig is an excellent speaker… too bad his completely wrong!
I think Dr. Arif Ahmed won his debate with WLC. Remember, it was on the existence of god, and all Dr. Ahmed had to do was demonstrate enough doubt to abstain from belief, and show how WLC’s arguments did not remove that doubt. I think he did this. I would go further a suggest that he is a better better debater too, at least in terms of approach. In the two debates listed here he tends not to hide behind authority nor does he cite scholar after scholar (which the audience cannot confirm) but instead he uses simple but effective arguments and easy to understand analogies that nicely illustrate his point.
Although Dr. Craig typically wins his debates, he hardly wins the argument. Any serious analysis of the claims in his debates and he would hardly fair well.
Chris
Whenever Craig argues for the resurrection of Jesus, he keeps talking about “Overwhelming Majority of New Testament Scholars” agreeing to his so-called 4 or 5 “facts”.
I understand that in a debate there wouldn’t possibly be enough time for his opponent to thoroughly deconstruct this claim, but I always ask myself “just WHO are these scholars?”, “what methods do they utlize?”, “how many of them are Christians?” and “just what does he mean they are ‘facts’ and how was this decided?”. I am puzzled as to why debate after debate, this claim never gets effectively challenged.
Isn’t it about time someone dissected this claim to find out more about these scholars? Like who they are, what their theologiacal background is, and what methods they are employing to grant aspects of the gospel accounts as FACT? Such information, if made available to all, might better equip atheists when debating Craig on the resurrection, I think. (What immediately comes to my mind is that the majority of these scholars ARE Christians so of course they’ll concede those ‘facts’, right?).
Or would the better strategy be to simply dismiss Craig’s claim as an appeal to authority and leave it at that? Oliver
Oliver,
This tactic does frustrate his atheist debaters, and some of them do point out it is an appeal to authority, and also that most New Testament scholars are Christian, but it doesn’t slow down Craig one bit. He just keeps saying it. lukeprog
Luke, I listened to your very interesting interview with Mike Licona. Suppose you contacted him, and asked him to provide a list of these New Testament scholars with their backgrounds, and clearly stated positions, would he oblige? He works with gary Habermas, so I would think he has access to this info.
I mean if these guys are being sincere about the claim that the majority of New Testamnt scholars buy the Jesus story, I think they ought to make such info available for scrutiny. Just to give you an example: if a creationist challenged me to provide a list of scientists who accept evolution by natural selection, as a starting point, I could refer him here: http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/list-steves. The link takes you to a NCSE page that lists qualified professionals in the field, specifying even their credentials. Here, the NCSE was trying to make apoint of just how many scientists (named Steve) accept evolution. Here is an even more detailed list from another pro-evolution organisation, going as far as to include not only credentials but also religious affiliations of hundreds of scientists who accept evolution: http://www.shovelbums.org/images/stories/misc/Petition/petition_against_id_as_science.pdf
In the same way, since these apologists are trying to make a point of how many ’scholars’ accept certain ‘facts’ about Jesus, they ought to be willing to furnish us with details of who these scholars are, with their religious affiliations included. Afterall, we are right now simply taking their word for it that these scholars accept these ‘facts’. They also often mention token non-believers like Carrier and Price as part of the scholarship being cited to make it seem like its all very balanced – but can we be sure? They themselves did the research (Habermas) so they must have this info somewhere. Let them show it to us, then we will be able to check for ourselves the work of these scholars, and see if their claims hold any water, or if this ‘majority’ is genuine.
If ’evil’ evolutionists can do this, one would expect Christian apologists do even better. Would Mike say no? Oliver
Oliver, I think there are a few Habermas papers in which he did count up the opinions of scholars, but of course the way he questioned and his choice of who to ask is open to attack. I’ll try to find those articles; I can’t remember which ones they were or in which journal they were published. lukeprog
I know that incompetence is the default expectation of all people, all times, and all places, but this string of victories seems slightly suspicious to me. *I* have not heard back from Craig myself. Perhaps Craig’s true cleverness lies in his careful choice of *opponents*. Eliezer Yudkowsky
Yes. He says “I don’t debate non-Ph.Ds”, but there are plenty of non-Ph.Ds he has debated, so he appears to be using that line as an excuse to not debate people he doesn’t want to face (like John Loftus, who is a former student of his and an expert on all his arguments).
But listen: I’ve seen/heard every Craig debate on the net. His arguments are unsound, but he’s one of the best debaters in the world, on any subject, and he can win debates against people who know all the arguments but simply aren’t experienced in formal debates. lukeprog
Although I fully agree with your assessment of Craig’s rhetorical skills and philosophical acumen, I think you are wrong in implying that he won the debate with Arif Ahmed. Craig’s capacity for taking control of the debate by able framing of the issues and repeated summaries of his arguments didn’t really work against Ahmed, whose performance was all the more remarkable given that his background was not in philosophy of religion and seemed to have no prior acquaintance with the relevant literature and arguments. Pablo Stafforini
This is an amazing resource! Thank you very much for making this available for all of us. By the way, I’m a Christian, and I visit this blog every now and then. Dante
Thanks for the resource – much appreciated.
There is a lot of confidence in your protestations against Craig and theism (‘promissory intellectualism’ one might even say) but zero substance. One is reminded of King Canute.
Your comments on why Craig has won his debates surely miss the point. Craig has faced the greatest of the atheist elite and won, not because he is a genius but because his arguments are grounded in unshakable reality. Simon
I find Craig’s arguments re-hashed, outlined, and wanting. The jump from a “first cause” argument to a Christian view of history is huge. Even a “first cause” may not be supernatural, we have not even begun to explore the universe. His fine tuning argument is limited and presumptive, as life is just barely holding on, right? The minimal facts argument? That is recognized only by Biblical scholars, go figure, and requires the enormous presupposition that the witnesses were not misinformed or exagerrating (see any Catholic miracle-Guadalupe, anyone?) He merely replies to other debaters that their arguments are not as strong as his and that there are no arguments being made. I think what is infuriating, as usual, is that people put stock into the arguments not because they are strong, but because they match a presupposed belief system. But if you believe, you believe. Wade
I downloaded the Craig Hitchens debate before it was removed, so have been able to watch it several times…
I can’t understand how anyone could think he is a good debater.
He continually asked Hitchens to produce evidence that god does NOT exist! Shifting the onus of proof. That’s got to be the weakest argument ever devised.
And just as often asked Hitchens for evidence that atheism is true! For goodness sake, atheism is not a philosophy or world view that can be proved either true or false. An atheist does not believe that god exists and that’s all there is to it.
Craig a good debater? Weak as piddle, I reckon.
