The Case for Christian Theism – William Lane Craig on Tour in the UK

This is an excellent documentary about the William Lane Craig tour of the UK – The film shows Craig at his best – and the interest generated by his talks – so if you want to gen up on the Kalaam Cosmological argument, the Contingency Argument, the Moral Argument, Islam, Who Designed the Designer? The Evidence for the Resurrection etc… Enjoy…

Why I am not an Atheist

40 thoughts on “The Case for Christian Theism – William Lane Craig on Tour in the UK

  1. Ha Ha Ha – William Lame Craig – The lamest Christian Apologist ever ! Even worse than you David.

    The Kalaam Cosmological proposition – ha ha ha – What are you ? A five year old?

  2. Mark Gordon – the poorest heckler ever!

    Who claims being misrepresented and demands evidence. Yet fails to practice what he advocates.

    Pigs have no use for pearls.

  3. The argument is fine if you don’t find the premises fallacious.
    Philosophy can argue anything into existence with the use or poorly defined terms.
    I’m afraid, if you find WLC appealing you haven’t really challenged your worldview.
    Google is your friend here.
    On another note some of his religious opinions are abhorrent and again if you find them not to be, you have, however difficult it is, tried to step beyond your cognitive bias.

    1. So basically people who agree with you are fine – everyone else is abhorrent etc….and if they don’t agree they have a congnitive bias – whereas you of course are balanced, measured and rational. The only problem is your post doesn’t indicate that – there are no arguments or facts – just name calling…. So here you go – feel free to show how any of the premises are fallacious…

      1. My background is Maths. I found WLC convincing. Listened to the debate at Cambridge I think. Where Dawkins refused to come and they left a seat for him. Like the contapositive argument for God. 1. No God implies no morals 2. There are morals so 3. There is a God

      2. William Lane Craig is an advocate of Divine Command Theory.
        Do you , David, consider this is an ethical position to adopt?
        Does this, in fact, clearly demonstrate to your mind that Yahweh is all-loving?

      3. This is an excellent post that effectively takes down the KCA, and well worth the read.
        The opening paragraph is succinct and states the current view.

        Most contemporary philosophers regard the cosmological argument as unconvincing. Despite the best efforts of William Lane Craig, the famous argument never recovered from the assault it took at the hands of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, even noted theologian, Alvin Plantinga concludes “that this piece of natural theology is ineffective”.

        http://rationalrazor.com/2017/07/10/the-cosmological-fallacy/

    2. Matt so what you posit in your words is that the “argument” is fine.
      So long as you don’t find the premises fallacious. But then you would have to prove that there is fallacy. Which you haven’t done. You do realise that the burden of proof is on the one making the proposition. Check it out – Google is your friend on this.

      So, on the basis of that your comment has affirmed “The Case for Christian Theism” as being “fine” in your description.

      It’s your opinion that if you find WLC appealing you “haven’t really challenged your worldview”, his “religious opinions are abhorrent” and you have not stepped “beyond your cognitive bias” if you think otherwise. Opinions you are free to have. And in a diverse, tolerant and inclusive dialogue are free to express as people with different opinions are to express theirs. But again you offer no proof as to posit. See above.

      Anyone you express opposing views to yours and they be just as valid. If you have a particular point that you think be “abhorrent” it would be helpful for you to share that on such a manner that you not show “cognitive bias” and are willing to have your “worldview” challenged and not that you express anything that could be considered “abhorrent” to show that you have a point to make that has substance and not that you base your view merely on opinion (which is open to all and everything) and that you can’t be reasonably accused of hypocrisy.

      So, in summary what is conclusive so far from your comment by your words and using reason alone is that you have opinions (as everyone does) including the opinion that “The Case for Christian Theism” is fine.

  4. Well, having viewed the whole of this vid now, I did find it interesting. I like the bald way in which WLC attempted to tackle some fundamental issues which are often misrepresented as being ones of (scientific, historical or some other kind of) empirical enquiry, but doing so from the correct position that those issues are philosophical ones, and only amenable to that particular mode of examination. Leaving out the issue of direct, undeniable, personal experience, which he does in fact refer to at one point.
    I found it frustrating that both the points of view and the arguments of his debating opponents were represented in this particular package, almost entirely through his words. I realised this was necessary both for the purpose of the piece, and for considerations of length. I’ve only minor quibbles with his summarisations, but I will have to go to the site where I assume full-length videos of the events contain everybody’s contributions.
    The main frustration I am left with is probably a very positive one, from the point of view of philosophical discourse – I wanted to join in..

