How to Beat William Lane Craig in a Debate

[atheistram]

The reason WLC likes to debate is because it gives him the opportunity to be COMPLETELY dishonest.

[atheistram]

I'd imagine it's actually the other way around. All you have to do is visit ShockofGod's channel to see the evidence for this.

[firstatheist]

What? You just played one of his podcast. You didn't have anything to say. Further more you didn't even post a good podcast, it was one of WLC shamelessly reviewing his OWN debate. Do you know how gratuitous and redundant that is? Hitchens never jumped on a podcast after a debate and explained why he won. He did that in the fucking debate. 

[mouthyweasel]

Religion. How embarrassing.

[MrProtuber]

Stephen Law pwned him

[lessevdoolbretsim]

If Craig is an intellectual, I am god. Talk about lame arguments with his "deductive logic". Craig spends most of his time in a debate declaring victory every 5 seconds. Listen to this bastard brag.

[chansetwo]

This video is really useless. I fail to see how encouraging someone to prepare (something they should do anyway) for a debate is any of the nasty things suggeated. I also don't see how passing along advice on how to defeat an argument (something philosophers of all levels constantly do) is any of the nasty things suggested. It is the shallow pointless attacks in this video that smack of desperation.

[cperez1000]

If

Kalam argument + Fine Tuning + Divine command theory + evangelical theology = proof of God...

Then

You're deluded...

It's funny when some religious people try to hide the fact that FAITH is required for religion... Even most leaders wouldn't accept that as faith is central to any religion.

So quite the bullshit and accept is faith. What's the problem?

[KingDcome11]

atheist are crying like little girls due to William craig beating hitches lol

[whiteowl1415]

@KingDcome11

Realy? I don't recall Hitchens losing. I seem to recall Hitchens putting down alot of good arguments and Craig hiding in a God of the Gaps string.

[KingDcome11]

@whiteowl1415 A lot of good arguments ? really? the only thing that hitchens is good at is religion bashing. He makes fun of religion but He hasn't presented good arguments as you claim. He did not answer to any of Craigs Arguments for the existence of God. Hitchens is a very funny man but He was easily defeated by Craig. And Now Dawkins is making excuses not to debate Craig!! lol

[whiteowl1415]

@KingDcome11 Craig opens with Strawman statements that ironically counter Theism if he were honest about it. He claims nothing can come from nothing, then promotes the idea that a God created everything from..NOTHING. He also selectively overlooks the idea that life is tuned to the universe not the other way around. There is no "fine tuning" and goes on to lie about objective morality existing. Jesus still isn’t proven, much less resurrection. In short, emotional appeal with no evidence

[whiteowl1415]

@KingDcome11

Hitchens opens with statements of evolution’s validity, and points out that everyone is free to believe what they want. Then counters Hitchen’s “fine tuning” with how close we have come to extinction. Makes a brief emotional argument to the arrogance of thinking we are the focus of EVERYTHING. Then calls Craig on his strawman. Continues to comment on that there has thus far been nothing found that requires a deity to exist

[whiteowl1415]

@KingDcome11 In short, Craig uses misrepresentation and logical fallacies, while Hitchens states an upfront case. And this is saying nothing of Craig's false claim to the odds of DNA occurring as it erroneously assumes only 1 working combination, not the fact that at this moment there are roughly 7 BILLION different combinations working in humans as we speak, or that the molecules are naturally attracted rather than just falling together.

[Feralus69]

@KingDcome11

Escept Craig never beat Hitchens, he strawmanned his position the ignored the rebuttals and pretty much debated himself and ignored Hitchens destroying him the entire time. You obviously never watched the debate from start to finish.

[KingDcome11]

atheists = epic fail lol

[Feralus69]

@KingDcome11

Yea, being rational and not gullible is totally epic fail.

[sonicBlue00]

Billy Lame Craig never "won" a debate because he never established his imaginary god in the first place, let alone any known mechanisms by which god can possibly exist, or act, or any possible explanation as to the origin of the laws of god himself. I wish more theists would wake up and realise that their explanation is not even an explanation for anything at all. Might as well say the number 3 created the universe.

