Four-minute overview of 11 arguments for Christianity by William Lane Craig

I thought that I would post a few videos from the two debates featuring William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens. The first video may be useful to Christians who have never heard any arguments for the existence of God. (See my index of apologetics posts for some arguments and responses)

Here is Bill’s concluding speech from the first skirmish at the Dallas Christian Book Expo debate:

Here is a video clip of an exchange they had in their debate at the massive Biola University showdown:

And here are some snippets from the pre-debate press interviews with Craig and Hitchens:

Here’s more information of the Biola University debate between Craig and Hitchens.

Remember what the atheist reaction in the blogosphere was: (H/T MandM)

When Debunking Christianity puts up a post entitled William Lane Craig “Won by a Landslide” Against Hitchens I think it is safe for all to say Craig bested Hitchens.

Common Sense Atheism states “Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”

Now that we have the answers to the atheist questionnaire, we’ll be able to answer why people become atheists shortly. We’ll see in the coming days!

Here’s a hint from atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel of New York University. Nagel says this:

“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)

By the way, Nagel is not, I repeat, not a the kind of atheist I usually rail against. He is one of the informed ones, and has even argued in defense of intelligent design as science, as has another informed atheist Bradley Monton. These are fair, honest, educated atheists – like Anthony Flew and Dean Kenyon were before they changed their minds. More on Nagel’s paper, and Monton’s reaction.


Remember the debate between William Lane Craig and Internet Infidel Richard Carrier? Audio of the debate is here. Carrier’s admission of defeat is here, on his blog. Craig’s two-part post-debate response to Carrier (MP3 podcasts) is here and here.

2 thoughts on “Four-minute overview of 11 arguments for Christianity by William Lane Craig”

  1. To be fair, Nagel has not supported ID as true. He is a Feyerabendian in that he thinks there is no reason to reject an hypothesis out of hand. As long as it makes predictions, it is scientific. He should hardly be used as support for ID, even if he thinks we should be open to teaching it in schools.

    (I copied this comment over for philosophickle because he originally put it in the wrong post – WK)


    1. But see this story to update your view. This week has been such an emotional roll-coaster. Going back 2,3 and 4 times for clarifications from those atheists on their answers and dealing with their meanness, and now I am reading about an informed atheist I really respect… you can’t pigeonhole atheists into 1 good or 1 bad group. The rank and file are usually nasty, but the scholars, especially the philosophers and economists, are pretty good!

      Hint: Nagel is now rejecting Darwinism, but still not committed to a design by an intelligence. ID would not necessarily commit him to theism, but only to an intelligent cause for certain effects in nature – much like the sequencing of symbols in my Java code is best explained by positing an intelligent coder, but not necessarily God. Oh, but my code is very good and I have a code review tomorrow on some of it: 94% unit-tested in JUnit, no tight coupling due to interfaces and mock objects. Hooah!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s