Skip to main content

Superior audio recording of my debate with William Lane Craig

Justicar has very kindly produced a much-improved version of the audio of the debate between myself and William Lane Craig. The original audio recording was pretty ropey. This is much better and the blurbs are largely edited out too.

Go here.

I am hoping the video, when released, will have better audio. I was kitted out with two shirt mics plus there were two lectern mikes so I assumed the audio would be fine. It wasn't.


Anonymous said…
Was the Swinburne debate put up anywhere? I'm all WLC'd out.

If it was put up somewhere I missed it.
Anonymous said…
Never heard WLC so flustered.

By his third attempt he was rushing, and fumbling... and well aware that he had not answered your challenge at all.

The spontaneous applause that he got was his fans panicking... joyous to listen to.

Well done.
Add yourself to the short list of people who put Craig in his place.
Stephen Law said…
Well thanks anon number 2. I apreciate that. Hope it's true! Anon 1 - I am chasing that recording now (the philipse one).
Anonymous said…
I was astounded by Law's inability to deal with the moral argument and then get applause from his groupies when he admitted that he hasns't a clue where the universe came from. Is this the best a philospher who has thought through these issues can actually produce? Thesism 1 - Atheism - 0
Anonymous said…
I would like to second the general thrust of the 2nd anonymous post. I must say I did lulz when you kept hammering him with the egc. Naturally, you should expect a whole lot of bile from his supporters for Craig is likened by them to have quite "strong" arguments in favor of christian theism etc etc.

As an aside, my opinion is that it's frankly pretty useless to debate him. Specifically, I mean, it's not going to stop him from simply regurgitating the same stuff the next time he debates someone. Honestly, just watch the Shelley Kagan debate: where Shelley explains rather easily how, say a naturalist, can have meaning, even deep meaning. Yet, I've heard him repeat the argument(herp derp) that deeper meaning is illusory on the naturalistic account. He's got a job to do, and as correct as your arguments are, they won't get in the way of his evangelizing. Nonetheless, well done! Sorry for the rant.
Anonymous said…
Dear Dr. Law,

I just finished listening to your debate with William Lane Craig and find myself at a loss to understand why you refused to engage most of Craig's arguments. That is exactly what the popular atheists have done in their debates with him, and it makes our side look terrible--like we don't have science and logic and reason on our side (which we do!). In the Q&A session afterwards you kept expressing a fear of "being trapped"---which I'm afraid gave the impression that you were afraid you did not have any good answers for them.

I was frankly hoping that as a philosopher you would engage in an intellectually rigorous discussion. Craig responded to every point you raised. By my count, you responded to maybe one quarter of his points, and very late in the argument at that.

Is there ANY professional atheist out there who is willing to seriously engage and refute Craig's arguments for theism? His arguments are all out there on youtube and in books, just waiting to be knocked down! We need a champion for our side. Right now it looks like we are running scared.

-A concerned atheist
Stephen Law said…
Yeh, right "concerned atheist". Clearly you are an atheist and not, say, a theist engaging in Unchristian fibbing and disembling for Jesus?

If you are genuinely an atheist, then you should know that I focussed on Craig's God as Craig defines God. The cosmological argument does not support Craig's God over an evil God. Neither does fine-tuning, etc. So I could, and did, safely ignore those arguments and simply targeted what was left - the moral argument. A very good strategy, I think which sidesteps all the largely irrelevant bullshit Craig and other theists (like yourself?) try to get us bogged down in. I can see that must be frustrating for you.
Stephen Law said…
The point is this, it is possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Craig's god does not exist without even attempting to refute the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments. So why bother refuting them?
Anonymous said…

Thank you very much for sharing this with us. I had previously felt that Craig's moral argument was by far his weakest argument and the best point of attack, though I wasn't entirely sure why others hadn't properly confronted him on it.

You demonstrated this weakness beyond the reasonable doubt of any rational listener.

As a physics student I find the cosmological and fine tuning arguments interesting, and I'd love to see someone destroy those arguments in a debate, though I feel they are too complex to be done justice within the timescale, and you were obviously right to sidestep them.

Craig, D'Souza and Turek all basically use them as a red herring to waste their opponent's time and distract from their real weakness.

Thank you,

Anonymous said…
Is there a video of the debate somwhere?

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