The arguments of William Lane Craig

[Vympel]

This Christian speaker is coming to Australia (is already here actually)- and as per what seems to be his full-time job, is debating whether God exists and other topics at local university campuses. On August 27, he appears in the Town Hall, facing off against an atheist from UNSW (University of New South Wales) IIRC, who I hear debunks Craig's arguments in the course he teaches.

I've read more than a few of Craig's debates on the internet- they seem like rubbish to me (he subscribes to the notion that the 'objective moral standard' is supplied by the Christian God/Demon whatever you prefer); but then again I went from not-put-much-thought into it agnostic to atheist over 6 months ago so I could be biased (could be, not am, I think atheists by and large have put far much thought into the faith that they were almost definitely spoon-fed as a child than the faith's own adherents, thank you very much).

Who else has read, or seen, any of his debates- does he have any good points? Is it all rubbish?

Should I go to this debate? Will Will Lane Craig get soundly trounced? (Probably not- Christians will be there and no matter what he says they will walk out nodding their heads and feeling good about their belief- and telling their atheist friends, i.e. me, stuff like see I told you so).

I'll stop. I'm starting to sound like the guy at the end of every episode of Batman (Adam West Batman that is).

[Darth Wong]

If he's facing a good debater, he'll get his ass handed to him but the Christians in the audience won't notice. If he's facing a poorly prepared debater, he might have enough rhetorical skills to make it seem as if he's winning. One of the most common mistakes people make when facing experienced Christian debaters is under-estimating them and walking in cold. Many of these guys have refined their act over a period of many years, and they know how to push an audience's buttons.

For example, the "objective moral standard" argument holds that God is right because he is omniscient and omnipotent. This is a leap in logic. It also assumes that since God is beyond us and not subject to any particular cultural or societal values or perspectives, his edicts are therefore objective (objective, as in not subject to any individual perspective). The problem is that even if a supreme being does exist and we accept the moronic leap in logic that supremacy = morality, it is irrelevant whether his edicts are objective because we must see them filtered through the narrative distortion of one particular perspective, ie- the Bible. Alternatively, we must see them through "personal revelation", which is distinctly subjective. Therefore, there is no such thing as a Christian "objective moral standard".

However, this is one of those cases where the argument hits home with believers and the rebuttal, while perfectly valid, comes off as dry and not very convincing logic. He can say "God is greater than us; he is obviously not subject to our whims, so his standard is objective," while you try to educate the audience about the proper meaning of "objective" and the distinction between an objective phenomenon and a subjective interpretation of that phenomenon. It's hard to win an argument like that in the minds of the audience, unless the audience is smart. An audience that lines up to see a person like this guy is not going to be particularly smart.