William Lane Craig vs Peter Millican - Does God Exist?

I find William Lane Craig fascinating... and disturbing. He's an interesting case study of a very intelligent and learned man who will use the most state-of-the-art scientific and philosophical scholarship to support the bat-shit-insane and mutually contradictory beliefs that are the legacy of the virtually illiterate goat-herders who gave us Christianity: the ultimate cult of child sacrifice.

I also like to periodically showcase him on this blog because, insane as his ideas are, he does manage to provide some of the most 'sophisticated' articulations in favor of the Christian faith. Why use idiots and straw men when you can use 'scholars' like Craig or Plantinga to show the insanity of these beliefs?

Anyway, in the following debate with Professor Peter Millican (from whom I hope you've already learned your introduction to modern philosophy), Craig engages (as he always does) in a fascinating exercise of trying to shift the burden of evidence from himself, the believer, to the skeptic... as if...

What I do like about the debate, on the other hand, is the courtesy between the two philosophers (a lesson for us all, whatever our stand on the issue) and the fact that they do take each other seriously enough to try to counter each other's actual positions. Agree or disagree with one or the other, you are sure to be stimulated by the exchange.



If it were up to me, I'd change the names of Craig's arguments to the following:

  1. The Kalam "I-can't-understand-infinities" argument
  2. The fine-tuning argument for stupid life
  3. The "I'm-color-blind-with-respect-to-morality-and-therefore-can't-see-anything-other-than-my-own-already-assumed-presuppositions-and-false-dilemmas" argument.
  4. I could also call 3 the "I-don't-like-the-implication-of-the-Euthyphro-dilemma-so-I'm-going-to-call-it-a-false-dilemma-and-pretend-like-my-third-alternative-doesn't-just-rehash-exactly-the-same-original-dilemma" argument
  5. The "the-so-called-problem-of-evil-does-not-disprove-God-because-without-God-evil-couldn't-exist" argument
  6. The "naturalistic-and-psychological-explanations-for-the-'resurrection'-of-Jesus-threaten-my-belief-in-the-infallibility-of-human-experience-given-to-us-by-God" argument
  7. The argument from personal placebo.
  8. I could also call 7 the "I've-had-the-subjective-experience-of-being-touched-by-the-Flying-Spathetti-Monster's-noodly-appendage-therefore-God-exists" argument.

I'm sure you can come up with more catchy names. Feel free to leave those in the comments