William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 4

In the March Reasonable Faith Newsletter William Craig asserted this FALSE principle about valid deductive arguments that have premises that are probable:... in a deductive argument the probability of the premises establishes only a minimum probability of the conclusion: even if the premises are only 51% probable, that doesn’t imply that the conclusion is only 51% probable. It implies that the conclusion is at least 51% probable.There are a variety of natural tendencies that people have t … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 3

I had planned to discuss counterexamples (to Craig's principle) that were based on dependencies existing between the premises in some valid deductive arguments.  But I am putting that off for a later post, in order to present a brief analysis of some key concepts.It seems to me that an important part of understanding the relationship between valid deductive arguments and probability is keeping in mind the distincition between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. So, I'm going to d … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson – Part 2

I admit it.  I enjoyed pointing out that William Lane Craig had made a major blunder in his recent discussion of the logic of deductive arguments (with premises that are probable rather than certain).However, there are a variety of natural tendencies that people have to reason poorly and illogically when it comes to reasoning about evidence and probability.  The fact that a sharp philosopher who is very experienced in presenting and analyzing arguments could make such a goof just goes to sh … [Read more...]

William Lane Craig’s Logic Lesson

The March Newsletter from Reasonable Faith just came out, and it includes a brief lesson in logic from William Lane Craig. However, the lesson presents a point that is clearly and obviously WRONG, and it promotes bad reasoning that could be used to rationalize UNREASONABLE beliefs.  It appears that WLC is himself in need of some basic lessons in logic.William Craig recently debated a professor of philosophy named Kevin Scharp at Ohio State University, and in the current Reasonable Faith … [Read more...]

How Not to Debate ‘the’ Moral Argument: Reply to PZ Myers

(Redated post originally published on 8 June 2012)In a recent post, PZ Myers complains that a couple of atheists botched their response to 'the' moral argument for God's existence.[1] He writes: There is a common line of attack Christians use in debates with atheists, and I genuinely detest it. It’s to ask the question, “where do your morals come from?” I detest it because it is not a sincere question at all — they don’t care about your answer, they’re just trying to get you to say that you … [Read more...]

Summary and Assessment of the Craig-Draper Debate on the Existence of God (1998)

(Redated post originally published on 15 October 2011)This is a another very old debate summary, which I wrote back in 1998. I have made some minor changes.SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE CRAIG-DRAPER DEBATE: DOES GOD EXIST? (1997) United States Military Academy at West PointNote: the audio of this debate may be heard here.Craig's Opening StatementCraig's presentation was his standard, cumulative case for Christian theism.T1. The kalam cosmological argument (1) … [Read more...]

Summary of the Craig-Price Debate on Jesus’ Resurrection (1999)

(Redated post originally published on 16 October 2011)This is yet another old debate summary from my archives. I'm not sure when I wrote this, but I'm guessing it was between 1999 and 2002.THE CRAIG-PRICE DEBATE: DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?The Veritas Forum Ohio State University, 1999Curiously, the audiocassettes do not mention Robert Price's name, or even a debate at all. Instead, the label on the tape reads, "Intellectual Foundations for Belief in Jesus Christ by William … [Read more...]

Summary of the Craig-Parsons Debate, “Why I Am/Am Not a Christian”

(Redated post originally published on 14 October 2011)This is a repost of a debate summary I wrote a long time ago. (I think I wrote this in 1998.) While I tried to be accurate, I don't claim this summary is perfect. If anyone identifies any errors, omissions, or anything else that requires editing, please feedback alerting me so I can fix the summary accordingly.One thing you will notice is that I tried use a consistent numbering scheme throughout the different speeches, to make it … [Read more...]