William Lane Craig- Does God Exist debates

[showmeproof]

I have now watched several WLC debates and I have found him to be a very good orator, that is upbeat, marching on with a well-oiled assertive cadence. While I disagree with him in his conclusions, I think the guy structures his routine very well. I say routine, because if you've seen one WLC debate on the existence of god, you've seen them all. The best part of his routine would be the closing of his opening statement where he lays down the gauntlet 'For my opponent to win this debate he must first take apart each of my premises, and secondly to build a positive case for the non-existence of god in its place' (rough paraphrase) This is a genius strategy. Arguing in the affirmative, He always starts the debate effectively laying down the rules to determine who wins the debate, he steals the effectiveness of a moderator by moderating himself. By doing this he sets up an expected format for his opponents rebuttal. His opponents often have very good points which often focus on different evidences & issues however, these points fail to meet his predetermined format so they fall a bit flat to an audience after his performance. He can then on his rebuttal march out and exclaim 'I laid out how x person could beat me, and he failed to address x, y, and z. I have yet to see a debate where an opponent meets his format, which is very disappointing because the guy doesn't change his routine...its the same every time. You figure people would do their homework on the guy a little bit first, in an effort to persuade the audience (the whole point of a debate in the first place). So here I would like to first layout his format so those who are unfamiliar with it can read over it, and as a reference for the progression of the thread. Secondly I would like to meet his format in rebuttal. The following is a summary of WLC's format based on numerous debates. If you feel I have neglected something, or misrepresented a point please feel free to point it out and we'll come to an agreement on how to adjust it accordingly. While I intend to be very active in this thread the issues are many, and may take some time to answer sufficiently, and we may be sidetracked on specific issues, so I would ask for some understanding in the time it may to go through everything.

[showmeproof]

1) COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
a) Why is there something rather than nothing?
If Universe is eternal and uncaused then it is has an infinite # of events;
Philosophically infinite past absurd; if # of events infinite, infinity – infinity=? Infinity has no bearing on reality, and therefore reality must have a finite number of events.
b) Invokes big bang – origin of universe and matter…everything from nothing?
Awkward position-something from nothing? ‘From nothing, nothing comes’
Uses big bang as the creation event and assert it could not have happened naturally
c) Needs a Cause that is ‘properly basic’.
The only things that we know that exist necessarily are abstract ideas like numbers, and minds.
Abstract ideas cannot create anything therefore it must be a mind
This mind must be personal and completely apart from space and time thus:
This being must be immaterial without any form, uncaused (because it necessarily exists), timeless/eternal, and of unfathomable power, i.e. and Intelligent Mind.
Must be personal because the universe & us were intentional not accidental byproducts
2) TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
a) Stunned by fine-tuning (defy human comprehension
Narrow range for life permitting values.
Constants and quantities independent upon laws of nature
b) Uses string theory to state that there are many possible universe could exist the vast majority
prohibitive of life.
Chance?
Overwhelming odds that universe should be life prohibiting
c) Multiverse beating (world ensemble) No independent evidence
If we were in a world ensemble we should statistically be seeing a different universe than what we observe.
d) Since chance and multiverse are improbable; Design is the probable answer
3) MORAL ARGUMENT
a) If god does not exist objective moral values do not exist (theist and atheist agree)
Not that we could not recognize objective morals (dependent) but rather that these objective moral values are independent of us.
4) RESURRECTION OF JESUS
a)“Historians have come to a consensus that jesus arrived with an unprecedented divine authority to stand and speak in gods place.”
b) If jesus did rise from the dead then divine miracles exist therefore god exists
3 established facts (by NT historians)
1. Tomb empty & found by women (women have 0 reliability in this culture)
2. Different individuals and groups experienced appearances (witnessed by unbelievers, skeptics and enemies)
3. Disciples believed despite every predisposition to the contrary & willingly died in behalf of their belief
NO PLAUSIBLE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION for these events
5) IMMEDIATE EXPERIENCE OF GOD
a)You can feel his presence.
Direct quotes that are pertinent
”Should a conflict arise, between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based upon argument and evidence then it is the former which must take precedence “
“A person knows Christianity is true because the Holy Spirit tells him it is true”

[showmeproof]

Does anybody else absolutely loath Microsoft Word's autoformat? Seriously even when you don't want to use it, it starts itself and you continually have to either turn it off, or just attempt to fix annoying mistakes as you go along.