Craig never got beyond asking for evidence that god does NOT exist and evidence that atheism is true – so you’re not missing out on too… Michael
Ignore the last three lines in the above comment. I left them there by mistake (and can’t delete them). Michael
I would have to say that in the first debate between Craig and Smith, Smith crushed Craig.
Anyone who reads Craig’s opening statement and Smith’s rebuttal can see that only Smith is using logic.
Craig might be good with the rhetoric but without any logic his argument falls apart quick. Acidgawd
Craig is a genius. This is not about who is the best at debating, or how well one can debate. This is about the ISSUES, and Craig has spent 30 YEARS studying and researching philosophy, science, and religion. Craig is good at what he does because he knows the issues better than his opponent does. Plus he is a great speaker. The man studied GREEK for crying out loud, just so he would be able to understand the Greek translation of the bible. Thats why he is so good. Keith
The public understands large-scale double-blind medical studies well enough to discuss the risks of experimental treatment, the ethics of withholding prom- ising treatment from the control group, and the conflicts of interest that are addressed by the blinding process. , Kelvin20
I think the Slezak debate should be listed among the good ones. Muto
I agree with some of the above posters: Craig is long on rhetoric, weak on logic–and facts. Kalam argument only works for those who are totally ignorant of modern cosmology, for example. Probably that is why he is so “maddening”: his arguments are weak, beg the question and he is way too fond of cherry-picking his quotes (as are all apologists). And yet…he still wins, right? That is why I think that public debates of such sort are totally useless and their outcomes have nothing to do with the truth of the matter. I mean, Hitler could have won all such debates (and did…:)) Jorg
I’m a Christian and am thankful for sites like yours where cooler heads prevail. It is not unreasonable to think, as you do, that Craig has won (perhaps) all his debates, even if you don’t think, as I happen to, that his arguments are sound.
Let your readers not be confused why this is: he does not win on rhetoric; he wins because he makes a better case for theism than his opponents do for atheism. The “rhetoric” complaint one often hears strikes me as nothing over and above humbug at the wrong side winning (from the atheist persepctive)–a mere emotive report of displeasure. The same can generally be said of explanations of Craig’s victories that employ terms such as ’semantics’ or ‘language games’. If one finds oneself in the position of being convinced by something Craig says, why not conclude, “Wow. Maybe I should rethink my atheism?” Hell. Why not? Life’s too short and the stakes too high to let the fear of others gloating over you (shame on them if they do) keep you from considering a change of mind and heart as a live option.
As for the NT scholars Craig cites on the historicity of the resurrection, he appeals almost exclusively to *atheists*–not Christians–and this by design in order to forestall the very objection of bias (to be sure, a poor objection in its own right: are objectors charging his sources with rational or psychological bias? The former undermines credibility in the source; the latter is trivial with respect to credibility.) Moreover, NT scholarship is rife with secular scholarship, so it’s a mistaken impression of the discipline to think it populated exclusively (or even nearly exclusively) by Christians.
Finally, some hard numbers on what this broad consensus consists of. I here quote Craig from the Bill Cooke debate (Video 7 of 12), about 5 minutes into the video: “I would point out in support of my contention that this is the broad consensus of scholarship, that in the journal Dialog from two years ago, there was a bibliographical article that surveyed 1400 articles over the last 25 years on the resurrection of Jesus, and it showed 75% of scholars writing on the subject agree on the historicity of Jesus’ empty tomb, and there is near-universal agreement on the postmortem appearances and the origin of the disciples belief in Jesus’ resurrection.”
Anyway, thanks for your site. I appreciate your levelheadedness. Tel
I wouldn’t mind seeing round 2 between Sinnott Armstrong and Craig. I noticed that Craig’s refutations of WSA’s arguments were piss weak, but on the same token WSA made a few errors in his examining of Craig’s arguments. Id like to see it in video format as well. The “problem” is WSA is more eclectic with his philosophy PhD, he also puts it to good use to try and make the world a much better place rather then just engaging in incessant dialectical prestidigitation about the existence of primitive invisible magical sadistic sky genies. Not that philosophy of religion isn’t valuable, it is, but Craig has literally spend his whole academic life writing books, papers and debating only about
(a)his Magical Fantasy Sky Daddy
(b)implicitly declaring his disdain for atheism
( c)amusing the masses with his desperate attempts to justify the barbaric, petty, unjust bloodthirsty sadistic idiosyncrasies of Yahweh in the Old Testament.
However, I really like WSA’s work on philosophy of law, and if some of his ideas were put in place, I think it would cause a major positive overhaul in the current American judicial system i.e. bringing neuroscience and psychology into a more active role to prevent recidivism. Rhys
i think you’re missing the point here…1) if most N.T. scholars are Christians, it doesn’t follow that they are dishonest about the material.(if thats the case then couldn’t the same be said of an athiest scholar as well?) 2) Perhaps some of them are Christians as a result of their critical study of the N.T., not before. 3) When “critical” is used in connection with N.T. scholarship, it is almost always referring to non-christian and sometime atheist, agnostic scholars (Ludemann, Borg, Price, etc..) 4) I think quoting authority outside of your area of speciality is a necessary part of debate/discussion. I don’t think he thinks or expects anyone else to think, that he means his conclusions are unanimously agreed upon. I think the whole point is that if the majority of scholarship, including those from the “left” and the “right”, can agree to certain historical data, we should at least consider Why they agree on these things. just something to consider… erik d.
I want to see a William Craig vs. Richard Dawkins on whether God is a delusion or a reality. Skb
Richard Dawkins has repeatedly refused this invitation, because he would lose very badly. lukeprog
I think he would win if it was about intelligent design. Dawkins is actually an extremely experienced debater, he debated many creationists back in the day. Rhys Wilkins
I don’t think so. The debates in which WLC takes part are very very rigid (20 minutes – 10 minutes – Q&A) and he has no other thing to do since that’s his job for many years.
But a debate with questions to the other side, interruptions and instantaneous rebuttals would be far more interesting.
By the way, I’ve seen all the debates and William Lane Craig is a very good debater indeed, but he is so vulnerable in the Q&A parts. Did you notice that?
elribla
Yeah I think I have heard Dawkins himself say that he abhors moderators and the traditional LD style debates where you have to shut-up and listen to the other person for 20 minutes.
It is good as an academic sport mind you, but if you are trying to have a serious discussion its bullshit. Rhys Wilkins
LD debates are like gladiatoral combat. It doesn’t matter who is right. It just matters who trained more. lukeprog
Why don’t some atheists form a committee to analyze and rebut WLC and other supporters of superstition? (I know, it will turn out to be a camel.) Isn’t there a qualified organization to take on this task? American Atheists, FFRF, and Kurtz’ Center for Inquiry are 3 I can think of. A while back there was the Jesus Seminar, where every word was graded. Something should be done, but alas, with atheists it’s like herding cats. J Nernoff III M.D.
