Thoughts on William Lane Craig?

I have recently been questionining many of the assumptions I have grown up with and always believed. In my search for the truth I have stumbled on this man named William L. Craig. Unlike many Christians, his arguements are (or at least to me seem) reasonable and sound. I was just wondering what this union thinks of him or his propositions. The following are some examples of his views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUWqXbdjvgU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-5PFRc2FIA&feature=related

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a_archive

He's an intelligent philosopher and a very good speaker and debater but much like Alvin Plantinga his conclusions reach further than his arguments. All and all though he brings up so many valid points that his videos are definitely worth watching, just be wary of what he concludes at the end of it all.

Also he's a champion of the Kalam cosmological argument but he always retreats to that old creationist chestnut "the big bang proposes that the universe originated from nothing" which annoys me.

Yeah I see what you mean. He is a good speaker and debator, but I am not sure whether I can really believe everything he says. I wanted more opinions because a lot of the things he says are out of my league.

What I was refferring to btw, was simply what I should or shouldn't believe. I've been raised as a Christian but I always have had doubt and recently more than ever I've seriously considered leaving Christianity. I think I am at a point where I can not say that I truly believe or disbelieve. I am trying to figure things out and its frustrating, so I while before I was mostly apathetic about these things, I am now making a more serious attempt to find the truth and determine where I stand. I have been leaning towards Atheism or Agnosticism but this guy is one of the few Christians who puts forward real arguements that I don't have all the answers to. 

 Anyway, I'm just going through a period of exploration. Perhaps nothing will come of it. Its just something I am going through right now. :P

Well it's great that you're exploring things and questioning what you've been brought up with. Like my sig suggests I think it's very important to do just that.

If you have any arguments from William Lane Craig that you can't quite wrap your head around feel free to post them here. There's bound to be someone who can give you a perspective that you might not have considered. Actually many of W L C's arguments have already come through here via danwallacefan (a theistic member of the union) and they've aroused a lot of good thought provoking discussion.

If there is any argument which is in favour of "god" in general and not christian god then you should ignore it. Why? Well because you have to first establish which religion is the right one which is an impossible task. Even if we establish god exists, where do we go then?

All the arguments in favour of god seem to be philosophical arguments from incredulity. If an argument is saying "if and how" and doesnt itself knows the answers and yet goes to give major conclusions then you should know that the source is biased and not to be bothered with...

@domatron23 Thanks for the response. I will. :)

@Gambler_3 Yeah that is one of the things I have been thinking too. We can argue the existence of "God" or a creator(s), but that doesn't necesarially mean that that God is the Christian god, or that it is even one God instead of many Gods. I think Craig touches upon this in subject in one of his Q&A, but I don't know exactly what he was trying to say. Ill post the link:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5933

@domatron23 Thanks for the response. I will. :)

@Gambler_3 Yeah that is one of the things I have been thinking too. We can argue the existence of "God" or a creator(s), but that doesn't necesarially mean that that God is the Christian god, or that it is even one God instead of many Gods. I think Craig touches upon this in subject in one of his Q&A, but I don't know exactly what he was trying to say. Ill post the link:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5933

Tauruslink

I think he's making the assumption that his "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a physical object, despite it being invisible (and it's spaghetti strands being of infinite length and balls being made of an entirely new sort of trans-dimensional meat, according to my own understanding). Its physical nature in his mind bears no comparison with God - the metaphysical ever-present designer.

It seems he is imposing his own limits on something designed as a thought experiement. I think he misses the point of the "parody", which isn't "to accept that there is a designer of the universe, but we can't know much if anything about its nature". My take on the FSM is the point is that the intelligent design argument is so woolly, that any invented deity could be substituted for the creator God. Its own designer, (Bobby Henderson) is at least a published agnostic.

These imagined physical limits to the FSM serve to suit Prof. Craig's own conclusion that popular culture is out of touch with Christian theology. He seems to think that people regard FSMism as a serious faith, which I'd question. I do agree with his conclusion though and welcome the generally ever-widening gap between religion and popular culture to be seen in most areas of the world.

Prof. Craig does say "one might as well be speaking a foreign language" and calls people using the FSM argument and even other Christians "ignorant" for failing to verbalise "the hope within". Such attacks are surely a sign of a failure of understanding on his part.

Does he have anything to say about Buddhism, Hinduism, or other actual competing faiths with 0 to many Gods?

We can argue the existence of "God" or a creator(s), but that doesn't necesarially mean that that God is the Christian god, or that it is even one God instead of many Gods. Tauruslink

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]We can argue the existence of "God" or a creator(s), but that doesn't necesarially mean that that God is the Christian god, or that it is even one God instead of many Gods. ChiliDragon

I actually think that's what you need to start with. If you start out by trying to determine with religion is "right", then you've already made a decision to believe that one of the established religions in the world got it right. Now, I think one of them did, that's why I joined them, but I don't think that's a good starting point. If there is a god, then we can start to look various world religions that claim to follow him/her/it. If there is no god though... then why even bother comparing Islam and Catholicism? They're both equally wrong, just in different ways.

Do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Would you discount Buddhism (no God) or Seihkism (plenty of them), based on your singular etherial pre-determinism? Since most Chrisitans would admit that they couldn't start to conceive God's nature, how can someone choose their religion based on an abstract feeling that some God exists?

It is worth comparing different religions since it may give us insight into our own beliefs - whatever they are. For me, knowledge of a huge world of faith and belief outside of Christianity is a very strong reason for my own atheism.