[mightymuso]

@sonicBlue00  True dat :)

[slash20062006]

@sonicBlue00 hey dumbbell, this number 3 thing has come up a million times your ignorant twit . . . 3 is an abstract object. abstract objects don't have causal powers. hello! read a book before you write something you think sounds smart

[sonicBlue00]

@slash20062006

"I don't have to explain how my god does anything but you have to explain how numbers can do things".

Ok, the number 9.1*10^-31 has causal power on the universe as it determines the mass of an electron.

[StygianDysnomia]

@sonicBlue00 And no atheists ever "won" a debate because they never established that God was imaginary.

[sonicBlue00]

@StygianDysnomia

God is imaginary because it has not been shown to be anything other than imaginary.

[StygianDysnomia]

@sonicBlue00 "it has not been shown to be anything other than imaginary." --Care to give an argument that supports that statement?

[sonicBlue00]

@StygianDysnomia

That is the argument: that it hasn't been shown to be anything other than imaginary.

[StygianDysnomia]

@sonicBlue00 That's not an argument, it's merely an assertion. And so far, it's a poorly grounded one.

[sonicBlue00]

@StygianDysnomia

I'm not sure how you are concluding that it's not an argument. The argument is that it has not been shown that god is anything other than imaginary, therefore god is imaginary.

[StygianDysnomia]

@sonicBlue00 "it has not been shown that god is anything other than imaginary". You haven't given any reason for believing that to be true.

However, even if that was true, lack of proof for the existence of something certainly does not disprove it. /watch?v=XcnZRctcleM

[X3SakakiX3]

@StygianDysnomia

I'm Sitting next to an invisble unicorn who claims to have made the universe and that God isn't real..

I have no other evidence besides the feelings in my heart.

You can't disprove this statement.

[StygianDysnomia]

@X3SakakiX3 Exactly. An unfalsifiable claim or a particularly bizarre claim ≠ a false claim.

[cavinpatch]

@StygianDysnomia No theologan has ever been able to demonstrate the existence of any god, ever.

[StygianDysnomia]

@cavinpatch Irrelevant. Even if that were true, that wouldn't disprove anything. 

[freedomofthought100]

debate will never help anybody achieve anything. dilligent effort made to get the things are needed.

[buktomsin]

Right on ageofreason, I seen that video. It kinda sucks only semi-smart folk see past this bloodsucker "craigs", lies. I think psychological curriculum is the best antedote, I could spot a salesman right away. Because Thats what I am. honda!

[rcguy69]

Craig is an excellent public speaker and a master Gish Gallop - the technique of using half-truths, bait-and-switch and straw man arguments. His mastery of Sophism is studied by both believers and atheists. Since his approach is to defend a position at any cost instead of discovering the truth many people consider debating him a waste of time. However this is wrong. An atheist familiar with the many types of fallacies Craig employs needs to expose him.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Craig shattering the stereotype of Christians? Really? By writing that no amount of evidence and no arguments. could convince him he's deluded because the Holy Spirit tells him his faith is true, which means his whole case for God is a a sham? Or by defending Biblical genocide and infanticide?

If there's anything worse than a fundamentalist, that's a fundamentalist with intellectual pretenses. This snake-oil salesman is even a bigger scum than the televangelists. what a fucking loser

[the1qb]

@AgeOfReasonXXI All I'm going to say i wow the ignorance of the atheists that I've met is appalling your statement is just simply false and if you think what you're saying is true you either aren't literate or your simply repeating rhetoric like some type of atheist lap dog

[Oirishmartin]

Ok, so apparently thinking you should adequately prepare for a debate = throwing a strop.

What does that make the Christians in the UK who flushed away their money on bus ads saying "there's probably no Dawkins" because he refuses to waste his time with Jesus Lane Christ?

[SDub817]

No one "defeats" anyone in a debate especially if WLC is involved, theists can cream their pants at his presentation all they want, but he's wrong where it matter; the arguments.

[MrMisticoMagico]

Brainwashed moron.

Ask yourself why your religion is truth...

[asalazar1967]

I believe in God... however, NO religion can ever explain God and his omnipotence. If a religion could, then God would not be so great, would he...?!!

[domokunroxj00]

@Parture

Not surprised at all hearing yet another person quote the bible out of context. I don't even know how anyone could respond to such ignorance. Its like like middle school when you had a book report that you didn't even bother reading and tried to write about it 15 mins before its due.

