Debating Atheism (part 2)

This is the continuation of an ongoing discussion I am having with Theomorph. We are discussing the recent debate, "Does God Exist?" between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey. Here are my initial comments regarding his take on the debate.

In an attempt to show that Craig simply made statements like those below without providing any support for his statements, Theomorph, quotes some of Craig's statements.

Here are a few quotes from Craig: Dacey's arguments are "enormously presumptuous" Dacey's argument is "plainly false" Dacey's arguments are "self-refuting" Dacey's arguments are "logically invalid" Dacey's argument is "pretty clearly false," "obviously false," and "pure speculation." "He's simply mistaken." And, my personal favorite, "I don't think that's true."

Again, I will say that anyone reading the transcript will see that these statements were followed up by examples. He never simply allowed the statement to stand as his argument. You are either being dishonest with these claims or you really didn't hear Craig's supporting arguments. I will assume it is the latter and we will see from the transcript, once it is available, what support Craig provided.

Theomorph argues that Craig never provided any "concrete examples." He also points out when Dacey challenged one of Craig's sources.

Dacey called him on that one, especially regarding Gerd Ludemann, and Craig replied by claiming that he had read Ludemann more closely and knew what Ludemann was really saying. But I've read Ludemann, too, and I don't see how Dacey could have been anything but correct in his assessment of Ludemann's view on the point in question, i.e., did people experience a resurrected Jesus

I felt like Dacey made his point clear on this one. It seemed to me that Craig conceded that Ludemann doesn't believe the resurrection actually happened but believes the people were halucinating. Craig simply said that Ludemann admits that people "saw" the resurrected Christ, even if Ludemann feels they were halucinations. I would agree with Theomorph here. I think Craig was reaching in trying to use Ludemann as a source. This was Dacey's biggest win, though I think it might have been one of his only ones.

Theomorph points out that Craig mainly used New Testament advocates in support of his arguments on the resurrection, "which makes their views fundamentally suspect." I don't think that sufficiently argues the points Craig made. To throw doubt on the source doesn't argue the point made. For example, if everyone wanted to shut the mouths of the few Christians who were spreading a lie about Jesus rising from the dead, why didn't they prove he didn't? The only valid argument is that the body was stolen, but that becomes a problem knowing that the tomb was guarded. I think there were about 3 other arguments that Craig made for his case that the resurrection occured, but my point is that doubting the source of these arguments proves nothing.

That only covers the first half of Theomorph's first rebuttal of my original comments. As time permits I will address the rest of that rebuttal and then move on to his most recent comments in order. As it turns out, I don't seem to have the time Theomorph has to volley back immediately. I am limited to about an hour a day with family, a full-time job, and school eating up the rest of my time.