A friend of mine is considering a book focused on rebutting WLC, we’ll see if it happens… lukeprog
Luke
Having listened to the Craig-Ahmed debate I have to say I felt Dr Ahmed did a very fine job of undermining Craig.
Ahmed did not have the fluency of Craig, and Craig’s rebuttal was dense with well made points and almost word perfect (as you say he has such experience with debating not only his words and phrases, but whole paragraphs come fluently to him).
Despite this I thought the intellectual honours went to Adhmed. He undermined Craig in his prelude by stating he didn’t take the debate to be a parlour game. Throughout the debate he picked up Craig for “tricks of the debating trade” so to speak. In this way Ahmed successfully took the gloss from Craig’s highly polished persona by characterising it as style without real substance. David Law
One way to test Craig is to hire an amateur reader to give his presentation and to see if ordinary speech (the arguments will be exactly the same) can win the day (arguments win) or lose (presentation is the key, not the arguments).
Craig dresses immaculately (shirt, tie, jacket)(unlike the slovenly Hitchens); he is rugged and handsome (like the pipe-smoking figure in the Church of the Sub-Genius, Bob); he has a low, mellow, resonant voice like a radio-announcer; his presentation is measured and steady with no uhhhs or uhhms; and he employs “stacking” — that is the relentless piling on of one claim after another, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…. giving the opposition no chance to ever dislodge them all.
That’s part of the key: voice, professionalism, a hurricane of “facts.”
The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a person only tells them with all his might. –Mark Twain Kornhusk
If you want the satisfaction of seeing a debate where Craig undeniably loses, check out the one with Shelly Cagan.
First video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l69QN7ixmM&feature=PlayList&p=2D3765E616306CB1&index=0 Terje
I just watched the debate between WLC and Micheal Schmidt-Salomon. Craig gets beaten up pretty badly. Maybe it is because the debate is in german. Muto
Muto,
Do you want to volunteer to transcribe that debate into English for the rest of us? :) lukeprog
Thanks for the comprehensive list of debates. Given how important the subject matter of the debates is, I only wish more of such debates were professionally videotaped and made available. Many of the video debates available online are poor recordings of low quality, which is really too bad.
Nonetheless, I will look for other debates from this list that I’ve neither seen nor heard.
Thanks… JP
Craig is the kind of rhetoritician that could make even the most absurd claims sound credible with his eloquency and smooth articulation.
Seriously Id like to see Craig argue for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I reckon he could make a case for it sound mildly convincing! rhys
I just want to touch on a few things. I think that some of you people are purposely undermining the brilliance of WLC. I keep seeing all of this crap about how good of a debater he is, and how much rhetoric he has. That is just not the case at all. Craig is a expert on the arguments. To show how brilliant he is, watch the debate that he had with Victor Stenger. Now, Stenger is a physicist. WLC completely demolished him on any subject that had to do with physics, particularly on quantum physics when Victor made an attempt to argue that some particles in quantum physics appear to come “from nothing”. WLC gracefully refuted that claim and Stenger didn’t mention it again. He also refuted Stengers view on “time”, by showing what was wrong with it, and also showing how it SHOULD of been presented and how even if it was presented that way why it would still fail.
This is more than JUST rhetoric and good debate skills people. I mean yeah, it helps to be a good debater in ANY debate just like it helps to be a good basketball player in ANY game of basketball. You people keep (at least most of you) saying that WLC is a “good debater” as if it is a mischievious advantage or something. But as I said in another post, WLC wins because he KNOWS THE ISSUES better than his opponents does. In the debate with Ayala (as Luke even admits), Ayala is supposed to be the expert on the issue, and he was completely outshined by WLC.
WLC does a good job of refuting his opponents arguments as well. He knows the issues people. You people need to give props when it is due instead of being in denial and taking away from the mans abilities. But that is life. I have heard people criticize many great sports figures, despite how many championships that they won. But to read some of the crap that people say on here is just sad.
Oh, another thing. I really ejoyed the Craig vs Ahmed debate. Another person on here mentioned that debate and how well Ahmed did. Luke, I think you should do a extended review of that debate on here. I enjoyed it. I thought Ahmed was a little arrogant at times. Some of Ahmed’s refutations of Craig’s arguments were rediculous. There was no juice behind them. I like the fact that Craig pointed out directly to Ahmed about how close-minded he is in reference to the arguments. I still think Ahmed did well, but this was another victory for Craig. Keith
I’m gonna have to agree with Keith on this one. I’m not a believer myself but I think Craig wins debates because his reasoning is impeccable, for the most part. If you read articles on his website you’ll see that he claims to be defending a “weak theism,” and even admits that his arguments are not rationally coercive and are not meant to be so.
Not to say his arguments convince me Christianity is true (they don’t), but they do provide a reasonably sound foundation for his faith. Much better than the Christian layman ever manages.
It’s like the example of a person who knows they are innocent of a crime but for which evidence is scarce; they might not be able to prove it absolutely, but they can point to weak or even halfway decent evidence that supports what they know to be true. I think Craig succeeds in this respect. Martin
I know I am way out of date on this one (although there have been recent comments). But I just read the first Smith-Craig debate. I must say, Smith’s rebuttal of the Kalam argument is very good: it is focused and pungent. Craig undoubtedly fails to respond to his point about infinite arithmetic being distinct from finite arithmetic. He also offers a really weak response to Smith’s “fallacy of equivocation” argument.
That said, I am basing this on a reading of the transcript, not on the vocal performance, which might be quite different. John D
I think in terms of arguments, Quentin’s were vastly superior to Craig’s. Craig just managed to shoot off a lot of rhetorical jabs in a short amount of time. Craig seemed to misunderstand Quentin’s interpretation of the Kalam somewhat.
Smith won the argument
Craig won the debate Rhys Wilkins
if there is ample evidence for atheism, would it really take a skilled debater to present it?
a five-year-old could present a decent case for the roundness of the earth with pre-scripted rebuttals to the most common arguments by believers of flat earth theories.
but it’s fair to say the atheists craig debates do not get anywhere near a ‘decent’ performance. as lukeprog observes, they are often demolished.
when a speaker delivers valid arguments in a clumsy way, it’s often a good idea to give them the benefit of the doubt so the truth of what they are saying is not ignored because they were not as articulate or well spoken as they could have been.
in this case, strangely, atheists might like to give craig the benefit of the doubt because his delivery is too articulate and organised! kaka
If there is ample evidence for the Standard Model of Particle Physics, would it really take a skilled debater to present it?
