Prayers for William Lane Craig

[StMonicaGuideMe]

While I do enjoy a lot of what Craig has to say, I will pray that God will get the glory, not that Craig will "win" the debate. IMO we can't overlook the ultimate reason that he is debating. I hope it is to bring glory to his God, not to win a debate with his wit, or embarrass someone he is debating.
I also pray that God will use W.L. Craig to speak to those listening who are open to the truth.

Rick, of course it's about winning the debate. No-one is overlooking anything ultimate. This is a battle of worldviews, and if you don't like it then that's your prerogative. But this pseudo-pious waffle about not wanting the term “win” pronounced seems like political correctness gone mad.

I would say you're both right. What Rick said reminded me of some recent lessons on Divine Providence that I've encountered. This is indeed a difficult time where worldviews are aplenty and they will clash. However, I don't think Rick was attempting to be pseudo-pious, I believe the message is correct. Everything in our lives, absolutely everything, should be for the greater glory of God. When God is pleased with our efforts, and knows that what we ask is truly good, He is more likely to act in our favour. Thus, by simply praying in this way, "God's Will be done for His Glory", would He not be more inclined to listen to our requests? In the end, if we offer everything up for the glory of God, we in turn would be rewarded for our faith and have our prayers answered. I am not, of course, suggesting we use prayer as a manipulation -- God knows our hearts so I think that's impossible But if we're asking for what is truly Good, because He is Good, then I don't think it's pseudo-pious to suggest it

[DannyM]

I would say you're both right. What Rick said reminded me of some recent lessons on Divine Providence that I've encountered. This is indeed a difficult time where worldviews are aplenty and they will clash. However, I don't think Rick was attempting to be pseudo-pious, I believe the message is correct. Everything in our lives, absolutely everything, should be for the greater glory of God. When God is pleased with our efforts, and knows that what we ask is truly good, He is more likely to act in our favour. Thus, by simply praying in this way, "God's Will be done for His Glory", would He not be more inclined to listen to our requests? In the end, if we offer everything up for the glory of God, we in turn would be rewarded for our faith and have our prayers answered. I am not, of course, suggesting we use prayer as a manipulation -- God knows our hearts so I think that's impossible But if we're asking for what is truly Good, because He is Good, then I don't think it's pseudo-pious to suggest it

Agree to an extent, but since, as you acknowledge, God knows our hearts and knows that, for us, His will be done, then there is no issue. On the other hand, it would be a good thing to voice this praise more often when praying to God... And I didn't think Rick was trying to be pseudo-pious. Manchester United fans have many faults, StMonica, but I don't think Rick would intentionally succumb to the blasted pseudo-piety.

[DannyM]

William Lane Craig vs. Stephen Law: Does God Exist?

MP3

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011 ... -does.html

[Silvertusk]

Listening to the first part of Stephen's Law arguements - are atheists really running out of ideas? There are answers to all the things he is sprouting off readily available - the Problem of Evil is the most explained and answered problem out there.

SIlvertusk.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

Agree to an extent, but since, as you acknowledge, God knows our hearts and knows that, for us, His will be done, then there is no issue. On the other hand, it would be a good thing to voice this praise more often when praying to God... And I didn't think Rick was trying to be pseudo-pious. Manchester United fans have many faults, StMonica, but I don't think Rick would intentionally succumb to the blasted pseudo-piety.

Fair enough.

[DannyM]

Listening to the first part of Stephen's Law arguements - are atheists really running out of ideas? There are answers to all the things he is sprouting off readily available - the Problem of Evil is the most explained and answered problem out there.

he's using a slightly different argument. He's saying you can glean an evil God from the existence of good just as readily as you could glean a good God from the existence of evil. He came with one argument, and this was it. Craig defends this well in the debate (he actually creamed the debate) but I feel was often left without words in the discussion afterwards. He even let Law get away with accepting objective moral values without giving an account for these values. Law also seemed to believe he could come to a debate as a philosopher and just say "I don't know" with regards to the fundamental questions while at the same time refusing to deal with Craig's three core arguments. Very strange. Overall I think Craig won (yet again) but we saw the glaring hole in evidentialist apologetics exposed.