  5. The comments by Mark and Arkenaten are pretty much all the New Atheism has left. Just sneering, linking articles that claim to “totally DEBUNK!!11!” the Kalaam, Moral, Resurrection arguments. When in fact they do not. They are just rehashed skeptic tropes.

    What is atheism now? A bunch of malcontents who obsess on the internet. There are no actual thought leaders. Just kids with youtube channels like Cosmic Skeptic, Genetically Modified Skeptic who think being snarky is clever and powerful.

    I think Feser is right in that atheism really isn’t the challenge anymore (at least not here in the US where I live). It is very loud, but a video tiger that seems a lot more scary than it actually is.

    Keep up the great work David.

    1. @ Curby William Graham.
      In actual fact, atheism is the default position of everyone. Theism has to be inculcated/em>, which is the reason Christianity (and every other religion) never materialised simultaneously in countries across the globe and had to be exported, sometimes under very unsavoury ( dare one say unchristian?) conditions.
      It is also the reason why David and others remain employed.
      Obviously God requires puny humans after all. So much for omnipotence.

      Non belief has always been there, challenging those who insist their religion and their god is the ”one and only.”
      I am sure you are aware of Contra Celsum</em< by Origen?

      So atheism is nothing new, only in days past it was viciously put down, as religions of all stripes fought it out for supremacy, including different sects from the same religion, be they Christian, Muslim etc.

      Atheism isn't a challenge.
      The challenge lies with those who profess religion and god belief to provide evidence to those who are currently asking ever more pertinent questions.

      Craig's arguments are fine for those who may not be au fait with current cosmology and similar scientific advancements and his somewhat narrow approach seem only to calm those who are already of a religious inclination.

      As atheism is the default position, and in the total absence of objective evidence humanity will very likely return to it eventually.

      1. “Atheism is the default position for everyone”? Evidence please. According to RIchard Dawkins citing the child psychologist, Dorothy Kelman, Theism is the default position for everyone and children have to be educated out of it!

    2. “What is atheism now? A bunch of malcontents who obsess on the internet. There are no actual thought leaders.”

      You seem to suggest that atheism defines the entirety of a person and all of their views, but it is limited purely to their lack of belief in a god based on the absence of evidence. That is all.

      It simply doesn’t make sense to state, then, that atheism has “no actual thought leaders”.

      William Lane Craig has stated that when it comes to the Christian faith –

      “Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”

      Now if that is the position of a “leader in thought” then we are really seriously in trouble.

      1. “According to RIchard Dawkins citing the child psychologist, Dorothy Kelman, Theism is the default position for everyone and children have to be educated out of it! ”

        Surely what you mean is that children have a propensity to accept Theism rather than that it is their default position – one can only accept what one is exposed to. Of course children are also only too willing to accept the idea of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and flying carpets.

      2. No. What Kelman and Dawkins mean is that we are wired to believe in God (he calls it an evolutionary throwback – I call it God!). Are you saying they are wrong?

      3. Oh I see what you are getting at now.

        Yes – a number of those who disavow religion have indicated that it is part of our evolutionary make-up to seek explanations and answers outside of ourselves and the natural world – Hitchens used the same point in many of his debates.

        But to suggest that children ask the same sort of questions about the origin of the world, of human kind, of the meaning of life etc and thus naturally come to a belief in a god is stretching things quite a bit.

    3. @ David

      RIchard Dawkins citing the child psychologist, Dorothy Kelman, Theism is the default position for everyone and children have to be educated out of it!

      Evidence please.

  6. Arkenaten quotes the following statement:
    “Most contemporary philosophers regard the cosmological argument as unconvincing.”
    I am always interested in such statements. Other examples include:
    The majority of climate scientists ….”
    The majority of biblical scholars believe that the first Gospel was written by Mark.”
    My first reaction to such statements is: Who has done the measuring? So, in regard to Arkenaten’s quote I would ask: How many contemporary philosophers are there?
    Can you supply the names of those contemporary philosophers who regard the cosmological argument as unconvincing?
    My second reaction is, so what? Does it matter what the majority of a certain group think? Either a view is correct or it is not. The number of people who think it is incorrect is irrelevant. And what contemporary philosophers think today might very well be different from what contemporary philosophers believe tomorrow.
    So let’s put aside this silly and irrelevant non-argument based on what the majority believe and let’s just stick to the argument and whether or not it makes any sense.