Yes. lukeprog
i didn’t say to prepare or argue the point. i said present.
it’s conceivable that well-reasoned arguments backed up by lines of evidence could be researched and written up by a scholar in any field, be in religion or physics, and then given to someone, child or adult, to present ie, to read aloud verbatim according to a prepared, written script.
this would result in a decent argument and would be a miles ahead of what craig’s opponents are doing which are at best, scattered generalisations or vague statements which are not philosophical arguments in the sense of having premises leading to a conclusion.
thus it seems to me what craig’s opponents are not lacking is not debating skill (which i define as the ability to respond to rebuttals – i don’t take your definition of being able to write concise, compressed arguments as evidence of debating skill but writing skill) but the ability to form an argument in the first place. this is most apparent in debates where craig’s opponents go first, such as craig v morgentaler. in that debate, morgentaler could have simply read out what he has researched and even if he got crushed in the rebuttals, would have at least provided a strong opening statement that other atheists could build on. what he provides is a vague, confused lecture with almost no academic references. no amount of rhetorical flourish from a world-class debater could have improved morgentaler’s presentation.
and i don’t buy the excuse that craig’s opponents do not understand what a ‘debate’ is. you don’t need to be a professor to figure out that if discussion is confined to an academic topic and a time limit, one should stick within that topic, provide academic references for all arguments (students learn this as undergraduates) and only offer strong arguments in the interests of time. if they cannot do this it is not because they need debating training, it is because they are lazy or uninterested. kaka
Finally watched the Ehrman-Craig debate. I think Ehrman did a great job. In fact I would go so far as to say he clearly “won”. The only shaky part was when Craig brought up Bayes Theorem (only to reject it himself in the Q&A).
I particularly liked the contrast between their final statements. Craig went into “witnessing” mode and Ehrman called him on it. He also pointed out how he had actually responded to all four of Craig’s “facts”; how his alternative scenario was still more plausible than the resurrection; and then proceeded to outline what he thinks is the most likely explanation of the resurrection story.
I think Ehrman managed to do three things that Craig’s debate opponents usually don’t do. First, he made a strong educational point about how historical scholarship actually works and how it cannot be used to prove religious claims (I think this kind of educational message is important because it gives audience members something they can build on in their own investigations). Second, he actually tried to rebut Craig’s arguments (despite Craig’s persistent claims to the contrary — this is a very annoying debate tactic). And third, he provided two alternative theories. One just to make the point about how miracles cannot be proved historically and the other a good attempt to explain the origins of the resurrection story. John D
I broadly agree with what you’ve said from the debates I have seen/ heard. However….
Ehrman – Won convincingly. Hats off for not falling for Craig’s use of Bayes Theorem (!) or being distracted by Craig using demagogic tricks i.e. “Ehrman’s Egregious Error” and “Bart’s Blunder”. Craig is an evangelist disguised as a serious academic and Ehrman proves it.
Crossley – This one was a draw. Neither speaker would have changed anyone’s minds or convinced a neutral. Craig’s delivery is much better, but he doesn’t bully his opponent or pander to the audience. May be he was having an off day.
Tabash – I think he just about won. “If God sacrificed 6 million Jews to establish the state of Israel, he needs a lesson in efficiency!” Genius.
Price – See my own post here. Price’s opening speech where he attacks Craig and everything he stands for (spending two minutes at the end actually addressing the debate motion!), is one of most extraordinary opening addresses I have ever heard. Alas, the debate runs out of steam and Craig gets away with saying his opponent has not satisfied his burden of proof etc.
Spong – This was a delight. Spong rises above Craig’s petty attempts to rationalise his fairy tale and explains the philosophy of being an atheist Christian. If only all believers were like him. Credit is still due for exposing Craig’s dishonest reliance on authorities who are in fact at opposite ends of NT scholarship spectrum.
Avalos – Still lets Craig get away with saying that he hasn’t met his burden of proof, but deserves credit for not being put off by Craig’s disgraceful attempt to embarrass him in relation to a previous debate as well highlighting Craig’s “printer’s error”.
Wolpert – Didn’t do as badly as you make out. He was more prepared to push his own ideas of the evolutionary explanation of belief on the premise that God does not exist rather than disprove Craig’s arguments. But he held up reasonably well.
Stenger – Deserves a separate post!
Dacey and Shook – The debates are my queued up on MP3 player. Looking forward to them. manicstreetpreacher
Vic Stenger – I agree that this is an excellent debate and Stenger does not let Craig get away with as much BS as he normally does, but come on; Stenger flattens him! Granted, Vic is no showman, but what he lacks in flair, he more than adequately compensates for with authority and clarity.
There is so much to enjoy that this debate rewards repeated visits. I have done my own analysis here which Vic kindly posted on his own website.
Stenger runs so many rings around Craig that it’s the only time Craig hasn’t finished off pimping the warm fuzzy feeling he gets when thinking about the person up in the heavens who loves him.
Stenger has taught me so much in this debate. In particular, that theology is just dreaming up logically consistent models of gods when there is no way that theologians can prove what they say. “Well, I don’t know how Dr Craig knows all that.”
He also exposes Craig’s dishonest mining of Stephen Hawking’s work to give the false impression that Hawking still believes in the Big Bang singularity. Of course Craig has never taken any notice of this.
And that line about conducting polls among the “scholars” at Bob Jones University is just priceless. If that’s not calling Craig on his sophistry, I don’t know what is! manicstreetpreacher
Thanks for your thoughts, manicstreetpreacher. lukeprog
I really appreciate the level-headedness and respect on this site, which I think is wonderful! I was wondering if any of you could honestly recommend 2 debates to me (both done in a non-Christian venue). (1) The first would be WLC’s most one-sided loss, or perhaps his most tongue-tied debate where he seems just totally, uncharacteristically lost. (2) WLC’s most one-sided and obvious “win” against a Ph.d in a non-christian venue. Thanks! I really appreciate this site! Mike
His wins are easy; check this list.
As for embarrassing losses, I dunno. Most people seem to think that if WLC has lost a debate, it was his debate with Shelly Kagan. lukeprog
Thanks, Lukeprog! I’m getting more familiar with the debates, but am far from having seen or heard the dozens of debates WLC has accomplished. I’m an agnostic and I know it was probably an impossible question in knowing the top 2 or 3 most obvious or one-sided wins of WLC at a non-Christian venue. You and the people on this site have a lot of knowledge about his debates (after all, they’re reviewed above); whereas I only saw one – the Frank Zindler/WLC Debate. This was definitely a one-sided, obvious win for WLC no matter what anyone says. Having said this, I guess I was looking for a debate just like the one I saw – only in a non-Christian venue. Or the top 3 or so. I’d like to watch his most obvious “win” (along with the Kagan debate I’m in the process now of ordering). Thanks, lukeprog! I truly appreciate it! Mike
I listened to the Shook debate yesterday and I thought he came off better than most. True, his arguments were not as well structured as they could have been, but he sounded very confident, did not put up with any of Craig’s nonsense and judging by the applause and tabletop banging, had the support of the audience.
