William Lane Craig Knows He’s Wrong

Aug 23, 2011 1 Comment by

If you’ve watched more than one debate with this man then you’ll start to notice a pattern. He will always start his argument by defining atheism, rather than letting the atheist define themselves. It is in this definition that he tries to win over the audience and make himself seem terribly clever. He always defines atheism as being exclusively positive and super-positive atheism.

Positive atheism is the positive assertion that no gods exist. Of course, depending on the definition of a god, this can sometimes be proven, but for most definitions is unprovable. This puts the assertion on the same level of proof, and burden of proof, as the positive assertion that gods do exist.

William Lane Craig then goes on in his speeches to suggest, once again falsely, that his belief is more reasonable as it is more probable.

The man never tries to go near negative atheism. He deliberately writes it out of the definition in an attempt not to have to confront it. The fact that he quite obviously tries to avoid it, and tries to force the atheist into arguing something different, seems to suggest that he knows negative atheism is the untouchable position. Negative atheism is the most reasonable position, because it simply states that we don’t know whether or not gods exist and therefore shouldn’t actively believe in religion or structure our lives around it.

As much as he is a good public speaker, and he certainly thinks a little more about the subject than other religious people. Why, other than for fear that he is wrong, does he not address negative atheism with the same vigour as positive atheism?

Of course, this all neglects the fact that William Lane Craig not only tries to prove the existence of a god, but he tries to prove that Christianity is the one true religion.

Statements and Analysis

About the author

The author didnt add any Information to his profile yet

One Response to “William Lane Craig Knows He’s Wrong”

  1. Ed Rattlebrain says:

    Craig is a sophist, not a philosopher. That about says it all.