Comment by Eric on The Sin of Underconfidence · 2009-04-25T00:08:05.171Z · LW · GW

I've found some of the characterizations of Craig's arguments and debate style baffling.

When he debates the existence of god, he always delivers the same five arguments (technically, it's four: his fifth claim is that god can be known directly, independently of any argument). He develops these arguments as carefully as time allows, and defends each of his premises. He uses the kalam cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, and the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. This can hardly be characterized as dumping.

Also, his arguments are logically valid; you won't see any, 'brain teaser, therefore god!' moves from him. He's not only a 'theologian'; he's a trained philosopher (he actually has two earned PHDs, one in philosophy and one in theology).

Finally, Craig is at his best when it comes to his responses. He is extremely quick, and is very adept at both responding to criticisms of his arguments, and at taking his opponent's arguments apart.

Debating William Lane Craig on the topic of god's existence without preparation would be as ill advised as taking on a well trained UFC fighter in the octagon without preparation. To extend the analogy further, it would be like thinking it's a good idea because you've won a couple of street fights and want to test yourself.