Dare I say that he won!
Another time when Craig has not had chance to plug the warm fuzzy feeling he gets when he thinks about how much God loves him in his final remarks.
I was appalled by Craig dishonestly quote-mining Stephen Hawking’s The Nature of Space and Time to support his religious view of cosmology that the universe began with the Big Bang singularity during cross-examination. He must know full well that Hawking was referring to the impact of his and Penrose’s old thesis which they have now recanted.
I sometimes wonder how well atheist bloggers would do against Craig in a live debate. After all, they have probably seen and heard more of Craig’s debates and spent more time debunking his “arguments” than his actual opponents!
MSP manicstreetpreacher
I have put my thoughts of the debates against Ehrman and Spong on my own blog.
I am also proofing a series of three posts with my second thoughts on the Hitchens debate to go out one year after the event BST.
MSP manicstreetpreacher
Heh,
You got Craig vs. Jesseph in the Ugly section? Craig himself said that was his most challenging debate! Rhys Wilkins
Yes, that was a surprise. I wonder why Craig didn’t think his hardest debate was with Ray Bradley or Shelley Kagan, where he took some serious blows. lukeprog
Dr. Craig vs Dr. Avalos
topic: is there sufficient historical evidence to establish that Jesus rose from the dead?
in my humble opinion Dr. Craig was savaged by Dr. Avalos
first off Dr. Craig gets the debate topic wrong arguing for fact or fiction of the resurrection
when the topic was about historical evidence.
Dr. Craig starts with his usual 4 facts of the resurrection granted by his “majority of new testament scholars”.
Dr. Avalos – what is a fact here are not the resurrection but stories about the resurrection and what we need to explain is the origin of the stories.
Dr. Craig philosophical training was useless here as Dr. Avalos rammed home that Dr. Craig didn’t know the languages he was quoting(first century from medieval Aramaic), misquoted Josephus, historical criteria is silent when zombies rise from the dead – Matthew 27 and positive on the resurrection of Jesus – Mark 16 even though they satisfy the same criteria.
and i left out the useless passing (or “sharing” in this case) the burden of proof,
poisoning the well by bringing up debate tactics from another debate instead of ironing this out
with Dr. Avalos before the event (after all didn’t Dr. Craig say he thought Dr Avalos was a scholar and a gentleman. oarobin
I have come to the conclusion that Jesseph actually did do quite well in the debate. Jeffery Jay Lowder wrote an article on the Secular Web with a technical overview of the debate, and he found that Craig actually broke a couple of debate rules (under LD debating rules, you cannot skip over an objection to an argument in your first rebuttal then present a brand new objection in the following rebuttal). In terms of arguments, it was a 4-4 draw:
Fine tuning: Jesseph
Kalam: Craig
Resurrection: Craig
Holy Spirit Epistemology: Jesseph
Argument from Conservativism: Craig
Argument from Asymmetry: Jesseph
Evidential Argument from Evil: Jesseph
Luke, you should at least move Jesseph up into the bad section rather then the ugly! I mean if the technical debate score was actually a draw AND Craig himself thinks that it was his closest debate, then it surely deserves a more prestigious place in this list! Rhys Wilkins
“An atheist does not believe that god exists and that’s all there is to it.”
-At least there are a few honest folks among the Athiest crowd.
It’s not about having a “make belief friend that grants wishes”. That’s ridiculous and just plain ignorant. If anything my life has become much harder as a believer!
The only reason I believe is because I’m convinced it’s true.
I wish Athiests were just more blunt & honest and said that they don’t believe God because they don’t want to believe in God. Like Thomas Nagel, although he doesn’t try and push his views of athiesm, he just states his position.
For Christians it makes sense to debate, and argue for the faith like WLC: If heaven & hell are real, then it matters what you think about God. If sin has consequences like death and eternal separation from God, and if I have found the cure (Jesus dying on a cross for my sins) then doesn’t it make sense for me to want to tell my family, my friends, the whole world so that they could get in on the best news in the world?! (No death, eternal life, forgiveness from God, and all I have to do is believe in Jesus and follow after him, it’s a pretty sweet deal.)
If a doctor discovered the cure for AIDS wouldn’t he try to mass produce it so that the disease would disappear? Maybe some people would not want the cure because it would cost too much. But we should at least let people know about the cure and give them that option to choose.
This is the view of most Christians. This is why we try so hard to tell others about God and about Jesus.
But why are Athiests so intent on pushing their views? I don’t get it. If you are positive that your view is correct you better be damn sure you’re correct because eternity is at stake here, and nobody should be messing around with that unless you’ve got some excellent reasons to back that up.
And if Christians are wrong then it’s just like Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:17-19 “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile… If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men”
1. The Resurrection of Jesus.
If this did not happen, then all of it is pointless. If the Athiests can find proof to defeat this one claim they will successfully see the fall of Christianity which has stood the test of time for nearly 2000 years.
If Athiests can find a way to deny this claim. Then they will be able to defeat WLC. Danny
I found this quote from WLC:
“I [WLC] did respond briefly to Prof. Kagan’s view… but I didn’t press the point because our hosts with the Veritas Forum had made it very clear to me that they were not interested in having a knock-down debate but a friendly dialogue that would foster a warm and inviting atmosphere for non-believing students at Columbia. The goal was simply to get the issues out on the table in a congenial, welcoming environment, which I think we did.”
Source:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/william-lane-craig-vs-shelly-kagan-is-god-necessary-for-morality/
Danny you said:
I think Hitchens answers your question for me between
4:57-5:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXC8VldIKEc
Beating WLC is a matter of coming with good counter arguments, managing one’s time, and being a decent speaker. Craig is an excellent debater in both style and content. Ofc I don’t think his content is unbeatable, but his content isn’t as weak as some of the atheist arguments he runs up against. MauricXe
“Craig vs. de Souza [video, audio]
de Souza is a good rhetorician, but Craig is both a good rhetorician and a careful logician. Craig is, once again, better practiced and prepared for anything de Souza can say.”
unless you expect fireworks or artilery carpet bombing from a rational debater ,i cant see how de souza didnt carried across his points, along with obliterating 2 of the main arguments of graig.(infinity/ontological, morality )
taking mind time constrains any atheist debater will always do bad when faced 20 comblex theistical psedo-rational arguments.
how can you overcome the issue of morality when only linking biochemistry with culture will need a good 1 hour just to pronounce the names of the chapters of the theory, vs god=morality-morality exists=god exists.
apriory the debater should restrict the debate in a single argument, if he wants to take his message across.
robert price debate was excelent too.price really knows his subjects and he moves with in the framework of academic ethics and scientific historical orthodoxy combares to graigs typical arguments of the type “you here are not a man , you there also arent one, therefor i am..” ahmet
Based on that introduction I was hoping to see an intelligent theologian presenting his case. — I have often been told that the likes of Hovind do not represent the theistic community; and that I would have a hard time defending atheism if I were to have to debate with an intelligent theologian.
