What do you think of WIlliam lane craig

[Sunfire315]

reasonablefaith.org/

He is an aexcellent apologist, and his work was largely responsible for helping me get back into Christianity.

Though a lot of what he says seems to go against thomistic philosophy; for example craig adheres to an A-Theory of time; which would seem to go against Aquinas view of God as perceiving all moments of time simultaneously. Would it be heresy to adhere to an A theory of time.

 

[Wesrock]

Saint Thomas was brilliant, and his school of thought still dominates a lot of Catholic thinking. But Thomism is not a dogma of the Church, or even a doctrine.

As for A theory versus B theory, I think Saint Thomas would subscribe more towards the former. That God has knowledge of all points in time at once does not mean that all points in time exist at once or that time doesn’t progress. Thomists are “presentists.” Only the present exists.

I’m not sure I know enough of Craig to have much of an opinion of him, but I do disagree with his dismissal of the God of classical theism in favor of what is called personalism (clarification: God relates to us personally. He is not distant. But I would think it inaccurate to think of God the Father as a person among persons, or a being among beings, just another member of the set of existent things).

I’m happy to hear Craig helped persuade you back to Christianity, though!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

He’s excellent.

A atheist worst nightmare.

Says he cant be a Catholic because of the council of Trent:

youtube.com/watch?v=rIwwyYMluG0

At least he understands the difference between strict Merit and conduit Merit. He just cant stomach the terminology, though.

Technically, a protestant asking Jesus into his heart as Lord and Savior is a work, in a sense. I mean it’s a response or a action… And the council has basically said works are expected to continue after meeting the Lord, but it is by God’s grace that they occur.

 

[Estevao]

I really respect him. He got me into reading philosophy. I remember a couple of years ago he came to speak at my university, took questions, talked with people after. You don’t see that very often, a top-tier scholar make himself so available, both in his speaking tours, debates and work at reasonable faith.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Dr. Craig is great. I wish he were a Catholic and I don’t really understand why he isn’t, regardless of whatever he says. But he is worthwhile listening to and has brought many to Christianity.

Unfortunately, his “Reasonable Faith Chapters” are protestant-only clubs, rather than generically Christian groups- they can’t be lead by Catholics (you have to profess “the Bible” as your utmost authority), which I think is undue discrimination against the first Christians.

That said, he’s worth listening to and I believe he’s collaborated with some of the Catholic Answers staff in the past in a pro-Christian debate.

 

[SecretCatholic]

I can’t bear him.
His arguments are usually based on assumptions, rarely facts.
And in a debate, he doesn’t listen to his opponent or attempt to answer the questions that they ask him over and over and over.

He’s hardly “an atheist’s worst nightmare”. It’s difficult to take what he says seriously for so many reasons.

I don’t know what debates you have been watching, but in the ones I’ve watched I haven’t seen this to be the case and I find that he easily punches holes in flimsy atheist arguments which are made very much on “assumptions” and feelings rather than fact.

 

[RPRPsych]

He has some good points, and does good contra-atheist apologetics, but I’m not a fan. I take the Council of Trent very seriously. Methinks he should toss away his “Kalam” stuff for a while and actually read the Catechism of Trent.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I can’t bear him.
His arguments are usually based on assumptions, rarely facts.
And in a debate, he doesn’t listen to his opponent or attempt to answer the questions that they ask him over and over and over.

He’s hardly “an atheist’s worst nightmare”. It’s difficult to take what he says seriously for so many reasons.
Or maybe he is…because he’s so frustrating to debate or listen to, ya wanna shake him by the shoulders.

.

Is that why Dawkins has been hiding from him for years?

Finally agreed to a quasi ‘debate’ just to try and silence critics. But overall he wants no part of Dr. Craig in one on one format.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I don’t know what debates you have been watching, but in the ones I’ve watched I haven’t seen this to be the case and I find that he easily punches holes in flimsy atheist arguments which are made very much on “assumptions” and feelings rather than fact.

Many atheist apologists freely admit that Craig is a heavy weight. To not do so demonstrates ignorance or it’s just being disingenuous.

I dont agree with Dr. White on many issues but have no problem admitting he is a fantastic debator