4 responses so far ↓

• AgeOfReasonXXI

  Apr 6, 2011 at 8:18 am

  

  here’s part of what Lawrence Krauss wrote about his debate with Craig:

  “Nevertheless I was not prepared for the self-congratulatory hype that I have seen spouted on the web, and have received in emails, including a typically disingenuous email from Wiliam Lane Craig to his followers regarding a debate I had with him in North Carolina last week. While carrying out the debate in the first place was something that broke my normal rules–as I said during the debate, I far prefer civil conversation and discourse as a way of illuminating knowledge and reality–I will break another rule and write this blog-like note on my own perspectives, in the hope that it may circulate and counter some of the nonsense that has propagated in the fundamentalist and religious blogs of late. Perhaps Craig will post this on his blog and send it out as well.

  I believe that if I erred at all, it was in an effort to consider the sensibilities of the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig, and to whom I decided to show undue respect. As I stressed at the time, I did not come to debate the existence of God, but rather to debate about evidence for the existence of God. I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be. For this reason, as I figured I would change few minds I decided also to try and illustrate for these young minds the nature of science, with the hope that what they saw might cause them to think. Unfortunately any effort I made to show nuance and actually explain facts was systematically distorted in Craig’s continual effort to demonstrate how high school syllogisms apparently demonstrated definitive evidence for God.

  Let me now comment, with the gloves off, on the disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies that I regard Craig as having spouted. I was very disappointed because I had heard that Craig was more of a philosopher than a proselytizer, but that was not evident the other evening. ”

  It’s sad that Krauss didn’t realize just how dishonest that professional hack William Lame Craig is BEFORE the debate. He would have rightly dismissed him as not worthy of his time.
• Matt

  Apr 6, 2011 at 10:29 pm

  

  Age of Reason, I see you again that you engage in character assassination and dismissing people as hacks, as opposed to offering any actual reasons for your conclusions. When you have something other than an ad hominem and have some critical comments of substance let me know. Until then I suggest you change your handle.
• AgeOfReasonXXI

  Apr 7, 2011 at 7:46 am

  

  “I see you again that you engage in character assassination and dismissing people as hacks, as opposed to offering any actual reasons for your conclusions”

  This time the conclusions were those of Lawrence Krauss. It’s him who accuses Craig of “disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies”. (read his full response). You don’t think one of the most prominent physicists in the U.S. is just trolling, right?
  The reason I posted part of it on your website is because you seem to admire that guy [Craig]. I wasn’t expecting a response from you.
• Sola Ratione

  Apr 12, 2011 at 1:47 pm

  

  If anyone is interested in an analysis of how Craig ‘set up’ the debate so that it would be a foregone conclusion in his favour, see this post:
  http://rationesola.blogspot.com/2011/04/william-l-craig-debates-undebatable.html