Yet I’m yet to see a convincing example of one. Craig does a god job of affecting his language and posture with an air of sophistication; but at its heart, his philosophy is the same nonsensical, illogical drivel of Hovind and Ray Comfort: “Anything created must have a sentient, all-knowing creator.” Noam GR
I have to say that I think that Ahmed defeated Craig fairly decisively. He quite clearly and eloquently pointed out the fallacies and flaws in Craig’s arguments – especially during the 12 minute rebuttal periods Jim
Craig is unethical and disingenuous. I suspect that most of the good debating skill present in craig that some of you are howling about is how cleverly sleazy he is. There is nothing to be proud of. Craig is a downright liar, and even when he is presented with clear rebuttals to his points he just keeps uttering them with the same level of banality. Craig’s points couldn’t hold up in a court of law if God came down to the courthouse himself. To address the points made of the atheist losing their debates; mostly,i think, the atheists don’t care(Though maybe they should). The reason these atheists take the time on Craig seems to me to be more of an ethical one. That is, I believe the atheists want to dispel myths and lies presented to the public by evangelicals. There is a perception that because of craig’s so called “wins” his position is taken seriously by most people when it isn’t. This stuff is plain bad for our kids.
Also, how should an atheist effectively debunk Craig’s vacuous arguments? Well when Craig formulates his argument upon a false/tenuous, unprovable premise, i.e., God; the best way to tear it down is by providing evidence to show why God is the least likely answer. So no, the atheists don’t have as much rhetorical flair(debatable) as Craig, but their best arguments against craig are refuting his points with simple facts. Jon
I have read the transcript of craig vs. jesseph and just by reading the words, there are no reason to call out craig as the winner. Moreover, I have seen the craig-slezak debate two times now, and I think it’s clear that Craig wins solely on rhetoric because Slezak really has the better arguments, but he doesn’t stay as calm an confident as Craig. Craig looks like a winner, he has an enormous amount of charisma and always give the impression of success. That is why he wins rooney
I think your assessements of many of these debates is bogus. just like almost all Christians you seem to be more impressed by rethoric and outrights lies than honesty and arguments. This is especially evident in your declaring Craig the winner of his debate with Stenger. it’s a shame AgeOfReasonXXI
If you’re looking for a man who can take part in a debate without losing his cool or breaking a sweat, then Craig is your man. But if you’re looking for an honest person who will present logical arguments to back his claims, then look somewhere else. I’ve seen several of his debates too much and in my opinion Craig is the most dishonest person on the face of the planet. pen
William Lane Craig is a sophist whose philosophy is based on fallacious arguments. His performance on debates is aggressive, and he is well-organized. Having been a championship debater myself, I see that he has mastered the techniques of debate. Unfortunately, these skills don’t rescue his arguments, which are insipid and bankrupt. Essentially, this man is a huckster. In my opinion, he has lost every debate I’ve seen, because his arguments are so baseless. bramdakota
The arguments presented by WLC are so “bad and fallacious” that in the last 20 years or so, no atheists have sucefully answered to them.
The worst part is that WLC always use the same arguments.
If his arguments were “bad and fallacious”, atheists would have refuted them in 5 seconds.
That is the truth!!! Márcio
Luke, thanks a lot for these links! Leo
Haha, grounds for belief such as “personal relationships with God, ressurection of Jesus, etc.” Atheists don’t waste their time with such rebuttal, yet this is WLC’s main “evidence.” Haha, he provides no evidence at all, ever. The fact that you believers buy into these things is why you think that he won any of his debates. This is why Dawkins won’t debate him…it’s a waste of time. WLC is a windbag and debating with him is like arguing with a child. He doesn’t use reason, he builds arguments on flawed logic and he’s either manipulative or doesn’t understand why his “logic” is flawed. He’s painful to listen to because his content is just horrible. Haha…you say he won all of his debates??? Hahahahaha. Marc
I have to disagree because I’ve watched a bit William Lane Craig’s debates and I have to say that his debates fall short of connecting logical leaps. It’s like he plays tap dancing with logic and leaps from one assumption to the next. I find this absolutely mind numbing and annoying. Especially when it comes to the debate with him and Bart D. Ehrman. His proof of the resurrection is laughable. It makes no sense and has a lovely circular effect in logic. PI find William Lane Craig’s arguments more like white noise, the guy just plays linguistic gymnastics while proving nothing. Paul
you know what’s even more amazing? people like manicstreetpreacher and oarobin who say with a straight face that craig’s opponents won! how anyone can look at the debate transcripts objectively and conclude that avalos beat craig is beyond me!
some people just don’t *want* to believe. kaka
Thanks for putting up this great summary. But I’m not sure that Craig actually “wins” any of his debates in a meaningful sense. It is of course perfectly possible for skilled debaters to successfully argue even a position they do not personally believe in but one assigned to their side, and to be so good that they are declared the winner by most observers. But winning an audience and winning an argument are two different things. When it comes to recorded debates which can be replayed, one can review the statements made, and so far I haven’t come across any of Craig’s aha-I-gotcha points which can’t be shot down, and easily so. He does not have modern knowledge nor logic on his side, and I suppose one must accord him some respect for putting up a good fight from such a disadvantaged position.
Unless I’ve missed it, you haven’t listed the debate Craig has had with the supremely articulate Christopher Hitchens, against whose mesmerizing apprehension and responding skills he can find no opening. J. A. Kraulis
Kraulis,
This post was written before the Hitchens debate. Here is my review of that debate. lukeprog
@kaka
If you read my comment properly, you will see that I award Craig’s debates against Shook, Stenger, Tabash and Ehrman to the opponent.
The Avalos debate was more or less a draw. Both participants scored as many hits as they took. But since I loathe Craig so much, especially his distraction technique of revisiting one of Avalos’ previous debates, which probably most of the audience had never seen for themselves, and putting his own spin on it, I gave extra credit to Avalos for not letting himself be put off.
MSP manicstreetpreacher
Bradley fucked Craig jojo jacob
Dr. Craig puts arrgant atheists in their place.
There are MANY good reasons to be an atheist, i totally respect that.
