I haven’t seen much of Craig, but I see Christians put their bets behind him, many seem to see him as the sharpest debater they’ve got. I’ve seen some atheist bloggers look at him as the sharpest debater on the market too. So I was wondering: 1) in your humble opinion, what are the best debates which have been had with Craig and 2) in said debates, who won?
Craig Vs. Christopher Hitchens
While Craig sometimes appears to dominate these debates, it’s not because his arguments are very good (they’re terrible), but because he uses a variety of rhetorical skills and devices to make him seem more dominant than he really is. He picks friendly venues and stacks the terms of debates in his favor (his resurrection argument is particularly egeregious in this regard). He states things as facts that aren’t facts. He uses obfuscation and tries to bury opponents under flurries of names and “facts,” that may or may not have any relevance, etc. His opponents are not necessarily well prepared (Hitchens was not), which allows him to appear superficially more knowledgable. He is sometimes dishonest or deceptive, but his opponents aren’t always aware of when he’s doing that or able to call him on it (Bart Ehrman was a notable exception)
Most of his actual arguments are pretty routine. The Cosmological Argument. Fine Tuning. Argument from Morality and the like. Nothing startling or new. Nothing that shouldn’t be easy enough to demolish. He’s all technique and style. No real content or substance.
There are creationist performers who can do this too. It’s a dog and pony show. If Craig were to try to present his arguments in a forum like this one, where every line can be parsed and fact checked and responded to carefully, he would not fare well (I guarantee I would kick his ass), but in his debate performances, he is skilled at putting his opponents back on the heels with mountains of bullshit.
Craig is a creationist himself, by the way, which may be all that really needs to be said about him.
Whew!
Scared me there for a second! 
Q (Bill Craig)
Diogenes, you are indeed a wealth of in-depth knowledge on things religious, but since your own debate style often is the repeated and stubborn assertion of uncited facts and the near-absolute unwillingness to concede any point, I don’t agree that in this forum you would “kick his ass” unless you have some way to rein in your own debate posture and manage a more reasoned debate.
Hey!
Whoah!
This ain’t the same Craig that got caught in the airport bathroom suckin’ another guy’s dick, is it?:eek:
Q
You’re describing WLC pretty well. I gurantee you, I’d destroy him purely on substance. It’s easy to win when you’ve got the facts on your side.
That was Larry Craig.
Larry Craig? Wasn’t he the new James Bond?
This is neither GD nor the Pit, so I won’t comment on the accuracy of DtC’s knowledge regarding religious or historical matters. However, having followed both Diogenes the Cynic and William Lane Craig over many years, I have to agree with Bricker. There is no way that Diogenes would defeat Craig, much less “kick his ass.” The difference in their debating demeanors alone is palpable.
Heck, the mere fact that DtC says “It’s easy to win when you’ve got the facts on your side” is itself telling. Even if one were to grant that the truth is entirely on Dio’s side, the fact remains that no capable debater would declare that this guarantees a sure win. The manner in which the facts are presented, as well as the debater’s demeanor, can make all the difference.
I would stomp him into a grease spot. That’s not braggadocio, it’s a statement about his lack of substance.
I’ve watched both of you in action. You overestimate both your knowledge and your ability. You would not win. With all due respect – and there is no gentle way to say this – you wouldn’t even come close to winning.
I would destroy him…or rather, the facts would destroy him. It would be like debating a flat earther.
As any competent debater knows though, facts alone do not win a debate. In fact, I emphasized this earlier. Even if we were to grant that all the facts were on your side, this still would not mean that you would win.
Bricker offered you some sage advice. I think it would be in your best interest to heed it.
Craig is good - Luke goes into the details why. The thing about Craig is that he has an expansive amount of knowledge on the topic and atheists who go up against him don’t do their homework (according to Luke, and I agree). So, when presented with a problem or a rebuttal, Craig has an answer. It might not be a good answer, but often it’s an answer the atheist isn’t prepared for.
Also, Craig is good at the Gish Gallop and he puts forward a lot of ‘answers’ to rebuttals, some of which would contradict his positions on a number of things.
Here’s some good posts of Lukes:
- 500 + Debates (with notes, a lot with Craig):
2.Review of WLC debates
WLC is good because of his breadth of knowledge. I don’t think his arguments are good - but I readily admit that he would slaughter me in a debate.
For example, I think the Kalam is a poor argument and I think it relies on the A theory of time, which I think is particularly weak. A lot of philosophers agree and Craig even admits that the Kalam wouldn’t work if the A theory wasn’t true.
Even though the B theory is the dominant theory in philosophical circles (out of the two), almost no philosopher takes him to task on this. I THINK Quentin Smith does - but I haven’t read their debate yet.
I think the B theory is stronger, jives with modern science, and that it can be argued successfully against Craig.
Yet, if I did so, I have no doubt that Craig would make me look like Forrest Griffin to his Anderson Silva, because Craig is fluent in the discussion. He would, no doubt, trip me up with all the various angles/arguments against the B theory.
Which isn’t to say that his position is actually stronger - it’s just that he’s got objections on speed dial and has done his homework far better then I have.
Craig is like a good defense attorney who can out-lawyer the other side and snow juries even when the facts are against him, but when you really parse his arguments, there’s nothing there.
No, no no. That’s Daniel Craig. Larry Craig created Seinfeld.
No, that was Larry Sanders.
I’m not going to take a position as to whether or not Dio would beat WLC, but I will point out that, if I’m understanding correctly, we’re discussing two different formats here.
WLC may shine in live debates, but an online forum is a different thing. You have time to research and think about your responses. This would make it much easier to call WLC on bullshit facts and bad logic.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.