Watch the attached video and see if atheist Luke Muehlhauser is correct, who suggested that William Lane Craig is perhaps the best debater in the world. The Global Debate Blog article titled, "Christian Debater Beats all Atheist Opponents" explains as follows:
"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."
Muehlhauser goes on:
"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."
A good example of William Lane Craig's debate skill and the effectiveness of his basic arguments in favor of God's existence is shown in the following live debate video of Craig debating Christopher Hitchens. The April 4, 2009 Debate between Craig vs. Hitchens was filmed live at Biola University and is available at YouTube. Christopher Hitchens has been considered one of the greatest atheist debaters of our time. He passed away on December 15, 2011, mainly due to cancer developed from his smoking habit. Though high school debate rankings are probably more popular than other rankings, and when ranking top debaters the subject of God's existence is often considered too narrow a subject matter, many agree that the debate of God's existence is perhaps one of the most important debate topics to argue, and atheists fear debating Craig more than any other challenger. Richard Dawkins has offered at least seven excuses for declining to debate William Craig. And it is worth watching the following entire two-hour debate between Craig and Hitchens in order to understand some of the main issues being argued philosophically today both for and against the existence of God.
If you notice in the debate video, Craig presents five logical arguments with premises and conclusions and in response, Hitchens does not attempt to refute even one of Craig's arguments. Then Htichens' main responding argument in support of atheism is simply to offer that evolution points towards an atheistic worldview. However, Craig refutes this claim with various points.
Craig is not arguing that personal experiences and simple faith in God are invalid, rather, that these experiences are basically proper experiences that are all the more confirmed as through logical reasoning. Quotes from Craig's books highlight the objective basis of morality understood in God: “The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist. As Dostoyevsky said, “All things are permitted.” ― William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision
One of the greatest lies of our time that is promoted in secular-humanistic academia and in public schools is the notion that Theism and Christianity are illogical, or that Atheism is more logical than Theism. The fact is, Christianity offers not only a more compelling explanation of the origin of the universe but also a more compelling and logical explanation of ethics and morality as well. Present society is in a state of moral and ethical confusion because morals and laws are increasingly based on mere subjective feelings and not on any objective foundation or on logical explanations. Not only is this an important subject for individuals to understand, but the Founding Fathers of the US understood that the Republic of the United States could not uphold the freedoms of the constitution if there was not a valid and logical basis of ethics as a foundation.
John Adams insisted that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” In other words, a free society falls apart if there is no moral foundation. This is why it makes sense to try to help people to understand that there is a logical basis of sound ethics. Adams's sentiments were echoed by David French of the National Review after the gunman James Hodgkinson opened fire on a U.S. politician and there were demands to ban firearms and censor free speech: "Absent virtue, liberty can lead to disorder. In the face of that disorder, however, we shouldn’t restrict liberty; we should rebuild virtue." Unfortunately, much of what is taught academically on religion leaves students with the impression that all religion is "absurd," as shown here. And this helps to explain the rapid increase of atheism belief statistics in the U.S. In an age of "truthiness," where MSM news and talk show pundits are revered as the venerable authorities, the greatness and logic of the U.S. foundation in theism is available to understand for those willing to look into it.
And the importance of philosophical knowledge and the ability to debate are helpful in terms of evangelism as well, according to Craig: "Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women." Craig's website, ReasonableFaith, offers a regular Q and A on important questions. Debate and dialogue help us to "test all things" - as we are admonished to in scripture (I Thess 5.21). Be wary of any teacher that refuses to answer questions and refuses to dialogue. The original source of Luke Mulhauser's article appears to be from Common Sense Atheism.
Tags: The best debater in the world, greatest debater in the world, why is a moral foundation important, reason and logic in debate, video debate shows Christianity is more logical than atheism, top debaters in the world, list of top debaters, is top debater Muslim, Christian, Jewish or atheist? William Lane Craig quotes on God, morality and ethics
A live debate is a performance, and good debaters can argue either side (it's a common exercise I believe). WLC's arguments have been addressed successfully in the appropriate literature.
"A live debate is a performance, and good debaters can argue either side (it's a common exercise I believe)."
I would offer that live debate offers the main advantage of being able to truly question a person's argument to test if it is valid. For example, Richard Dawkins claims intellectual superiority over WLC based on academic credentials (a fallacy of argument from authority) while Dawkins refuses to debate Craig live, which woiuld reveal quite clearly what has already been demonstrated by Craig, that Dawkins' argument in The God Delusion is terrible and illogical.
You may offer that, but you would be wrong - you're basically saying that thinking on your feet is superior to taking your time to research and consider things - that's ridiculous!
Dawkin's argument might not hold water, but he's not a philosopher, and his argument isn't intended (as far as I can tell) to be a rigorous one. The arguments Craig presents in his debates don't hold water either, due not just to them being illogical/incoherent, but due to time constraints in presenting the details.
Or are you arguing that the lengthy papers he has written concerning, for example, his Kalam are not as in depth as the short expositions he presents in debates?
"I would offer that live debate offers the main advantage of being able to truly question a person's argument to test if it is valid."
What allows a person to truly research and study another's argument - a timed live debate where you not only need to rebut the other's argument but (usually) present one of your own, or in writing, where you can take you time to detail the argument and it's problems?
If, as you say, live debate is the superior method, then why do we have text books and the like - why not just have someone present (live or recorded) the material?