There are also GOOD reasons to believe in a God. Atheists should repslect that, and not be so arrogant.
i see only respectfull people here, i love it !!!
http://www.Reasonablefaith.com is craigs official website, you can ask him direct questions.
Im Christian, an on this site ^ imgoing to be suggesting to him more arguments i havent heard him use!
God Bless ! Dominic
Bradley, Kagan, and Stenger definitely won against Craig. David Hume
@manicstreetpreacher:
“But since I loathe Craig so much…”
i suggest that you and many non-christians feel this way and this makes you unable to OBJECTIVELY perceive and assess the result of these debates.
you are all so biased and cannot give credit where credit is due. you all know what i’m talking about :)
for an example, read J. A. Kraulis’s post – my mind just boggles at what he claims. so craig doesn’t have ‘modern knowledge’ or ‘logic’ on his side? did we listen to the same debate? kaka
kaka, thanks for reading my post. You wrote: for an example, read J. A. Kraulis’s post – my mind just boggles at what he claims. so craig doesn’t have ‘modern knowledge’ or ‘logic’ on his side? did we listen to the same debate?
I should clarify, if it is needed, that I did not thereby impugn Craig’s knowledge or his skills with logic, but rather I said that in both categories, he is working from a position of considerable disadvantage. (Modern science does NOT support Craig’s biblical perspective.) So I was indeed giving him “credit where credit is due”.
As far as his debate with Hitchens is concerned, I stand partially corrected. I have watched or listened to a lot of Hitchens debates with Christian and Jewish theologians and in almost every case, it was no contest. So when I wrote my comment, I had not revisited his debate with Craig and was going with my overall memory of his debates in general. Craig’s debate with Hitchens is not listed in the above, note. (I was later referred to the discussion of it elsewhere on this site.)
That said, it is quite irrelevant to me who “wins” a particular debate. As I suggested, a skilled debater could argue that the earth is flat and win the debate against a clumsy opponent. That doesn’t make the earth flat.
The sole value in listening to any of these debates is to take the points away for further analysis. When I do so, I find nothing convincing in Craig’s arguments. He plays a shell game with logic and modern science. For example, he argues that, according to (his) simple logic, the universe MUST have had a beginning. That our universe had a beginning 13+ billion years ago is the accepted view of modern cosmology, as he is quick to add, but that does not necessarily follow from “logic” at all. (And never mind the possibility that our universe may be a mere bubble in some larger universe.) Two of the greatest thinkers of the last century in this regard, Einstein and Hoyle, had no problem with the logic of a universe that had no beginning. They both believed that our universe had always existed. If Einstein and Hoyle (among others) did not think that pure logic dictated that the universe must have a beginning, I would suggest that Craig’s little lesson from Philosophy 101 is wanting.
BTW, regarding Einstein, I don’t know that debating was anything he was particularly practiced in, and so I think one could readily imagine that a professional like Craig might “win” in a debate against Einstein. And what would that prove? Nothing.
Finally, regarding your reference to objectivity, be careful, because the pot vs kettle analogy likely applies. I used to be religious. I was confirmed in the Lutheran church. I used to believe in the Christian God. I can even recall an instance where a fervent prayer of mine was most dramatically answered (it seemed). But now you could classify me as an atheist (although as many have pointed out, it should really be somewhat of an unnecessary label, sort of like nonsantaclausian). Because of this background, I listen to and understand both sides of the arguments carefully. If you told me that you were once a thinking non-believer, but have now come to religious faith, I might give more credence to your perception that some of us are “unable to OBJECTIVELY perceive and assess the result of these debates” and that we “are all so biased”.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. Craig could win every one of a hundred debates, and it wouldn’t make it one bit more likely that Jesus rose from the dead. Believe it if you wish (to quote Hitchens). J.A. Kraulis
@kaka
I agree with you that debates are subjective affairs. Very often both sides claim victory and ultimately it comes down to personality and whether you agree with the stance of one of the participants before a word is spoken.
But my loathing of Craig doesn’t just depend on his smug demeanour and bullying tactics; the Avalos debate a prime example. It is his continued reliance on bogus and flawed “arguments” that have been refuted ad nauseum and are not even the reason why he believes in the first place. Craig believes because he gets a warm fuzzy feeling when he thinks of Jesus on the cross and manipulates evidence and authorities to support that presupposed conclusion.
Having said that, I know when Craig has won a debate (Atkins, Hitchens, Zindler) and when he has lost (Stenger, Ehrman, Kagan).
@Luke
What did you think of Dawkins publically refusing to share a platform with Craig last year on the grounds that he does not take on “professional debaters”? manicstreetpreacher
manicstreetpreacher,
If that’s what Dawkins said, that sounds like he knows he would lose. A wise move by Dawkins. lukeprog
Luke
Yes, I admit in my post on the matter that Craig would probably whip Dawkins’ ass in a live debate, but that is not because he is right. It is because he is a clever performer who could make Holocaust denial sound convincing if he wanted too.
Craig’s main ploy is to make his opponent look silly. He doesn’t debate opponents, but carries out hit jobs on them. Obviously Harris and Hitchens come out with a fair few dry one-liners (Deepak Chopra had it coming in the ABC Nightline Face Off!) but Craig takes patronising ridicule to a whole new level. That does not advance positive rational discourse one jot.
Dawkins refuses to share a platform with creationists because they engage in dirty tricks like dropping in too many points of misinformation than can be answered and then accusing their opponent of not refuting their arguments (any of this sound familiar?) and also that a debate would give the creationists the oxygen of publicity and credibility by being seen alongside a proper scientist.
I dare say Dawkins had similar thoughts in mind by turning down a stand-off with Craig.
MSP manicstreetpreacher
lukeprog,
What Dawkins actually said was that he doesn’t debate creationists or professional debaters. Forget the second. The first gives a more than sufficient reason to understand that a debate between the two would be ludicrous idea. I find it odd that so many don’t realize this.
For Dawkins to accept Craig’s challenge would be analogous to one of the world’s foremost experts on plate tectonics agreeing to debate someone sympathetic to the idea that the continents have always been in the same respective positions on the surface of the earth. Such a debate would be nothing more than a farce; too much is known in far too great detail for the latter notion to respectably share the same stage with some distinguished geologist. Same for Craig vs Dawkins.
Craig has responded to Dawkins with the claim that he doesn’t want to debate evolution with him, he wants to debate the existence of God. He has often demonstrated similar contempt for the education and intelligence of his listeners. Where does he expect us to imagine that the bulk of Dawkins’ case would come from, if not from Dawkins’ extensive knowledge of and research in evolutionary biology?
You are quite right, Dawkins knows he would lose, because he can’t possibly win. No matter how effective he may be, Craig would still come out ahead of where he was before the debate merely by virtue of being seen to be on the same intellectual level as Dawkins with respect to thinking about the origin of complexity in living systems. And he is not. Not even remotely.
