William L. Craig gets a big bang

Theistic rationale is an all or nothing proposition. When questioned Dr Craig would tell you he believes everything (without exception) in the bible to be true. What happens then is theism is victim to its weakest link in logic. There are many in my view. I don’t have to successfully debunk all of it to come to a reasonable conclusion as a skeptic.

If I had to say something generous about William Lane Craig, it would be that he’s intelligent, articulate, and wildly enthusiastic about the subject matter. His desire for his views to be true often clouds his judgement and he frequently makes assertions that overreach the data. Essentially, Dr.Craig has reached a conclusion and is trying to make the science fit the religion. That’s not good science. Some would say it’s not science at all.  First, Dr Craig is a theologian, not a scientist, historian or archeaological expert. He relies on statements from scholars and experts who only buttress his views and has not successfully made a compelling case against qualified debaters to my knowledge. I’ve watched many of the debates on YouTube, with Hitchens, Harris, Atkins, Dawkins, etc.

Craig is stronger argumentatively (in my opinion) in the science rather than the philosophy and religion, which I find ironic. There may be historic parallels in NT accounts of Roman times, but to claim “unimpeachable authority” the bible would need to be completely accurate in all things. It is not. Furthermore theists have failed to prove it so by any measurable standard. They can’t even agree among themselves what is a truth they can accept. (One example: http://www.nazarethmyth.info/ http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Therefore I’ll discuss more his areas of strength rather than the religion which quickly collapses on itself by virtue of the myriads of contradictory events written in the bible. (See weakest link statement above) For example, Adam and Eve could not be the sole progenitors of homo sapiens from a genetic standpoint. There isn’t a geneticist alive that would even attempt to make that argument. Intelligent design also fails to reconcile those events in any credible way. Then there’s the flood. If you accepted the narrative in the bible, this was a global extinction event. Flood waters completely covered the planet. Scientifically how would you explain A.) Where all the water came from, and B.) Where it disappeared to in forty days or so. How exactly did Noah manage to conserve all the birds and animals in the ark. It’s not logistically possible. I could go on. There are many examples.

To cite a specific scientific fallacy, Dr Craig goes to great length to dismiss “infinity” as a scientific concept. Math doesn’t support it, and so on. In the next breath he asserts that god is without limit, unending, all powerful, an infinite being existing outside time and space. One simply can’t have it both ways. http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-Would-an-Infinite-Universe-Mean-Sean-Carroll-/1750

He also makes assumptions about the beginning of the known universe (Big Bang) The “Something from Nothing” posit is completely unsubstantiated by both the theistic and scientific communities. Until more data is discovered, we are simply extrapolating from observation using our best knowledge to date as to what actually happened. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/cosmology.html

Science has arrived at a consensus that the earth is over a billion years old. They have also reliably established that there is evidence of man’s existence in the hundreds of thousands. Even being generous with the theistic timeline, 6-10K years doesn’t explain the archeaological evidence at hand. I’m compelled to follow the evidence until shown otherwise. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9989-timeline-human-evolution.html

Finally, no-one (theist or skeptic) has ever conclusively proved or disproved the existence of god. We don’t have the means to do that yet. Our universe is concrete and observable. It follows verifiable laws. Theist dogma defines god outside those constraints. As *theists* make the claim of god it falls to *them* to prove it.

Why am I an Agnostic? “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” W K Clifford


About Egg Zackly

Retired amateur pundit.
This entry was posted in Religion, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s