” What we have here, is probably the biggest name in apologetic debates, and I emphasise debates, and his Kalam Cosmological Argument put forward as ‘evidence’.

Sure he impresses those that do not inquire, as he is extremely good at a chess game of logic, thru his preperation for debates. Most debating him are not prepared for his ability in that regard.

The problem is it is still supposition. His first premise is something he cannot know, and thus the logic of the whole argument is lost. I can go into concepts of space/time etc as well, but to try and keep it understandable, I will try and keep it brief.

The supposition that anything caused must have a cause is flawed logic when one creates the answer ‘therefore god’, as this leads to the logical conclusion, that this god must have a cause, in infinite regress.

He makes the supposition that time has specific formats that fit his model. Where for causality to occur, there must be time. Where there is no time, there is no causality. It is a paradox of creation. The problem for Dr Craig, is he has to prove that which no scientist yet knows, is the version of time that he defines it as AND explain how something effectively comes from nothing, with no causality.

It also leaves one having to make the leap to explaining how one gets from this ‘creation’ to the concept of a god as put forward by christianity, explaining how one understands something that is beyond all that can be known. It is a leap from what looks to be simple, to explaining how this ‘force’ would be the massively complex one described, and not extremely simple, as we see with any other process within the universe.”

He puts forward the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is clearly refuted if you do any search for it, he wins his debates thru his ability to debate and present himself.

For sure, Craig could be right, but as I stated above, it is not evidence as there are clear errors in the logic, and he cannot know, so there is no proof in what he states, his chances of being right are no where near advanced by his argument. It at BEST puts forward the possibility of a ’cause’, but from there all he is doing is making assumptions to define that cause.

OK so you think the discussion online is not fruitful, by all means, this is your site, remove my comments if they are out of line with your ‘insights’, and the information you are providing to folk ministering this stuff as fact.

peace, out

a lack of relationship doesn’t equal a lack of existence – that’s a pretty big leap in logic. You don’t have a relationship with George Washington, but you (I’m assuming) believe that he existed.

When I say that I have a personal relationship with God I am describing the reality that God has revealed himself to me in the Bible (and in creation) – who he is, what he is like, what I am like and what he has done to reconcile me (a wretched sinner), to himself (a holy and awesome God). As I read the Bible God speaks to me – revealing truth, revealing areas of my life where I can change to be more like him, encouraging me as I am taught more about his character and love for me. As I pray (speak) to God, I share my concerns with him and praise him for who he is and ask him to act according to his will.

Apologetics isn’t a particularly ‘faith-based’ activity – there are atheist apologists. Apologetics is simply providing a thought-through defence or justification of a particular idea. It’s not about ‘filling in the gaps’, it’s about explaining and defending a concept. We both do it – you and I are both doing it in our comments on this post.

I think we both link to articles that support our thinking and our position. I am not going to give you an article that says that what I believe is nonsense, any more than you are going to do the same to me.

I haven’t suggested that having a relationship is all of the evidence I need – you’ve read/listened to some of William Lane Craig (and probably other Christian apologists too), you can see that there’s lots of evidence for god, even if you don’t believe in the God of the Bible.

You suggest that the problem with William Lane Craig’s arguments is that his opponents simply aren’t well enough prepared. To be honest, I just don’t buy this as a very compelling reason against what he is saying, particularly when Craig is well respected and I’m sure atheists would a) be sure to put up well-respected speakers to debate with him and b) prepare rigorously for these debates.

I’ll leave you with a question to ponder – is it possible that maybe Craig is right, and that there is a god?

Anyway, as I said in a post earlier in the week, I’m not sure that this kind of discussion online is particularly fruitful. I again extend my offer to chat (email me at steve AT communicatejesus.com), but it’s unlikely I will continue the debate here as this isn’t the purpose of this website.

I would be interested to hear what you mean by a ‘personal relationship’ attributing human facets of a relationship to a supreme being. Is this just terminology? Or do you honestly believe there is 2 way communication that you receive from your god, the same way that you would with people?

Personally, I find that those of faith generally link to other articles that support their position without actually thinking the process through or putting forward logical, reasonable arguments with evidence. They end up, as you have done, claiming they have a relationship, and that’s all the evidence they need.

It’s also quite interesting the term ‘apologetic’. Basically these people find explanations to fill the gaps that, for instance science and/or logic put forward, and ultimately, it comes down to ‘we cannot know a supreme beings plans’. Their approach is essentially midrashic interpretation of texts, until their projected meaning ‘fits’.

Dr Craig’s arguments in debates (and he is extremely good at debates as he prepares well, where his opponents usually are unprepared and take for granted that someone with an invisible friend will be easy to beat) is a ‘retreat to the possible’. It is possible, so therefore it cannot be dis-proven. It’s a shift of the burden of proof, and many of his opponents fall for it, because Dr Craig is so very experienced in debate. However he always shifts the burden of proof, and fails to answer questions such as how can a good God torture for eternity, those who’ve never heard of him? Effectively I find Dr Craigs position to be one of interpretation to extremes, then shifting the burden of proof. He focuses on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is a very complex argument, and if not well understood, will lead a debate opponent down a dead end as they accept the first premise, and as he is always extremely well prepared (I would say he is one of the best debaters in the world on the topic, however that is a statement over his ability to organise for a debate, not the points he is debating). It’s always easier to look back on his statements than it is to logistically challenge them coherantly at the time. Effectively Dr Craig starts his debates with the premise that something cannot come from nothing, that the universe needs a cause, as ‘anybody can tell you this is reasonable and logical’, without providing any evidence to that, as there is really none to date. Effectively binding opponents into having to agree on that compromise.

The same is said across many religions with regard the ‘personal relationship with god’ in various ways. (a good exception is Islam, which actually sees the personification of god the way you are doing it, as blasphemy) It is no different from the teenage Mormon door-knocker who tells you he knows the Book of Mormon was written by ancient Americans because he has a warm, swelling feeling in his stomach when he asks God if it’s true.

I’m back up and running now, and the discussion is going strong with about 200 comments.