Dissecting William Lane Craig
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2013, 02:06 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 02:16 AM by Buddy Christ.)
Dissecting William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig makes his living debating against the powerhouses of atheism. He doesn't accomplish such a feat by providing equally powerful arguments and baffling the atheist community, so that he is continually asked back to speak again. He does this by using the same techniques in every debate. So let's dissect.

He starts his arguments and his first technique at about 15:00. He starts with a troll classic comment. "What's the proof that atheism is correct?" Then on to the Cosmological Argument.
16:00 Misrepresenting "all atheists" with an incorrect statement, that we believe that the universe was uncaused.
18:40 Misrepresenting atheist beliefs again. "The atheist MUST believe that the universe came from nothing."
20:00 Teleological Argument / Fine Tuning and all the grandiose, inaccurate sayings that go with it. "If such and such was changed by 1 to the billionth power...!"
22:15 Transitions into "Can't be caused by chance" and probability.
23:00 Tries to disprove the theory of a multiverse... even though no credible scientist actually proposes this idea.
24:50 Concludes that since a multiverse doesn't make sense, it's obvious that an intelligent designer is the answer.
25:15 Argument for objective morality.
27:00 "Deep down we all know" that there's a moral giver. God exists.
27:40 "Historians have come to conclusions" about Jesus.
28:40 The resurrection of Jesus was clearly true.
29:23 Even nonbelievers and enemies witnessed a resurrected Jesus.
30:00 Jesus must have resurrected because Christianity exists.
31:00 You can know that God exists just by experiencing him.
32:41 Frames what Hitchens must do to win. You have to refute all my arguments and then build your own arguments. Though the second part of that assertion is false, since all an atheist must do is refute arguments to continue not believing in something.

All this flawed, incorrect, recycled old crap was rattled off at machine gun speed in the span of 16 minutes. After which, he makes the claim that Hitch MUST debunk everything he's just said. Which brings us to our first technique.

Technique #1: Throw out so many logical fallacies and blatantly wrong statements that your opponent can't possibly refute all of them, let alone make his own statements. It's like spilling cement blocks in your opponent's path to the podium so that by the time he can start speaking, his time is already up.

After everyone wakes up, Hitchens goes on to address the arguments he deemed worth discussing.

WLC goes back on at 54:06 and does what he ALWAYS does, which is the cause of this thread. He restates the one or two points he made at the beginning, then claims that his opponent never refuted them so they must be true. Leading me to believe that WLC is ShockofGod in disguise. No counter-arguments, just misconstruing and misunderstanding everything that was just presented to him.

Technique #2: State one or two concepts at the beginning of the debate, and then spend the rest of the debate claiming that the opponent still hasn't answered your challenge.

1:00:10 "Deism is a type of theism."

1:01:40 "If the premise is true, you can't deny the conclusion on pain of irrationality." So if I find grey hair next to the scene of the crime, and we know that Big Foot is covered in grey hair, it logically follows that Big Foot is a criminal.

1:02:11 Technique #2. "Notice that so-and-so didn't address some random point I made, therefore it must be true."

1:04:38 And again. "So it seems to be that the fine tuning argument is also unrefuted!"

1:05:15 Annnnnd again. "There was no response to the resurrection of Jesus!"

1:06:05 He closes with a facepalmer. "I think all of these arguments stand intact despite his reputation. We've seen no argument FOR atheism, so clearly the weight of the scale falls on the side of Christian theism tonight."

Here's the rest of WLC's techniques.

Technique #3: Speak in such a superfluous, pompous tone that you fill up most of your allotted time by referencing other people by their full name, using an abundance of quotes, and elongating your points by being overly wordy and garrulous. Similar to speaking how I just did rather than simply call him verbose.

Technique #4: Go off on lengthy tangents on topics unrelated to the debate.

Technique #5: Use the opponents evidence and twist it as your own evidence. "Scientists now have pretty strong evidence that the universe had a beginning."

Technique #6: Use scripture as absolute truth.

At 1:19:00 WLC gets to ask Hitch direct questions and then reversed, to which WLC dances around his beliefs ("well I believe that Jesus performed exorcisms, but I don't necessarily believe in demons" ....what?).

At 1:32:30 they give their conclusions. I like how WLC opens his by reading straight from his notes, "I think it's evident that we have not heard any good beliefs for atheism." He had that written down. He was going to conclude with that regardless of what he heard. We come to our final technique.

Technique #7: Don't actually participate in a debate, where you are interested in the opinion of the opposition. Rather, give a predetermined monologue.

WLC ends with "he didn't respond to this or this..."

Now that we have the techniques, we can better sum up his debates. Onward!

WLC starts off like his does all his debates, by listing every apologist argument ever. AKA, good ol' #1.

10:15 He lays out the basis for #2 - framing his statements so that later he can claim that they were never addressed.

11:30 Already into #3. Peppering his speech with other people's quotes.

13:00 Pulling out #6

From 12:00 to 14:00 I'm noticing another technique that he uses in all his debates.