[Byblos]

So let me get this straight, Law believes the universe began but doesn't know why, does not object to a creator but can't tell if he's good or evil, and believes in objective morality but can't explain its source. Really? I mean, is he for real? And he calls himself an atheist .

I'm just surprised that WLC didn't address Law's argument of an evil god in terms of privations. Truth is an evil god cannot possibly exist since evil is not a thing in and of itself but rather the complete and total privation of good. I think that would have put the final nail in Law's coffin of an argument.

[DannyM]

So let me get this straight, Law believes the universe began but doesn't know why, does not object to a creator but can't tell if he's good or evil, and believes in objective morality but can't explain its source. Really? I mean, is he for real? And he calls himself an atheist .

Law was a mess at times during the debate wasn‘t he, John? Almost as bad as Sam Harris was.

I'm just surprised that WLC didn't address Law's argument of an evil god in terms of privations. Truth is an evil god cannot possibly exist since evil is not a thing in and of itself but rather the complete and total privation of good. I think that would have put the final nail in Law's coffin of an argument.

I thought the exact same thing as you! I’m reminded of the late, great Herbert McCabe, whose exposition on this is superb in God Matters. I think Craig was left stumped in the discussion. But he is class, and will be prepared for this in the future.

[Byblos]

So let me get this straight, Law believes the universe began but doesn't know why, does not object to a creator but can't tell if he's good or evil, and believes in objective morality but can't explain its source. Really? I mean, is he for real? And he calls himself an atheist .

Law was a mess at times during the debate wasn‘t he, John? Almost as bad as Sam Harris was.

He certainly was, down right incoherent at times.

I'm just surprised that WLC didn't address Law's argument of an evil god in terms of privations. Truth is an evil god cannot possibly exist since evil is not a thing in and of itself but rather the complete and total privation of good. I think that would have put the final nail in Law's coffin of an argument.

I thought the exact same thing as you! I’m reminded of the late, great Herbert McCabe, whose exposition on this is superb in God Matters. I think Craig was left stumped in the discussion. But he is class, and will be prepared for this in the future.

I've got to read that, thanks. But yeah, a purely evil god cannot even begin to exist without first presupposing the existence of a purely good God (a lack of something cannot exist before the thing itself existing first). And the law of non-contradiction prevents them from both being at the same time, otherwise they would annihilate each other and nothing can exist (yet here we are). I would've thought that's the first thing that would have popped in WLC's mind as a response, I mean it's so obvious a couple of neophytes like us thought of it. But then again, in the heat of the debate sometimes you don't know what to expect. All in all, WLC did a great job though.

[DannyM]

I've got to read that, thanks.

John ,I loaned this out to an old friend who turned and haven't seen it since. I'll be re-ordering it soon, along with God Still Matters (which I've been meaning to order ever since reading God Matters). I'll send you the them both shortly after they arrive. You'll love McCabe.

But yeah, a purely evil god cannot even begin to exist without first presupposing the existence of a purely good God. And the law of non-contradiction prevents them from both being at the same time, otherwise they would annihilate each other and nothing can exist (yet here we are). I would've thought that's the first thing that would have popped in WLC's mind as a response, I mean it's so obvious a couple of neophytes like us thought of it. But then again, in the heat of the debate sometimes you don't know what to expect. All in all, WLC did a great job though.

I've been reading some post-debate comments, and a couple of times I've seen it said that maybe Craig was "going easy" on Law. I just can't see it since Law was clearly making the same point that needed rebuking. I'm thinking that Law's format totally threw Craig in the discussion, and he was perhaps left wondering himself if there was any validity to Law's argument, since perhaps he hadn't quite heard it put that way before... Just musing...

[Byblos]

I've got to read that, thanks.

John ,I loaned this out to an old friend who turned and haven't seen it since. I'll be re-ordering it soon, along with God Still Matters (which I've been meaning to order ever since reading God Matters). I'll send you the them both shortly after they arrive. You'll love McCabe.

That would be phenomenal.

But yeah, a purely evil god cannot even begin to exist without first presupposing the existence of a purely good God. And the law of non-contradiction prevents them from both being at the same time, otherwise they would annihilate each other and nothing can exist (yet here we are). I would've thought that's the first thing that would have popped in WLC's mind as a response, I mean it's so obvious a couple of neophytes like us thought of it. But then again, in the heat of the debate sometimes you don't know what to expect. All in all, WLC did a great job though.