Seriously, give up. You people don't even believe it. Why are you quoting it? Come back after you read it in proper context.

[DSkaz89]

@domokunroxj00 "Come back after you read it in proper context."

I suggest you go and study the real context of the bible. Read books by scholars who studied the earliest versions (if you will) of the biblebecause the bible has been written and rewritten by man so many times it is impossible to understand the real context of it without understanding the historical political reasons for why it was written.

[nevascurded]

troll

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

(cont) he finds atheism unbearable. so much so that he'd probably kill himself if convinced God doesn't exists.

there goes him not being emotional

and yeah, about the Bible: either believe what the Bible says or go to Hell! Also, if God orders you to commit genocide & infanticide as he does in the OT, it's your moral duty to butcher those people! that's the claim of that genocide apologist named Lame Craig!

so what were you saying, Craig? you dishonest despicable scum.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Craig shatters the stereotype of Christians being "emotional Bible ponding fanatics"?? HAHAHHA

he, who has admitted that no amount of evidence and argument could convince him his faith is false bc the witness of the Holy Spirit assures him it's true!!! and if reason goes against his faith, so much the worse for reason!

so Craig IS a fanatic and a fundy (of the worst kind-- one with intellectual pretenses)

second, he constantly laments how hopeless life without God is, and all but says (cont)

[Parture]

All you need to do to show William Lane Craig is wrong is John 10.28 which says those who are born-again "they shall never perish." Craig rejects God of the Bible because Craig holds the view of the Roman Church and Wesleyans which say a person could get saved today, lose it tomorrow, get it back again and lose it again, on and on and on. So Craig doesn't worship God of the Bible but a god of salvation by works. We are not saved by works lest anyone should boast like William Lane Craig does.

[Impalamark64]

A "Christian Intellectual," really? I couldn't watch beyond that point in the video. What arrogance.

[JWHurwitz]

@Impalamark64 Exceptionally mature. It's popular to claim that no Christian can be an intellectual, or even intelligent, but patently false. If you want your side to be taken seriously, please address the issues instead of making snide and baseless generalizations.

[Impalamark64]

@JWHurwitz Hey, what goes around, comes around. The religious, and Christians in particular, are directly responsible for atheists being the most hated group in the US. If you want YOUR side to be taken seriously, you need to be able to take a dose of your own medicine. Beyond that, the people of myth need to back up their absurd claims with REAL evidence, or back off. The days of religion getting a free ride appear to be over. Get used to it.

[JWHurwitz]

@Impalamark64 Let's try to tone done the hate if we're going to have a real discussion. It sounds like maybe you were hurt by one or more Christians in your past, and sadly, that's all too common. I'm sorry for any persecution you may have suffered and pray for those who hurt you.

If we're talking about evidence, people like Dr. Craig are a great place to go, because modern apologists do provide rational, positive arguments. Dismissing the opposition out of hand achieves nothing.

[whchain]

@JWHurwitz He's right, the days of religion getting a free ride are over. People are tired of fairy tales.

[JWHurwitz]

@whchain I really don't know what you're saying. Christians don't think we have a "free ride". We are told to fight for and spread our faith, and that we will be opposed by ignorance, hard hearts, and the works of Satan. People are not abandoning faith en masse, nor is it contravened by modern science, nor is it irrelevant in modern culture, nor is it inconsistent with a rational, examined life. What is you point?

[fdasherv]

And here I thought I could see someone take a shovel to WLC's shit eating grin.

[JWHurwitz]

@fdasherv You want someone to physically harm the person you disagree with... this is the position? This is what you want?

[PlanetBongoSan]

"ignoramous" is not a word. i'd change that in the description if i were you, it kind of takes the shine off calling other people stupid when you use non-existent words for how stupid they are. thanks for the lols though kid

[scar504]

The great Peter Atkins has already defeated god and your silly william craig in public.

[genobahamut1337]

Sorry, but "faith" cannot, by definition, be reasonable. Faith is belief without evidence, and belief without evidence is not reasonable.

If any atheist struggles against this William Lane Craig guy, then he or she would have to either be a stupid atheist or maybe Craig actually does have some intelligence and it throws the atheist off a bit. Unless Craig can prove his belief to be real, though, then his defeat is as easy as asking for evidence.