[Anon]

Does anybody else absolutely loath Microsoft Word's autoformat? Seriously even when you don't want to use it, it starts itself and you continually have to either turn it off, or just attempt to fix annoying mistakes as you go along.

It's terrible, and it thinks it is so helpful. There's a way to permanently shut it off.

By the way, there are many more than just the standard Craig routine; check out the Austin Dacey debate on Youtube, or his debates with Quentin Smith. He always adjusts to his opponents dynamically and differently, so it's not like he's a robot (as some have said).

I think one thing missing from Craig's debates (I've seen around thirty) is the lack of cross-examination in the debate like the way Greg Bahnsen used to do it.

[showmeproof]

It's terrible, and it thinks it is so helpful. There's a way to permanently shut it off.

By the way, there are many more than just the standard Craig routine; check out the Austin Dacey debate on Youtube, or his debates with Quentin Smith. He always adjusts to his opponents dynamically and differently, so it's not like he's a robot (as some have said).

I think one thing missing from Craig's debates (I've seen around thirty) is the lack of cross-examination in the debate like the way Greg Bahnsen used to do it.

Yet he has one standard routine for the specific debate title 'Does God Exist', which he knows he is going against an atheist. Thanks for the advice.

[Steve007]

The best part of his routine would be the closing of his opening statement where he lays down the gauntlet 'For my opponent to win this debate he must first take apart each of my premises, and secondly to build a positive case for the non-existence of god in its place' (rough paraphrase) This is a genius strategy. Arguing in the affirmative, He always starts the debate effectively laying down the rules to determine who wins the debate, he steals the effectiveness of a moderator by moderating himself. By doing this he sets up an expected format for his opponents rebuttal. His opponents often have very good points which often focus on different evidences & issues however, these points fail to meet his predetermined format so they fall a bit flat to an audience after his performance. He can then on his rebuttal march out and exclaim 'I laid out how x person could beat me, and he failed to address x, y, and z. I have yet to see a debate where an opponent meets his format, which is very disappointing because the guy doesn't change his routine...its the same every time. You figure people would do their homework on the guy a little bit first, in an effort to persuade the audience (the whole point of a debate in the first place).

He doesn't say they have to tear down each of his premises. He says they have to tear down each of his arguments (maybe that's what you meant?).

I agree with him that's true, at least for the first three arguments. The cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral arguments are all deductive arguments. In other words, if the premises of those arguments are true, then the conclusion that God exists must be true. It would look very weak if an atheist debates him and doesn't challenge at least one premise from each of those arguments.

[Steve007]

3) MORAL ARGUMENT
a) If god does not exist objective moral values do not exist (theist and atheist agree)
Not that we could not recognize objective morals (dependent) but rather that these objective moral values are independent of us.[/I]

For the moral argument he argues it this way:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

His cosmological argument goes like this:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

After his establishes the conclusion for the cosmological argument, then he goes to on argue that the creator of the universe is personal, immaterial, etc. He does make the arguments you mentioned when he brings up the cosmological argument. I wanted to show the premises because it's easier to follow this way.

1) COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
a) Why is there something rather than nothing?
If Universe is eternal and uncaused then it is has an infinite # of events;
Philosophically infinite past absurd; if # of events infinite, infinity – infinity=? Infinity has no bearing on reality, and therefore reality must have a finite number of events.

I think he uses these arguments to argue for premise #2. He makes the arguments that there cannot be an infinite number of events because he wants to show that the universe didn't exist for an eternity.

b) Invokes big bang – origin of universe and matter…everything from nothing?
Awkward position-something from nothing? ‘From nothing, nothing comes’Uses big bang as the creation event and assert it could not have happened naturally

The part I underlined argues for premise #1. The other stuff about the big bang supports premise #2.

[Jaecp]

So.

Do objective morals exist?

[Steve007]

So.

Do objective morals exist?

I've seen a lot of posts recently by atheists claiming that God is hideous, abhorrent, does terrible things, etc. There is also a big thread where atheists argue the problem of evil. I don't think it makes sense for these atheists to reject premise #2 of the moral argument.