I would be disappointed if Dawkins ever changed his mind. J.A. Kraulis
Further to the above, to appreciate why Dawkins wouldn’t and shouldn’t debate Craig, consider the following direct quote from Craig’s prepared introduction in his debate with Francisco Ayala: “Some, like Richard Dawkins, reject intelligent design out of antimetaphysical or antireligious motives.” Thus he slanderously impugns the scientific integrity of Dawkins’ research, writings and indeed career. One could as readily suggest that Steven Weinberg’s contributions to particle physics are tainted by his atheism. It is crass and offensive.
Why should any distinguished scientist want to debate someone willing to sling such ridiculous insinuations? Anyone who has read Dawkins to any degree can easily recognize that his religious views come out of his study of evolutionary biology, not the other way around.
Or should we be surprised? The religious method is to take an interpretation of the world and then find every imagined bit of “evidence” or logical construct to fit – the exact opposite of the scientific method. This is what Craig does, so maybe it’s natural for him to assume that’s how a scientist should think. J.A. Kraulis
There is one person who will beat Big Bad Bill in a debate if they ever meet, and that person is…
Wait for it…..
Jeffery Jay Lowder.
Luke why isn’t he on your “people I’d like to see debate Craig” list?
He is the great white hope.
To see why I think this, please YouTube this man. He is a masterful experienced LD naturalist debater.
(P.S. not that I think debate makes one iota of difference if you are a genuine truth seeker, but it is entertaining to watch a good debate, for the same reasons it is good fun to watch a good boxing match or MMA fight.) mojo.rhythm
Mojo,
You are right about entertainment being the main aspect of these debates, and for this reason, possibly the best person that could and should debate Craig is one Pat Condell. Craig would be knocked out the minute he stood up, if one can expect Condell’s opening barrage to be in his usual style.
A sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE
I would bet money that Craig would never accept such a challenge, probably making some excuse about not debating professional comedians, if indeed Condell ever has debated anyone or would be inclined to do so. But wouldn’t we love to see it? J.A. Kraulis
Mojo, I searched for Lowder on YouTube and it brought home how ultimately fruitless these debates are except for their entertainment value, and perhaps for some points to take home for further analysis and reflection. Here’s 9 seconds of Lowder “caught telling a bold-faced lie!” (Why only one exclamation mark, I wonder.) We don’t even hear the complete sentence – for all I can tell he is reading a quote from someone else:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIjY0L0LLgc
This is how religious people often treat these debates. They find a few seconds of something taken completely out of context and they post it with great flourish on YouTube, as if it refutes everything the quoted person has ever said or written. It’s almost always the religious side that does this. And then some of them come on forums like this and accuse the rest of us of bias and closed-mindedness.
I’ve listened to a lot of interesting ideas from some very bright minds, scientists who think there may well be something beyond the material. They are in the minority in science, but one cannot dismiss their perspective. Many interviews with quite a few of them, along with interviews with hard-core atheists and with religious leaders and theologians, can be found at this extremely worthwhile site:
http://www.closertotruth.com/participants
( BTW, interviews with Craig himself are there: http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/William-Lane-Craig/24 )
What strikes me is how the ideas of the scientists interviewed, including the “spiritual” ones (for my lack of a more articulate term) are all fresh and mind-boggling. Our universe (itself possibly one of many), it is now thought, could be a “million billion trillion” times bigger than the hundred-billion-galaxy Cosmos that Carl Sagan described to us, which in turn was vastly greater than the single-galaxy universe as it was understood when Einstein published his Theories of Relativity. Science today is like Dubai. Construction is going on everywhere at a dizzying pace, much of it on recently laid new foundations. Meanwhile religion is only renovating and adding on a few floors to the same old teetering small structure.
In all the interviews Kuhn does of theologians and believers like Craig, I don’t think I’ve listened to one that in the essence of its ideas would have been any different had it been conducted centuries ago.
What I find absolutely bizarre is that none of Craig’s opponents ever seem to challenge the real basis of any of his assertions. Craig argues that the universe must have had a beginning and that therefore that beginning must be God. Why one god? Why not two (male-female, yin-yang, good-bad, past-future)? Why not four, one for each of the four fundamental interactions (forces)? Why not a million billion gods? After all, no city was built by one architect. Since we know nothing about the mechanism by which “God” made everything, one assumed model is as logical as another. And Craig’s definition of God is not a matter of semantics, note (i.e, the view that two, or a million “gods” are really all just different manifestations of the same One). The God he argues for is unambiguously the God of the Bible, which in turn is clearly a work of fiction.
I have yet to hear any of his debaters press him on that irrefutable problem. Without the Bible, what is he arguing for? Without the God of the Old Testament, who exactly WAS Jesus’s father? If the stories of Adam’s rib, Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, etc, etc are not true, how can it possibly be logical to assert that the Resurrection really happened?
It is not debate, it is theatre of the absurd when Craig uses the latest theories in cosmology to in effect defend the claim that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth”, and then blithely ignores everything else that immediately follows Genesis 1:1. Science utterly refutes that there could be even a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis that matches reality. 1:2 and 1:3 clearly states that there was water before there was light, for example, and it gets just more unreal from there on. Craig seems unjustifiably smug over the fact that the Bible (apparently, as far as we know now) got the answer right on one true/false question (the world either had a begin or it has always existed).
But his opponents let him get away with this. It’s as if someone was arguing that Harry Potter is indeed a real person with all these powers of magic, but we could regard the existence of Hogwarts as a mere metaphor, not a real place. And, oh, by the way, you’ll notice that in the Potter stories, people read newspapers that display moving pictures, not just printed photographs, and now technology has developed flexible paper-thin video screens than can do exactly that, further proof that belief in the real Harry Potter is supported by modern science.
Craig’s opponents are basically in the position of having to show that someone like Harry Potter doesn’t exist. We may KNOW that he is a fictional character, but imagine that you have to prepare yourself for a debate in which you have to show that to be case. Try to imagine it. I think you would immediately realize that it’s not going to be an easy task, and that indeed you may well badly lose the debate to someone very familiar with the Potter books. Every single argument that you can think of would have a counter argument, including any assertion that the author herself has stated the book series is fiction, and not a real expose. (There could be any of a number of plausible reasons she would want to so disinform us.) And even if it is conceded that the Potter books are indeed fiction, how can you prove they aren’t merely the fictionalized version of another, real magician in a magician’s parallel world?
You could build a whole industry around debating the actual existence of Harry Potter.
For a similar reason, I don’t think the traveling Craig show means much except that, as you say, the debates are rather entertaining. And no doubt very profitable for William Lane Craig. J.A. Kraulis