It is worth comparing different religions since it may give us insight into our own beliefs - whatever they are.RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]It is worth comparing different religions since it may give us insight into our own beliefs - whatever they are.ChiliDragon

Isn't an abstract feeling that God(s) exist(s) (be it vague or strong) some sort of belief that they do? Is it possible for someone to honestly believe the Gods of the world's competing religions do all exist and its simply a case of choosing the right one for them?

(edited for spelling)

Isn't an abstract feeling that God(s) exist(s) (be it vague or strong) some sort of belief that they do? Is it possible for someone to honestly believe the Gods of the world's competing religions do all exist and its simply a case of choosing the right one for them?RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Isn't an abstract feeling that God(s) exist(s) (be it vague or strong) some sort of belief that they do? Is it possible for someone to honestly believe the Gods of the world's competing religions do all exist and its simply a case of choosing the right one for them?

ChiliDragon

Technically, yes, it is, but I still think it needs to start with, "is it even possible for gods to exist?". As for the gods of various religions, there are some who would say that it's all the same god, who simply has been perceived very differently through different times and by different cultures. Based on certain sources, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all follow the same deity... and all three will of course argue until they fall over dead that the other two have grossly misunderstood the nature of that deity and how he prefers to be worshiped. For most other religions, I'd say there is a good possibility that quote in your signature applies. To use Christianity as an example again, you'll often see references and statements about "false gods", who are either invented by their followers, or are in fact demons people think are gods and attempt to worship. As for my personal opinion, I am still trying to figure this part out. That's one of the reasons I joined this union, actually. :)

Possible, in what way for God to exist? You can't be talking in the realms of physical laws here, else contradictions start appearing.

Surprisingly high numbers of relgious adherents say their God is not interchangeable. See my attached BBC chart (from a certain source: "What the world thinks of God" poll) for more info:

Didn't polytheistic relgions have warring Gods (to account for arbitrary destruction and amoral nature)? If the nature of God(s) has been so grossly misunderstood for these thousands of years of human impact on the planet, what makes you think you've got God right now?

Why do you think my sig is not applicable to Christians? Interestingly, it seems that you're confident other deities are constructed by their followers, but your's isn't. Are you one of the "certain sources" that think the big 3 share the same God?

Interestingly, it seems that you're confident other deities are constructed by their followers, but your's isn't. Are you one of the "certain sources" that think the big 3 share the same God?RationalAtheist

Jesus says that the Jewish God is his father a few times in the later half of the BIble. Although I am no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere that Jesus is a prophet (though of course not The Prophet) and those who follow him are misguided and don't understand the true faith. There are other traditions and writings in both religions that repeat the above, but I'm not going to bother researching what wasn't a serious question to begin with. :P

ChiliDragon

I was fairly serious - I even produced a chart! There are many many difficulties reconciling those three Gods to be tha same one - hence the seperate religions. Certainly Christianity was created with a foreknowledge of Judaism and Islam was created with a foreknowledge of Christianity. Rather than conclude the religions use the same God, I say its more rational to think of each new religion as a re-invention of the previous one, to suit the aspirations of the cultural and social order.

Although I am no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere that Jesus is a prophet (though of course not The Prophet) and those who follow him are misguided and don't understand the true faith.ChiliDragon

To be precise, Islam believes that Jesus was in fact the messiah, but it believes that the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that came from the corruption of the Bible by Christians, and that Jesus never claimed to be God.  It basically holds that one should worship only God and that worshipping Jesus is idolatry.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Although I am no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere that Jesus is a prophet (though of course not The Prophet) and those who follow him are misguided and don't understand the true faith.GabuEx

To be precise, Islam believes that Jesus was in fact the messiah, but it believes that the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that came from the corruption of the Bible by Christians, and that Jesus never claimed to be God.  It basically holds that one should worship only God and that worshipping Jesus is idolatry.

Also for all of the hoopla about WLC and his reasonable arguments he still justifies himself in the manner of your average CWU member. Check out this video. He has said the same sort of thing a few times in the videos that I've watched of him.domatron23

That reminds me of Stephen Colbert's joke about one's "gut".

Also for all of the hoopla about WLC and his reasonable arguments he still justifies himself in the manner of your average CWU member. Check out thisvideo. He has said the same sort of thing a few times in the videos that I've watched of him.domatron23

Thanks for that Dom. He says:

1) His primary source is the "holy spirit" within. If any guidance evidence comes along to contradict with his feeling, he will disregard it, until he finds evidence that does fit with his feeling.

2) The truth of the holy spirit is independent of the "shifting sands of evidence".

3) Intellectual doubts should never be considered neutral as they were created by the devil. Christians should learn to accept that their doubts will never be resolved. Learn instead to depend on the Christian support systems.

4) Take a doubt "issue" and pursue it into the ground, then it will free you. But we will "never empty the question bag completely" so we should be prepared to live with them and accept them.

I just wanted to make sure I didn't understand him properly. Those top tips tend to clash with each other (and themselves). if I was in some sort of faith crisis, I'd be left in a bigger mess after that advice.

I have recently been questionining many of the assumptions I have grown up with and always believed. In my search for the truth I have stumbled on this man named William L. Craig. Unlike many Christians, his arguements are (or at least to me seem) reasonable and sound. I was just wondering what this union thinks of him or his propositions. The following are some examples of his views.

Tauruslink

He has a large following, but among many Christians he is a bit laughable. A good example is a debate he did recently, I think, with Hitchens. Hitchens dismantled him easily and Dr. Graig still doesn't know why. i'm not impressed with him at all. Dr. Robert Pryce embarrased him as well. He just doesn't deal with his opponents arguments very well. It drives me, as a christian, nuts.