Skip to main content

Upcoming debate with William Lane Craig

For tickets go here:


AIGBusted said…
Hope it'll get recorded, and I know you'll do well.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks - will do my best, obviously.
Anonymous said…
Hopefully you've been given advice not to underestimate Craig.
Laurence said…
I really hope this gets recorded because I really want to see it. I love Philosophy Bites podcast that you are on.
Alan Fox said…
I suspect quite a few people have already suggested that debating Craig is going to be counter-productive.

For example:

He has debated several prominent atheists in this way and, for example, Christopher Hitchens, found the experience frustrating.

Below is a link to a blog that has a summary of Craig's debates with video and audio links which you may find useful (or already be aware of).

Anyway best of luck.

(Though I have my doubts how anyone can sensibly philosophically argue for the existence of God(s. You either fall back on Gods) being immaterial entirely, in which case they might just as well not exist, or God(s) can have effects in the material world, in which case we can examine the scientific evidence. No factual claim for the power of divine intervention has ever been supported when subjected to scientific study. So it boils down to whether one is emotionally disposed to believe claims for divine existence. This, of course should be a personal choice and a basic human right for everyone, a much more important issue, in my view.

Anyway, best of luck!
Alan Fox said…
Apologies, I did not notice the previous thread where you have already been "bombarded" with good advice.
Stephen Law said…
That's OK Alan. It's all useful....
I currently lean towards thinking that atheists should not agree to debate Craig because of his habitual dishonesty.

But that's not very useful to you right now. So instead, I'll say that I attended his debate with Sam Harris live, and thought Harris did an excellent job. I recommend both watching the debate online, and reading Harris' comments on it:
frances said…
We'll be there (4 of us in my family) & wearing our Atheist T-shirts (literally). I listened to the debate between WLC & Grayling re the problem of evil & personally I didn't think WLC was so great. His arguments included a very obvious appeal to authority. But having said that, the consensus, even amongst atheists, is that he is a formidable opponent - the triumph of style over substance, I think.
craig says that the debates are going to a draw
Reynold said…
Well, don't know how much this will help, but maybe this example of how Craig really feels about evidence may come in handy.
Rere said…
People who keep on saying don't debate craig because of his way of arguing theism is just obnoxious. The point of debate is to show who is more convincing, and if one had better arguments then one should crush craig's theism so people can think.
Opting not to debate, to me if one has better argument is really like a kid closing his ear and sing lalalala at the top of his lungs.... Just silly ignorance.

I applaud you Stephen, i hope you can present your case better than other atheist debater so far.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Why do atheists think Christians believe unreasonably, if they don't?

How reasonable is it for the religious to believe the central tenets of their respective religions? According to many atheists: not very. Many atheists suppose it is in each case unreasonable for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bahá’ís, Quakers, Mormons, Scientologists, and so on to believe what they do. The religious person usually takes a different view of at least their own religious belief. They suppose science and reason do not significantly undermine, and may indeed support, the core tenets of their own faith. The same is true of non-religious theists. They consider their brand of theism is reasonably, or at least not unreasonably, held even if no particular religion is. Indeed, many theists consider atheism unreasonable. Even when participants in discussions between atheists on the one hand and defenders of some variety of religious or theistic belief on the other include intelligent, philosophically sophisticated and well-informed people striving to think carefully and objec