No good can come from not having the heart to write a blog, and for this reason I found myself plundering my hard drive for material that might sort of work.
Fortunately, anything relating to WLC – the lord of untruth – is worth a gander. I, along with Theo Warner and AndromedasWake and others, have recently been the bemused victims of our very own Craig fantroll; I would link but the nugatory traffic that such an action would result in seems too generous.”Victim” is, of course, subjective. Being a victim implies some sort of damage or loss, and I can detect neither, though in reality I say this only to numb the hurts. The trolling typically takes the form of either a) a short out of context clip of a video titled to inspire ridicule or b) a marginally longer but still often out of context clip of a video conjoined with a longer clip of William Craig apparently schooling us. I’m informed that Theo is reduced to a shambling mass of jelly by this stern treatment; AndromedasWake has resorted to watching videos of cats falling into boxes in order to counteract the vicious pwn, and as for myself . . . well, I’m eating a lot of chocolate and weeping into net curtains. We are pain.
WLC has his own website on which he answers questions from people – a mix of skeptics, fence-sitters and fans. This would seem a noble endeavour but for the fact that he selects the messages he replies to, and doesn’t record a public backlog of all questions he receives. Clearly I find this suspicious, since we’re left with the false conclusion that WLC can handle all comers as opposed to simply cherry picking the questions he’s capable of answering (and capable of winning.)
I sent him a message a while back. Was it answered? Was it beans. At least, not as far as I can see.
It’s worth revisiting, now that the League’s finest are being accused of lying about William Craig, some of his less worthwhile strategies. Encapsulated herein, I give you my letter. Enjoy, or not, I’m honestly unconcerned. It was written concerning his debate with Antony Flew, which became the subject for my 5-part video series “Refuting William Lane Craig’s Proofs For God.”
In response to your debate with Flew:
I’m not particularly offering refutation to your proofs, as that would take some time – in addition to being something I’ve detailed in a video series. You’ve stated that even evidence against Christianity would not personally controvert your witness of the holy spirit, which suggests a mentality both unwilling and unable to relinquish faith on ANY rational basis. So probably on a hiding to nothing there.
No, my questions are more concerned with your debating etiquette itself. So!
a) You open proceedings with this statement: “In order to determine rationally whether or not God exists, we must conduct our enquiry according to the basic rules of logic.” How do you reconcile this statement with your assertions relating to, for example, morality – in which the basis for your “proof” derives from what you personally feel in your heart? The foundation of your evidence for objective morality is nothing more than an emotional assertion – divorced completely from the basic rules of logic, and the reality of the nuanced moral climates that can be found all over the world.
In addition, your final statement that we can know God exists “wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing him” . . . how can you open a statement with a call to logic and end it by bypassing logic altogether in favour of an experiential witnessing?
b) follows on from a). If you are willing to promote arguments based on experience, based on personal witnessing of the holy spirit and emotional reactions, how willing are you to accept identical arguments from followers of other religions? And, if you are as unwilling to accept the notion of other deities or supernatural entities as would be logically acceptable to surmise, on what basis do you reject Islamic arguments (for example) that mirror your own experiential proofs?
When you are happy to ignore any evidence that goes against your position, base your personal faith on experience, you need to have excellent reasons for not considering every other experiential argument for, well, anything. I suppose the most important and oft-asked question is “How can you KNOW God is true, aside from evidence, through witnessing the holy spirit when there are plenty of people who, upon experiencing similar things, would be either dismissed by you or labelled as delusional/insane?” And can you see the problem with attempting to combine experiential faith with logic?
Yours etc, Blue Dexter (Youtube user Th1sWasATriumph)