[JWHurwitz]

@genobahamut1337 Faith is not belief without evidence, it's trust without reservation. As thoroughly explained by Paul in his epistles, the type of faith early Christians were supposed to have was the same faith we might have in any person - a trust based on real experience with and knowledge of that person.

[genobahamut1337]

@JWHurwitz ...Okay, but specific meanings don't change my point.

[GetOutsideMr]

Lol, seems to me atheism has big influence on u and u personally make videos trying to comfort ur denial from reality. BTW, this video is full of logical fallacies. I can't believe

you believe these "straw man" arguments. I really hope u luck in life.

[Drgamedood]

Fuck the person who made this video.

[evoTARDSareINSANE]

@Drgamedood

Go pray to your mythical (and unfound) "ape-man"

[Kashrlyyk]

@CartesianTheist 1) You could be misquoting Quentin Smith. 2) Smith could be stupid and/or easily impressed. 3) Smith could just be wrong about it.

"professionally published" a) In what magazines? b) Look up "Sokal affair" c) argumentum ad verecundiam

[Emortis9]

The Ontological Argument is seriously one of the weakest arguments for God I have ever heard...I can't believe people still use it...and his Kalam Cosmological Argument is just a breeding ground for logical fallacies. You might think he wins...but it is just fancy debate tactics. No real substance. He just tries to confirm his own personal belief in God. Put up any of his arguments and i'll show you how they are wrong.

[MrTruthAddict]

@CartesianTheist Wow, it must be totally exhausting to continue to defend fairy tales and the snake oil salesmen who sell them. Philosophy is pretty much useless when it comes to discussing science. As is WLC. The fact that WLC uses VERY intellectually dishonest tactics and 'Crisjuns' like you continue to defend him is just one more piece of evidence that your cult is nothing but a fraud.

It's just a matter of time before your cult is finally dead, for good.

[RetSquid]

@MrTruthAddict

"It's just a matter of time before your cult is finally dead, for good."

Yeah, the last two thousand years have put a real beating on Christianity...NOT!

[MrTruthAddict]

@CartesianTheist LOL, I'm not trying to get published.  And you found ONE atheist who said a nice word about him? Congrats! But I guess that's a bit more to base your worldview on other than zero evidence whatsoever.

good goin...

[MrDarkbloom]

William Craig simply defines God as good when there is no reason to say God isn't evil. This is simply dishonest.

[AquinasofAwesome]

@MrDarkbloomlook there is every reason to believe that God is good, this is not just a blind presupposition. for a being to be considered perfect in every way He must also have perfect morality, even a step further that perfect morality He must BE morality in his very essence. God being good is a part of Gods very ontology for without the essence of perfect morality (Benevolence) he would be IMperfect and therefore COULD NOT exist. this isn't dishonesty, its just basic God ontology.

[MrDarkbloom]

@AquinasofAwesome People have just made this stuff up (obviously). Is 'perfect' an adjective or a noun? Evil exists and there's no reason for THAT not to be God's nature.

[Kashrlyyk]

@AquinasofAwesome god sent a bear to kill children! He also commanded the genocide of Jericho! Is that what you call "being good"??

[AMWOODco]

@MrDarkbloom C.S. Lewis showed over sixty years ago that God is good by necessity. The problem is that the very moral code we would use to accuse God of being evil would be made by God (he made our minds and so our morals as well). If that's the case, then we cannot trust our morals (they were made by an evil being) and so the case falls apart (no more 'evil' to accuse God of). Therefore, if God exists, he is good by necessity.

There's nothing new under the sun... or on Youtube apparently.

[BoggiD101]

No atheists I have seen acted as you describe. Nice attempt at caricatures, though.

[MrTruthAddict]

One of WLC's favorite tactics is to debate about a scientific term by arguing against the colloquial definition. Total intellectual dishonesty and such a complete snake oil salesman. Only his ignorant followers are fooled by his lame tactics.

But then people who will believe anything at all, based on zero evidence, aren't very hard to fool in the first place...

[Gnomefro]

What's amusing is that Christians were impressed with WLC's abysmal performance against Harris. Even though Harris had just recently written an entire book on the subject of how he sees secular morality, Craig completely ignores this work and attacks something Harris does not defend. In addition, Craid declares his own position to be an unfalsifiable one unrelated to Christianity.