Technique #8: Pick a specific phrase and repeat it constantly. It makes it sound official. "We have a sound foundation for objective morals and duties. Theism provides us with a platform for a sound foundation for objective morals and duties. Mr. Harris did not address the issue of having a sound foundation for objective morals and duties."

He continues to give basically the exact same speech from the Hitchens "debate."

19:00 He brings back the pompous part of #3, mocking Sam Harris and Dawkins with his "verge of laughter" dismissal of atheism. Then he quotes some more, and repeats the same thing he's been saying for 20 minutes. I'm surprised he isn't constantly looking at his watch as he runs out of ways to rephrase his 3 talking points.

23:55 He equates a serial rapist to Lady Gaga (the rapist is simply acting unfashionably) under atheist morality.

He uses #8 throughout. If I have to hear "objective moral duties" one more time...

46:35 He just goes all out. #2 and #8. So many "objective moral duties" and "he didn't address this." Then he goes off on his tangent #4 about the meaning of "light" and how he's specifically approaching it ontologically.

#2 #2 #2 "The only response I detected from Dr. Harris... We've not heard any objections for objective moral values and duties... I was disappointed to hear no defense on my 2nd contention... I gave what I considered a knock down argument... None of these have been responded to... First I argued that blah blah objective moral values and duties..."

I'm tired of listening to retards, so let's fast forward to my next video.

A behind the scenes glimpse into what WLC deems important in debates.

Oh God no. He continues with his love of the term "objective moral values and duties," while at the same time making sure to awkwardly call his interviewer "Kevin" every single time he responds. Small minds aren't capable of reacting to points or approaching new topics, so they parrot off the same things. They cling to their shaky premise.

4:15 "Atheists often overlook and ignore the content of the debate because they're so excited about the competitiveness of the big arena."

5:15 "It's as if Sam went to a Jr High campus (campus?) and gathered up all the arguments against Christianity to use against you in a bully strategy."

7:17 "Harris didn't appear to be taking notes at all!" Perhaps it's because he's heard the same exact thing from theists every day of his life? There's nothing he was going to learn here.

I drifted off for about 10 minutes as WLC speaks in a slow cadence, never actually saying anything.

13:13 They mock Harris for his undergraduate degree in Philosophy and wonder if he understood the "complex" arguments of WLC.

16:54 "His book was given very negative reviews by professional philosophers."

20:46 "Dr. Harris went off on a litany of red herrings, shallow objections, and redneck theology. He was more interested in zingers and getting applause."

36:34 It appears the Sam Harris is also aware of WLC's techniques. He didn't play along, spending all debate trying to correct the nonsense spewing from WLC.

39:25 Again Harris is aware of the things I'm becoming aware of. WLC uses tricks to trap and sidetrack his opponent... Kevin.

40:40 WLC claims that atheists are not used to having their views challenged or being required to give answers to objections... atheists... not used to being challenged.

WLC starts up with his objective moral values again... Kevin, and I have to go lie down.

So my summary? Pretty much what I already knew. William Lane Craig is a moron, delivering the same 3 pages of argument like a robot parrot, claiming the whole time that his argument hasn't been rebutted. I can see him at a restaurant.

"Kevin, my salad doesn't have any Ranch on it."
"Yes it does, it's right there under the tomatoes."
"Well you haven't addressed my premise that my salad doesn't have any Ranch on it, Kevin"
"Um, yes I did. Do you want more dressing? I can go get you more. Do you want to speak to my manager? What is your point in all this?"
"Again, Kevin, my contention that my salad doesn't have any Ranch on it goes relatively undefended."

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
26-03-2013, 06:47 AM
RE: Dissecting William Lane Craig
Wow, BC... that demonstration of self-flagellation could be indicative of a deeper concern. You might wanna have that checked. Thumbsup

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
26-03-2013, 07:08 AM
RE: Dissecting William Lane Craig
WLC is the epitome of "the snake oil salesman". That's about it in a nutshell. His tone and demeanor on stage only influences the gullible who see that as "authority" and "someone who must have all the answers". But he really says nothing. He promotes "if" statements and presumes "therefores" as if these are all true, then claims victory if something isn't addressed.

I could get into a debate with WLC, . . . "loose the debate" [because I'm not much of a debater, especially in the arena he debates within], . . . yet still, WLC would not have actually "won" anything except "his performance". And there are too many [now] apologists who use that technique [above] and run with it, . . . thinking they have "won the debate". In their mind, they certainly did. But history will show the truth, . . . and those who KNOW what's going on are not influenced by the slippery ways of such apologists.

BC, . . . you definitely put a LOT of work into this. :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:13 AM
RE: Dissecting William Lane Craig
One of my favorites is his deceptive attempt at making his Bayesian equation "come out" to prove his point, in the Ehrman debate. In fact it does the opposite. It's when I saw he was a charlatan.
see # 39

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: Dissecting William Lane Craig
Hmmm, the thread title made me think WLC was dead...

Actually, I'm sort of glad he's not because he amuses me, although I do wish he would stop polluting the minds of his gullible audience.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Dissecting William Lane Craig
A dissection of WLC disingenuous techniques as precise and complete as I have seen. Terrific.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: