Does Craig’s hypocrisy know no bounds? (the Craig-Rosenberg debate)

I was going to make my next post on the Craig-Rosenberg debate about the problem of evil, but then I listened to what Craig had to say about the problem of evil in his first rebuttal, and wow:

I noticed that in Dr. Rosenberg’s opening speech he didn’t really present many arguments against the reasonableness of belief in God. He gestured in the direction of  the problem of evil, but he didn’t really develop it. (from the 54:37 mark)

Arguments based on controversial premises, never really developed… that’s a perfect description of all eight of Craig’s arguments from his opening statement. Rosenberg, at least, had the excuse that he was juggling responding to Craig’s arguments as well as stating his own. Craig, on the other hand, just made a decision to go for quantity over quality.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Betteridge’s law of headlines

    Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states, “Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.” …

  • augustine

    Did Rosenberg lay out the logical problem of evil in the form of premises and conclusion (as WLC did with his 8 arguments), so that his presentation of it could be unpacked and examined? I recall he spent a lot of his time talking about WLC personally (WLC “doesn’t listen”, “we’ve heard all his arguments before”–even though I think 3 of the arguments were new–etc.). He probably should have spent more of that time on his formal philosophical objections to reasonableness of God-belief.

  • sailor1031

    reasonableness of god-belief shouldn’t be a matter of philosophy. It should be a matter of evidence.

  • MNb

    A debate is not about finding the truth, it is about making an impression on the audience. It seems to me that WLC understands that better than the vast majority of his atheist opponents. So no, WLC’s hypocrisy does not know any bounds. What matters if he can get away with it and with logical fallacies as well. Some are nearly impossible to address in a debate. Example: if X refutes or seems to refute an argument of Y the audience – and sometimes the participants themselves – feel that as a consequence X’ argument is the correct one. You can’t fight against that in a debate. So part of your preparation, when debating types like WLC (he is far from unique in this respect), is to avoid getting cornered like that.
    Fortunately WLC seems to follow the same debating strategy overall, so it must be possible to prepare counterblows, hitting his weak points. Few people can’t do that straight out of their head though. I know I can’t, I’m a master of the stair argument (see Wikipedia, L’esprit de l’escalier). But what I can do is collect those stair arguments and use them the next time.

  • Pingback: yellow october