I've been reading some post-debate comments, and a couple of times I've seen it said that maybe Craig was "going easy" on Law. I just can't see it since Law was clearly making the same point that needed rebuking. I'm thinking that Law's format totally threw Craig in the discussion, and he was perhaps left wondering himself if there was any validity to Law's argument, since perhaps he hadn't quite heard it put that way before... Just musing...

Quite possible (I did get that impression too), but WLC is a seasoned debater and doubt very much he hasn't seen similar arguments put forth before, but who knows. Too bad, because he could have shut him up once and for all since that pretty much was Law's only argument.

[narnia4]

Listening to the first part of Stephen's Law arguements - are atheists really running out of ideas? There are answers to all the things he is sprouting off readily available - the Problem of Evil is the most explained and answered problem out there.

he's using a slightly different argument. He's saying you can glean an evil God from the existence of good just as readily as you could glean a good God from the existence of evil. He came with one argument, and this was it. Craig defends this well in the debate (he actually creamed the debate) but I feel was often left without words in the discussion afterwards. He even let Law get away with accepting objective moral values without giving an account for these values. Law also seemed to believe he could come to a debate as a philosopher and just say "I don't know" with regards to the fundamental questions while at the same time refusing to deal with Craig's three core arguments. Very strange. Overall I think Craig won (yet again) but we saw the glaring hole in evidentialist apologetics exposed.

Definitely. Craig is a great debater no question, but he does have his weaknesses. Not so much in defending Christianity positively, but with the evidential approach atheists still seem to get away with murder in their thought process even if Craig dismantles their actual argument.

To be fair though, Craig does use the argument from morality so maybe with debating being a limited format he just has to pick his spots. Although you would think that its definitely a big enough issue to warrant discussion.

[Silvertusk]

I think Criag was stumped at some times due the stupidity of Laws argument - I have never heard of something so ridiculous in my life - the whole concept of an evil God - The whole point was whether God Exist - not what type of God was he. And Craig himself said you don't need the fact that good or bad things happen in the world to justify whether God is good anyway. Law basically had brought nothing to the debate which just goes to show the pathetic weakness of the atheist stance. It would be laughable if it was not so tragic that actual souls are at risk here.

Silvertusk.

[narnia4]

That's another point. Let's say that God "could" be a malevolent dictator (and as Byblos pointed out there are strong arguments against that before you even get to discussion about the real God and not just theism in general)... does that mean there is no God? I always found that to be another major weakness when atheists try their own "argument from evil". First if you want to use the argument then you're admitting the existence of objective morality, something that just can't be without a God. But secondly, the argument doesn't do for atheism what the argument from objective morality does for theism- it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a god, even if the argument were to succeed.

Even though the general trends in Western countries are in the other direction, this is what makes me think that theism and specifically Christianity will be having a revolution (at least a mini-revolution), especially in "intellectual" circles (or at least among people like students and young Christians trying to grow in their faith). How long can you get away with big talk and bashing the other side when your deeper arguments are morally bankrupt and devoid of any real intellectual content? Yes, internet atheists will be cheerleaders for their new atheist heroes for a while and they'll be loud. But sooner or later the general public is going to see that when you get top apologists in there, they almost always win... not only win, but demolish their opponent. I don't think its just some sort of confirmation bias on my part either, I see ways they could do better at times but so many of these affairs are completely one-sided that its not even funny.

[RickD]

Agree to an extent, but since, as you acknowledge, God knows our hearts and knows that, for us, His will be done, then there is no issue. On the other hand, it would be a good thing to voice this praise more often when praying to God... And I didn't think Rick was trying to be pseudo-pious. Manchester United fans have many faults, StMonica, but I don't think Rick would intentionally succumb to the blasted pseudo-piety

Danny, I certainly wasn't trying to be pious, with my post. And, my post really wasn't intended for you so much, Danny. It was posted for others who may be reading, that may not know what you meant.

And also Danny, I have to admit, I'm not really a ManU fan. I just pretended to be, because I know how much you like Chelsea. And, also because you and I have been agreeing about a lot of things lately. I had to say something you'd disagree with.