    1. ” …let’s just stick to the argument and whether or not it makes any sense.”

      Well then, in that case , no it doesn’t make sense and presuming you read the entire article you will have understood why most contemporary philosophers hold the view they do. Links and names are supplied, so I am surprised you don’t seem to have followed through?
      For similar reasons why, ”The majority of climate scientists ….” and, ”The majority of biblical scholars believe that the first Gospel was written by Mark.”
      Evidence … or lack thereof.

      Regards
      Ark

      1. Douglas,
        It is remarkable that you bring in any philosophy at all in your hitherto, set in concrete, scientism, the underlying philosophy of science, which can not be proven scientifically.
        So let’s have your scientific evidence for your new wife -newly espoused- philosophy.

        God has put eternity in your heart.
        Only Christ will give you what you are looking for, as evidence in the totality of your comments down the years.
        Look to Him. May you know Him, the reality of Him, eternal in Trinity.

      2. Ark
        You are avoiding answering my first point. How do you know what the majority of contemporary philosophers think? Saying what some think is not proof that it is the majority.

      3. I don’t know. I am accepting the words from the writer of the article and the links that were provided.
        Are you suggesting he is misinformed or worse … lying?

    1. Douglas, Douglas,
      1 Your gods (Dawkins) are falling, with feet of clay as you move to the supremacy of the gods of philosophy.
      2 Your link to Patheos, does not show what you claim for it. It seems that you’ve either
      a) misread it in your haste to counter the point David made about Dawkin’s of which you seem to have been unaware, or
      b) You have deliberately misrepresented it: a) shoddy or b) shabby
      This is from the Patheos article 2009:
      1 The article was written by Tom Rees not Dr Justin Barrett who is described as:
      “Justin Barrett is a Senior Researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind and a lecturer in the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology. He’s also a devout Christian who believes that we have an inbuilt predisposition to believe not just in superstitious stuff, but also in a monotheistic god. And he takes this as evidence that god is real, and not invented.”
      It goes on to draw out a spat between Barret and atheist philosopher AC Grayling arising from a lecture by Barrett at the Farraday Institute for Science and Religion, Cambridge, in which it was reported that Barrett said “You have to indoctrinate children in to being an atheist”. There is some toing and froing about what was said and conclusions drawn from the research itself (research which wasn’t disputed), BUT and this is a big BUT, REES, the author of the article, is writing from a presupposition that
      “Of course, they(children) can’t do this for God, BECAUSE GOD IS A FICTIONAL ENTITY.”
      And this august author Rees goes on to callow, child like, predictable, facile, knock-about Santa Clause stuff.
      It’s poor stuff really.
      Douglas: And it’s this non- evidential philosophy god you now seek to worship, give your mind over to, to restrain, trammel,your like, to supplant your god of scientism.

  7. I have a problem with the Cosmological Argument. There seem to be no reasonable alternative hypotheses for us to choose from. So, unless something more plausible can be provided, God has to be the most reasonable explanation.

  8. My previous comment has disappeared again.

    I have downloaded the book and of the two references to Deborah Keleman neither features your assertion regarding any such citation that you are adamant is in The God Delusion.

    Maybe you would like to explain?

    1. It’s Kelman – and if you actually read the book – as opposed to doing a word search you will get there. Do try Ark….reading is such a great way to learn…

      1. There is no Dorothy Kelman listed in the book. The index only lists Deborah Keleman.
        Either you are thinking of another book or you are simply conflating.
        I have stated reading the book this morning.
        Again, if the quote is in the book as you adamantly claim, simply post the quote in fullç and list the page number it appears.

      2. Yes – mea culpa – it is Deborah Keleman – but again please read the book – not just the index. Dawkins cites her as teaching that children are intuitive theists. Your unthinking view that children are born atheists is nonsense….which even Dawkins does not accept…

  9. Ark,
    My dispute is not primarily with yourself but with the person who made the claim that he knows what the majority of contemporary philosophers think. However, I find it amazing that you are prepared to simply accept “the words from the writer of the article” without any evidence that supports the claim.

  10. Intuition is all very well and good, in its place, but it’s not very useful for determining empirical reality. That’s why science doesn’t rely on intuition.

    So the link to an EV article is redundant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *