Great philosopher or a fraud?
Probably not that great if he fell for the kike on a stick meme
Neither. Just a guy who BTFO's fedora tippers.
His philosophy is pretty 3rd rate and none of it is novel. He's an apologist and debater first and foremost and in terms of debate he's a master. I think he chooses weak opponents most of the time but hey, that's his business.
le lanky god philosopher
No, that's William "Raping And Murdering Canaanites Is Totally Okay, As Long As Jews Do It" Lane Craig
He got destroyed by Hitchens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
>>266104
>William "Genocide the Canaanite" Craig
C'mon
>>266212
It's just taking the piss at his argument for genocide being justifiable if divinely inspired, mate.
>>266212
>>266186
Hitchens was a sophist
Fucking journalists thinking they know anything
>>266212
I'm actually quite in favour of Christianity, I just like making fun of protestants.
>>266247
Catholics are literally the dumbest Christians
>>266252
#rekt
>>266252
Do explain.
>>266252
Nice argument, Luther tier.
>>266257
>>266152
Who would you say his week opponents were?
His work on historical apologetics is top potato and very academic, been published in journals. The rest is just pop, but high quality pop compared to Hitchens and so on
>>267369
what would you recommend on his historical apologetics?
>>267377
http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testament-Historicity-Resurrection-Christianity/dp/0889466165
You can download it for free here, but it will take a while
http://serious.freeonsciencelibraryguide.com/view.php?id=327524
>>266144
Actually, it's just cringe-worthy and both come out as retards.
>>266152
>he chooses weak opponents most of the time
Not exactly. His form of debating is rather rigged and I'm pretty sure he structures his arguments around an actual equation. But the main meat of his game is shotgunning arguments swamped in very dense academic theory, that plays less against his opponent's skill (whose own arguments he tends to shamelessly misrepresent), but moreso against the time they're allotted to retort and the audience's own ignorance. Not to mention most of the time he manages to be the first speaker. But when he's gone against actual Professors familiar to his field, the myth of his impenetrability is destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebnShlP3jM
Robert M. Price, Bart Erhman, and Keith Parsons are also those who I think won.
>>269646
Eh that was a pretty bad argument. He never shows how being able to recognize a reason for something makes it objectively right. I can reflect upon reasons for murdering someone, and only humans can reflect on those reasons at the specific level they do. So why isn't murder right ? If being able to come to reason why we should or shouldn't do something is all it takes for morality?
I think that was the question that Craig was trying to get at.
>>269714
Also I will say, not a fan of WLC. I think his Kalam Cosmological argument is particularly weak given that Aquinas refuted it over 500 years ago.
>>269714
You'd have to watch the full exchange. Either way, Craig's inevitable response is just some convoluted way of saying "God said so."
Okay so if God didn't exist, how could morals exist?