"If, as you say, live debate is the superior method, then why do we have text books and the like - why not just have someone present (live or recorded) the material?"
Both reading and live interaction are important. It doesn't have to be live debate in the sense of standing next to each other, but an opportunity to ask direct questions and follow them up. This has been shown to be necessary since Socrates. Look up the Socratic Method and you'll better understand this.
"would offer that live debate offers the main advantage of being able to truly question a person's argument to test if it is valid."
Ok, lets test that. It'll require a bit of honesty on your part.
"Objective morals don't require a god" - take 10 minutes to show that this is false. Don't include sweeping statements like "Objective morals can only be grounded in a necessary, unchanging being" or something like that, instead prove each of your assertions. Write it down as you are doing this, and then post the result as a comment. I guarantee you you'll either not have shown the proposition false, have made statements which are in need of further proof, or (most likely) both.
This is a bit vague and incoherent. The main and most important question is whether there can be an objective BASIS of ethics for a secular atheist, not whether he can create some objective self-referencing system, which is possible.
If you read this post it might help you to better understand why there can be no objective basis of ethics without God:
Oh, you should also keep in mind that theistic philosophers don't accept DCT wholesale either - there's many other approaches to morality with a god, some of which don't have god as the ground of morality (Wes Morriston comes to mind)
"Oh, you should also keep in mind that theistic philosophers don't accept DCT wholesale either"
Well, truth isn't a matter of consensus. But this does not seem to be very obvious to you. And you don't seem to which to discuss matters of substance, like the fact that secular science cannot adequately address moral questions.
It's becoming apparent that our dialogue is not very fruitful. And I'm afraid I just don't have time for your approach of simply making complaints.
If you want to post one of your own blog posts somewhere outlining a valid argument for secular-atheist ethics, that would really be something. Then offer a link to that and I'll post it.
A live debate is a performance, and good debaters can argue either side (it's a common exercise I believe).
ReplyDeleteWLC's arguments have been addressed successfully in the appropriate literature.
"A live debate is a performance, and good debaters can argue either side (it's a common exercise I believe)."
DeleteI would offer that live debate offers the main advantage of being able to truly question a person's argument to test if it is valid. For example, Richard Dawkins claims intellectual superiority over WLC based on academic credentials (a fallacy of argument from authority) while Dawkins refuses to debate Craig live, which woiuld reveal quite clearly what has already been demonstrated by Craig, that Dawkins' argument in The God Delusion is terrible and illogical.
https://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/7-reasons-why-dawkins-excuses-for-not.html
You may offer that, but you would be wrong - you're basically saying that thinking on your feet is superior to taking your time to research and consider things - that's ridiculous!
DeleteDawkin's argument might not hold water, but he's not a philosopher, and his argument isn't intended (as far as I can tell) to be a rigorous one.
DeleteThe arguments Craig presents in his debates don't hold water either, due not just to them being illogical/incoherent, but due to time constraints in presenting the details.
Or are you arguing that the lengthy papers he has written concerning, for example, his Kalam are not as in depth as the short expositions he presents in debates?
"I would offer that live debate offers the main advantage of being able to truly question a person's argument to test if it is valid."
DeleteWhat allows a person to truly research and study another's argument - a timed live debate where you not only need to rebut the other's argument but (usually) present one of your own, or in writing, where you can take you time to detail the argument and it's problems?
If, as you say, live debate is the superior method, then why do we have text books and the like - why not just have someone present (live or recorded) the material?
"If, as you say, live debate is the superior method, then why do we have text books and the like - why not just have someone present (live or recorded) the material?"
DeleteBoth reading and live interaction are important. It doesn't have to be live debate in the sense of standing next to each other, but an opportunity to ask direct questions and follow them up. This has been shown to be necessary since Socrates. Look up the Socratic Method and you'll better understand this.
"would offer that live debate offers the main advantage of being able to truly question a person's argument to test if it is valid."
ReplyDeleteOk, lets test that. It'll require a bit of honesty on your part.
"Objective morals don't require a god" - take 10 minutes to show that this is false. Don't include sweeping statements like "Objective morals can only be grounded in a necessary, unchanging being" or something like that, instead prove each of your assertions. Write it down as you are doing this, and then post the result as a comment. I guarantee you you'll either not have shown the proposition false, have made statements which are in need of further proof, or (most likely) both.
You wrote this:
Delete"Objective morals don't require a god"
This is a bit vague and incoherent. The main and most important question is whether there can be an objective BASIS of ethics for a secular atheist, not whether he can create some objective self-referencing system, which is possible.
If you read this post it might help you to better understand why there can be no objective basis of ethics without God:
Why Science Still Cannot Answer Moral Questions
https://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-science-cannot-answer-moral.html
Oh, you should also keep in mind that theistic philosophers don't accept DCT wholesale either - there's many other approaches to morality with a god, some of which don't have god as the ground of morality (Wes Morriston comes to mind)
ReplyDelete"Oh, you should also keep in mind that theistic philosophers don't accept DCT wholesale either"
ReplyDeleteWell, truth isn't a matter of consensus. But this does not seem to be very obvious to you. And you don't seem to which to discuss matters of substance, like the fact that secular science cannot adequately address moral questions.
It's becoming apparent that our dialogue is not very fruitful. And I'm afraid I just don't have time for your approach of simply making complaints.
If you want to post one of your own blog posts somewhere outlining a valid argument for secular-atheist ethics, that would really be something. Then offer a link to that and I'll post it.