Monday, September 12, 2011

WLC powerpoint?

What does Craig usually use on his powerpoints?


faithlessgod said...

Rhetoric and Sophistry

Dave said...

Rough overview but this is a Jesus historical one. For God's existence he usually plays to his updated version of Kalaam's Cosmological argument. From memory the slides he uses are generally bullet point in content.

Dave said...

Also this may help:

Paul Wright said...

Bayes Theorem on a slide entitled "Ehrman's Egregious Error", in his debate with Bart Erhman (intending to gesture at Earman's "Abject Failure" response to Hume on miracles). Blindsided the guy a bit. Don't expect civility from Craig.

Personally, I'd like to see more people pointing out that Craig is a Christian evangelist and noting how far his various arguments go towards making Christianity sound reasonable. Considered as arguments for evangelicalism, the Kalam falls to Hume, the moral argument to Craig's disgusting position on genocide, and so on. Craig calls his opponents out for being off topic when they try this ("we're arguing about moral ontology, not about the Bible") and to the extent that they're off topic for the particular argument, he's right. Nevertheless, Craig's 5 ways finish with an altar call for Christianity, so it's fair to point out that even if you accept the earlier arguments, you should find a better God than Craig's :-)

Tony Lloyd said...

"even if you accept the earlier arguments, you should find a better God than Craig's"

And you don't find one, which I think is an important point. Refutations are very powerful in that you can build up all the reasons you like for an idea but if the idea doesn;t work out then you have to abandon it. Modus Tollens (if x then y, not y so not x) sort of "trumps" everything else. Even to the extent that were you to have a purely deductive argument for x, if x falls to a refutation then you must conclude that you got your deductive reasoning wrong.

Stephen's Evil-God argument is one such refutation, whilst all Craig's arguments do is try to show that a belief in God is reasonable. But I don't think it matters how reasonable a belief is if it is evidently false.

Craig's argument against the Evil-God is likely to be an attack on the basis that it is arrogant to "tell God what to do" (I've seen a video where he makes this exact argument). I thought of a great Powerpoint slide to counter that. Start with a valid argument on the slide (eg "Socrates is mortal") and then anaimate in another premise:

Stephen Law is an arrogant tosser

Then ask the audience whether it's brought Socrates back to life!

Of course the "telling God what to do" is bollocks, reporting on what someone did is not "telling them what to do". It might be judging, but then Craig (and others) are equally judging when they say "God's a nice chap".

(BTW I think the Kalam falls at the very first premise. Why "everything that begins to exist has a cause"? Why not "everything after the Big Bang"? Or, getting all Kantian, "everything that can be experienced by rational creatures"? Or any of the infinite number of metaphysical principles that will fit the observed facts. The answer is, of course, that only the one used results in a conclusion of God's existence. So the Kalam argument chooses the premises to fit the conclusion. I don't see the need to give it the time of day after that.)

Michael Fisher said...

I haven't a clue ~ I'm sure you'll destroy the guy though ! If I may make a small observation: WLC is unconscious of his surroundings ~ he just zips through his script at 100mph. He doesn't do changes of pace to suit the flow of the debate. He's inflexible, charmless & a boor. WLC can't charm because he isn't interested in other people & their lives.

He doesn't care

Hitchens is the opposite ~ the first 5 mins of any Hitch video is a joy to watch as he establishes a link with the audience, the venue & the question at hand. Dan Barker is good in the same way.

Hitchens & Barker will not let the opposition control the speed or subject matter of the debate

jeremy said...

Sam Harris debated WLC a few months ago, and wrote a brief postmortem here, which is probably worth reading.

I think the more philosophical approach likely to be taken by Stephen would be a better approach to WLC's specious arguments than that taken by Sam.

Gimpness said...

I would recommend the following links "How to win against WLC"

This page has links to 55 debates he has had with a number of them video so if desired could see the slides!

Countering his "arguments from the best explanation" which seem to be all of his arguments

Gimpness said...

I would recommend the following links "How to win against WLC"

This page has links to 55 debates he has had with a number of them video so if desired could see the slides!

Countering his "arguments from the best explanation" which seem to be all of his arguments

Anonymous said...

Good luck

Michael Fisher said...

An example Turek vs Hitchens [YouTube]

Not a great debate (don't watch it all), but instructional stylistically. Please compare the cadence & the audience engagement skills. Turek delivers as if scolding a child who is short on understanding, while Hitch credits the listeners with intellect & mature levels of empathy ~ he includes them

Turek opening @ 5:22
Inept, weak, poor joke & gets 'shouty'

Hitchens opening @ 28:40
Virginia. Beautiful 'Family Guy' dig at Turek which works well with a student audience. Controlled delivery. Good timing. Perfect gaps.

I don't think Hitch has ever used powerpoint or the obligatory atheist Apple computer stage prop :)

Tony Lloyd said...

BTW, I didn't mean that you are an arrogant tosser, obv. But that you can show that it doesn't matter what Craig calls you, it doesn't affect the argument.

(oh, and this guy: has a lot of stuff on previous debates Craig has had. He might even have copies of the slides, somewhere)

Justin said...

True, by nearly all explanatory virtues, crags hypothesis fails to qualify for the best explanation. Dawes "theism and explanation" is a great start. Commonsenseatheism has a great summary series of the points in that book as well as an interview as well on his podcast "conversations from a pale blue dot"

sam said...

Please see the debate

I can assure you WLC is going to bring the same "arguments" .

Chris Turner said...

make sure that you go first

the git always goes first (ALWAYS) then spiels off 20 arguments to define the debate - you answer ten, he points out the ten you didnt answer + two more, you are always on the back foot from then on. Don't fall for it - GO FIRST, insist

He is the master of appeals to authority, especially to biblical scholars - any argument you put forward will be not supported by "the majority of biblical scholars", like they get to vote of the truth.

He has no shame.

Don't be precious about it, make a big list of quotes by theists that support your points and contradict his and use them.

And he will put words in your mouth "by implication Dr Law accepts this that and the other" - see the debate with the australian Slezak.

If you use the Jesus wasn't dead argument - he will argue that the Roman's were efficient, they killed him with the spear, all abit Gladiatorish, he had teriible wounds etc(thats why he only lasted a little while!). There are lots of stories of people in the 17/18th century being revived after hanging in England. Point out the people that have escaped from american jails, POWs from germany, the IRA landing a helicoptor in a Northern Irish jail, and that Rome was corrupt - how many gold pieces to turn the other way - no more than our police want to give the mobile phone number of a 7/7 victim to the News of the Screws.

Why did the apostles go along with the story, maybe some believed and maybe others went along for usual reasons, for the power over others, the women and money, yes money - they had everything in common, followers sold everything and gave it in trust to the apostles (and if they kept any back they dropped down dead).

First do you hear!!!!

Tony Lloyd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.