Comments on: How atheists should debate William Lane Craig, or any other Christian

By: Part of debating is having balls : The Uncredible Hallq

Part of debating is having balls : The Uncredible Hallq — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:24:03 +0000

[...] have helped losing because Craig had an unfair advantage, so I simply wrote a blog post on debating tactics explaining what’s wrong with this idea. Recently, though, my curiosity got the better of me [...]

By: Chris Hallquist

Chris Hallquist — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:32:14 +0000

I agree that Craig has philosophical skill and does his homework, but this doesn’t mean the things I’ve said aren’t also important. Could you imagine anyone being a good debater who wasted most of his allotted speaking time? I wrote this article in large part because too many of Craig’s opponents are good academics who waste their speaking time, and come off looking badly mainly for that reason.

Your comments on my arguments suggest you really don’t understand the dynamics of these debates. When presenting arguments in a debate, the point is to present things that are worth talking about in a concise manner, not present things that are impossible to respond to. You accept that your opponent may have plausible criticisms of your arguments, and be ready to deal with them in a rebuttal round. For example, in a rebutal round in a debate against you, I might say:

“The problem with Keith’s response to my arguments is that he assumes that, for evidence to be evidence against a thesis, it has to be logically incompatible with that thesis. But philosophers of science have long realized that we never get that kind of strict logical incompatibility. The fact that zoologists consistently fail to find unicorns in forrests is logically compatible with the existence of unicorns, because unicorns might have magical powers that make them very good at hiding from us. But the best way to make sense of our failure to find unicorns is that unicorns don’t exist. Similarly, the best way to make sense of the evidence I described in my opening statement is to conclude that there is no god.”

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:50:56 +0000

This was a nice, lengthy article here, Chris. However i think that some of the things that you said are flawed. I think you may have OVER ANALYZED Dr.Craig. First off, there really isn’t any secret to why WLC is so good at what he does. He is a well educated man with over 30 years in the philosophy and religion field. The reason why he is so good in his debates are he knows how to dissect his opponent. He researches the work of his opponent, making it easy to predict what his opponent will say. If you have a good idea of what your opponent will say, it will be easy to make preparations for any refutations that will be needed. Also as previously stated, he has a PH.D in philosophy, which is why he can point out every single flaw and fallacy that his opponent makes. He has debated many prominent people over the years, from the best, to the worse. He has heard practically every single argument against the existance of God, so there is nothing that his opponent can throw at him that he hasn’t already heard. To the ears of the audience, Craig makes a sound case for christian theism, and not only does he rebuts everything that his opponents says, he also points out WHY what his opponent said is flawed. He speaks with precision, and woos the audience. That is why he is good.

And also Chris, i see you have up there how you would answer Craig. Lets see how it all lines up.

My response to #1: The bible states that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord. And because of the scientific evidence that you mentioned, many people dont take the Genesis account to be a literal 24 hour account. As long as that is even POSSIBLE, there is no logical inconsistency with the Genesis account and science.

My response to #2: Just because we know that rainbows are a “natural phenomenon”, that doesn’t mean that the rainbow as recorded in Genesis during the flood account wasn’t a “supernatural account”. Or God could have simply caused the rainbow to occur by a “natural” means. For example, if your birthday was today and the Lord wanted you to have a birthday cake, he could give you a cake by simply saying “Let there be a birthday cake”, and there you have a birthday cake (supernatural), or, God could get all the ingredients necesarry to simply bake the cake himself (natural). God is a supernatural being with unlimited resources.

My response to #3: We know that new languages develope naturally, but that doesn’t conclude that the ORIGIN of different languages wasn’t under the foundation of divine revelation. We know that new languages CAN develope naturally, but the only reason why there are different languages in the FIRST PLACE can be argued by the Tower of Babel account. The Tower of Babel account is giving us the story behind different languages, and after that account people had no choice but to adjust to the way things were, that is why they started to learn the new languages naturally.

My response to #4: How do you know that miracles dont occur? The problem with your argument is, that you assume that just because the so called miracles that have been investigated have been bogus, that miracles dont occur. Unless you examine all proposed miracle claims you cant logically say that miracles are bogus. Also, miracles on its own might not be enough to make people believe. Jesus performed many miracles, and he was still betrayed and crucified. God himself was also the root of many miracles throughout the OT, yet the Israelites still lost faith.

My response to #5: There is no way for a political scientist or historian to determine whether or not a historical event was the will of God or not. It is not something that can be put in a test tube and analyzed. That is one of those things that can only be accepted by faith.

My response to #6: This is another one of those things that can only be accepted by faith. If you dont believe in God or prayer, regardless of what the outcome of the prayer might be, you still wont believe in that God had his hand in it. If im short on my rent $200, and i told you that i prayed to God that someone would help me out, and a hour later i went on my back porch and the breeze of the day allowed $200 dollars to hit me in the face, since you dont believe in God, you wont accept that as God answering my prayer. You would accept it as a mere coincidence. But due to my belief in God, i would accept it as my prayer being answered.

So Chris, if i was able to answer your critique, im sure WLC wouldnt have the least bit of a problem doing the same. Take care man.

By: BibleGod is evil = no God of any kind? : The Uncredible Hallq

BibleGod is evil = no God of any kind? : The Uncredible Hallq — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:08:16 +0000

[...] generic versions of the moral argument: for examples of where I’ve done this: I did this in my post on debating William Lane Craig, as well as in the Evaluating Christianity discussion of the moral [...]

By: Advice for Debating William Lane Craig, part 3 « Evaluating Christianity

Advice for Debating William Lane Craig, part 3 « Evaluating Christianity — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:31:32 +0000

[...] advice for debating William Lane Craig (Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here); this time it’s Christopher Hallquist, whose stuff I also typically [...]