The result? No debate, because Craig essentially ran away. They just talked past each other.

[edejardin]

@Gnomefro "What's amusing is that Christians were impressed with WLC's abysmal performance against Harris. Even though Harris had just recently written an entire book on the subject of how he sees secular morality, Craig completely ignores this work and attacks something Harris does not defend."

Huh?

Craig laid out three lines of argument against Harris's key argument, including the decisive 'identity' argument that Harris never addressed.

The mind boggles...

[baskyn544]

This guy doesn't use facts of Christianity, he uses techniques of debating. no relevance .

Also those 2 videos at the beginning have no resemblance or relevance to atheists. They do not act like that and never have, it is a way to make people think less of them. Aww, I called you out huh? Though so.

[Task5003]

How to beat William Lane Craig in a debate: Use reason and science.

[RetSquid]

@Task5003

That is how WLC wins a debate.

[CreationstCrapMirror]

@RetSquid If you think Craig uses science and reason, I don't think you know what science and reason means.

[RetSquid]

@CreationstCrapMirror

If he didn't use science and reason, why would anyone debate him?

[CreationstCrapMirror]

@RetSquid To refute his egregious fallacy, and in case you haven't noticed, no one does debate him anymore.

Craig proclaiming some tacit victory over people rejecting his debate invitations is akin to me saying 'Well I challenged Fedor Emelianenko to a cage fight and he didn't show, so I win"

[RetSquid]

@CreationstCrapMirror

It's just sad to see such intellectual dishonesty inall of these atheists, WLC kicks your butt in a philosophical debate so you say he doesn't uses science or reason, when that is all he uses.

Truely sad.

[CreationstCrapMirror]

@RetSquid Craig doesn't have a single empirically or philosophically supported argument in his arsenal.

What's sad is to see how many people just blindly buy everything he says as if it were the gospel, just because he sells it along with the gospel.

[RetSquid]

@CreationstCrapMirror

That's amazing that no debater or philosopher thinks like you do. Where are all of their denouncements of WLC?

[CreationstCrapMirror]

@RetSquid Here's a pretty good one, along with the destruction of the KCA

/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo

[MrTruthAddict]

@RetSquid Exactly, and this is why people like Dawkins refuse to debate idiots like WLC.

[RetSquid]

@MrTruthAddict

LOL!! But Dawkins would deabte him if his name began with 'Bishop", so that excuse is bogus.

[Task5003]

@RetSquid He never wins debates. The guy is an idiot.

[RetSquid]

@Task5003

If he really was, no one would debate him.

[CreationstCrapMirror]

The only pitiful thing at this point is how cult-like Craig's following has become, employing his weaponized stupidity as if it were rational arguments.

[lockdown260]

@CreationstCrapMirror It's better than atheist non-arguments. Basically the atheistic line is "they're stupid don't listen to them".

[CreationstCrapMirror]

@lockdown260 Actually we generally just point out how Craig and the like uses pure fallacy.

[SLRok]

@CreationstCrapMirror which is why so many atheist have managed to defeat him in debates correct?

[YhwhKhai]

Wow, that's sad....

It reminds me of the days of Michael Jordan. The opposing team designed most of their plays for trying to stop Jordan. The coaches even admitted it. Like Craig, Jordan struck fear too :)

[CreationstCrapMirror]

@YhwhKhai I'm guessing you've never actually done any research into his arguments, they're literally all fallacy.

This is a great example

/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo

[M3PanoS]

@YhwhKhai lol that's a beast analogy...and it's actually fitting haha

[philochristos]

Is anybody out there really qualified to write an article called "How to defeat WLC in a debate"? Maybe Shelley Kagan, but since so few atheists have ever defeated WLC in a debate, I doubt many of them are qualified to write such a thing.

[idky1349]

@philochristos

I know how to beat WLC.

Have a prolonged public discussion w a moderator to debate issues lol

WLC is a great debater, not a great thinker in my opinion.

[HeReformedMe]

I"m anxious to hear which professing atheist "heavy weight" will be the next to publicly announce they have changed their minds. =)

[WSSIIWarlordII]

lol!! Awesome VID! Keep them coming!

[wordception]

Thanks, excellent video.