[Jaecp]

Its about the argument he wishes to make, that objective morals values only exist because of god.

So, my question is do objective moral values exist. We all know your a big fan of WLC, so whats the support for premise 2. Before we can say that objective morals are a demonstration of something, ya kinda need to show that their is objective morality in the first place. Simple as that.

What people have said in other thread is unimportant to the support an argument needs on its own.

One could just as easily say

Premise 1: If Allah does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, Allah exists.

Could replace that with most anything, really.

Both of these premises need support, one needs to show that objective values do, in fact, exist as well as the cause of those morals to be what one says it is.

If ya got some, bring it.

[Steve007]

Its about the argument he wishes to make, that objective morals values only exist because of god.

So, my question is do objective moral values exist. We all know your a big fan of WLC, so whats the support for premise 2. Before we can say that objective morals are a demonstration of something, ya kinda need to show that their is objective morality in the first place. Simple as that.

What people have said in other thread is unimportant to the support an argument needs on its own.

Actually it is important. You were making arguments in the thread about the problem of evil. Lets try this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things really are evil).
4. Therefore, God exists.

To answer your question, the support for premise 2 is that evil exists, as the above argument shows. Do you want to deny that evil exists?

One could just as easily say

Premise 1: If Allah does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, Allah exists.

Could replace that with most anything, really.

All you've done is made number one a premise that I would dispute. That doesn't refute the moral argument. Of course if you make one of the premises false, the conclusion will likely be false.

I could take any argument that atheists make, change one of the premises of the argument to make it false, and then say "See, your argument fails." But that would do nothing to refute an atheist argument. In the same way, you have done nothing to refute the moral argument.

[Jaecp]

I am not sure if objective morality exists.

My own personal beliefs are not important here. What is important is if the moral argument can stand up on its own.

The muslim can easily say

1. If Allah does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things really are evil).
4. Therefore, Allah exists.

Any religion can use this argument.

On the second part,

That you would challenge premise 1 because its for the muslim god brings up the point that we the skeptical are going to challenge premise for yours, this is, amusingly, inline with Dawkins "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

So yeah,

Much like you'd challenge that version of the moral argument, whats the support that your god exists in the first place? Something that isn't real obviously can't be the source of objective morals.

[nickcopernicus]

Actually it is important. You were making arguments in the thread about the problem of evil. Lets try this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things really are evil).
4. Therefore, God exists.

To answer your question, the support for premise 2 is that evil exists, as the above argument shows. Do you want to deny that evil exists?

Nick:
That argument commits a deductive fallacy. It does not follow proper modus tollens and is invalid
You claim:
[(~G->~O)&E].:(E&G).

It does not follow that because evil exists objective: moral values exist, much less god.
An argument is said to be valid if and only if it would be contradictory for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Evil can exist without objective moral values existing without entailing a contradiction, therefore your argument is invalid.....unless you assume that evil must be objective in order to exist; in which you would beg the question that evil is objective.
As for the other moral argument:,

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

The argument is valid, but it would require a vigorous defense to defend both premise 1 and premise 2.

This has not been done successfully on this forum AFAICT.
The cosmological argument seems to be better one for me, but it does not prove god, per se. At most it would prove the universe had a cause. There is no logical necessity, or is there empirical evidence to support that the universe, if it had a cause, was intelligent or sentient. In deed, we have a lot of evidence that is counter to this supposition. There has been no substantial evidence whatsoever that a mind cand exist without a brain to support it.

Steve007:
All you've done is made number one a premise that I would dispute. That doesn't refute the moral argument. Of course if you make one of the premises false, the conclusion will likely be false.

Nick:
The moral argument is garbage and should be discarded as such.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

Correction. (too late to edit)
You claim.
[(~G->~O)&E].:(O&G).

[showmeproof]

I should be posting the rebuttal late this evening, if all goes well. I will follow WLC's format, and keep it precise....at least initially. I want to do this so that it doesn't get bogged down with unnecessary verbiage just as in effective debate style. However, once I lay down the rebuttal, we can hash it all out as exhaustively as we want for as long as we are entertained to do so.