Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 11

What's a " Christian Analytic philosopher"? & The Ordering of The Lead Revisited
Before I edited the article, Craig was referred to as an "analytic Christian Philosopher", with a link pointing to "Christian Philosophy". Yes, Craig is a philosopher who is Christian, just like Plantinga. However, Plantinga isn't called an "analytic Christian philosopher" in his article; he's just called an "analytic philosopher". Strange. And when you go to the philosopher Daniel Dennett's article he's merely called a philosopher, not an "Atheist Philosopher". Very interesting. From what I understand, Craig's PhD is in Philosophy, not "Christian Philosophy". If Craig were to become Muslim tomorrow, then would he still be an "analytic Christian Philosopher"? I guess my point is the editors of this article shouldn't be trying to mislead the readers by making it look like there are different kinds of analytic philosophers. There are analytic philosophers who possess different properties, sure (female philosophers, black philosophers, etc.), but these properties shouldn't be lumped in with "analytic philosopher" as though it were its own entity or school of thinking. What's next? vegan analytic philosopher? Brown-haired analytic philosopher? I feel the purpose behind this treatment of Craig was to downplay his credentials; and let's not forget how some of the editors of this article were trying trying to rearrange the lead of this article to first mention Craig as a theologian and Christian apologist before calling him a philosopher. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Craig is referred to this way in the sources, and we follow those. Craig's primary claim to notability comes from his activities in theology and apologetics (essentially Christian philosophy).  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what sources one focuses on. You seem to be focusing on sources that fit your own view point and agenda. But there are sources that differ from your viewpoint and agenda. Some of which were mentioned on this very talk page. Did you ignore them? There's a laundry list of them down below referring to Craig as a philosopher first and foremost. Now, you've been frequenting this article for years, trying to downplay Dr. Craig's credentials. It's getting kinda weird. We know you dislike religion and theism, but that doesn't give you the license to lie to people about prominent Christian thinkers. And, finally, you never really addressed any of the points I made. For instance, why is Daniel Dennett not called an "Atheist Philosopher" in the opener of his article here at Wikipedia? Dennett is considered one of the four horsemen of atheism by... pretty much everyone, and yet, he's not called an "Atheist philosopher" Why? Because that would take away from Dennett's credentials. It'd make him look less scholarly and impartial. I'm sure I could find a bunch of sources that refer to Dennett as an "atheist philosopher", but when one says somebody is an atheist philosopher or christian philosopher, they don't mean to say there is a separate school of philosophy called "atheist philosophy" which they are a part of. What the writer is trying to show is that so-and-so is a philosopher who is an atheist. Now, Jess, are you interested in going to Dennett's page and changing his opener to describe him as an "atheist philosopher"? Or is that kind of tom-foolery reserved for only people who you disagree with? 100.43.29.68 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The contents of other pages don't influence this one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please don't make this personal, or a battleground, and please don't edit war. You seem to be saying in your first post that Craig should be a "philosopher", not an "analytic Christian philosopher", but in this post your emphasis seems to be the ordering of our labels. Could you clarify which point you're trying to address? Listing sources would also be helpful.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources have already been listed on this talk page under "Prominence of theologian, philosopher"; and I stand by my comments. If you don't understand my points, then go back and re-read them. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please clarify what sources specifically on this talk page you are referring too? Boomer VialHolla 07:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

His phd is in analytic philosophy, and he also has a degree in theology. There is no such thing as an "analytic Christian philosophy". Using "Christian" to describe his degrees, therefore, are pointless. I mean, why don't we just rewrite the intro like this:


 * William Lane Craig (/kreɪɡ/; born August 23, 1949) is an American Christian apologist, analytic Christian philosopher,[3][4][5] and Christian theologian.[6][7] Craig's Christian philosophical work focuses primarily on philosophy of religion (Christian), but also on Christian metaphysics and Christian philosophy of time. His Christian theological interests are in historical Jesus studies (with a Christian bias of course) and Christian philosophical theology. He is known for his Christian debates on the existence of God with much more reasonable public figures such as Christopher Hitchens[8] and Lawrence Krauss.[9]


 * Craig established an online Christian apologetics ministry, ReasonableFaith.org. His current Christian research deals with divine aseity (from an obviously biased Christian point of view) and the challenge posed by Platonist accounts of abstract objects. Craig is also a Christian author of several Christan books, including Reasonable (Christian) Faith,[10] which began as a set of Christian lectures for his Christian apologetics classes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess and his friends will need to explain what exactly a "christian analytic philosopher" is and if it differs from a "philosopher" or a "analytic philosopher". For instance, is an analytic philosopher who was raised Christian or believes in Christianity a "christian analytic philosopher"--or is that merely a philosopher who happens to be Christian? Or is that label reserved for only analytic philosophers who get Christian Analytic Philosophy PhDs (what's that? Craig has a PhD in Philosopher, doesn't he?)? And is the goal of this sort of labeling to somehow separate what Jess thinks are the "true philosophers" from the fake "christian philosophers"? Are there vegan analytic philosophers or muslim analytic philosophers? Jess said that other articles shouldn't influence this one, but I'd like to know if he would support somebody editing Daniel Dennett's article to describe him as an "American Atheist philosopher" instead of just an "American philosopher" Finally, Bill the Cat brings up a good point. If we are to tag Christian everywhere shouldn't we add that he is a "christian theologian" instead of just a "theologian"? Shouldn't we be consistent with our undermining of Craig's credentials? As for the ordering of the lead... this was talked about extensively down below under "Prominence of theologian, philosopher" where somebody posted several sources demonstrating that there are many people who see Dr. Craig as a philosopher first and foremost. When I have time I'll transfer the sources up here. Sources showing that Craig should be referred to as a philosopher first and foremost: http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/faculty/ https://www.hbu.edu/About-HBU/General-Information/HBU-in-the-News/Press-Releases/2014/January/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-to-Join-HBU-Faculty.aspx http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/02/2015-cadbury-lectures-24-02-15.aspx http://www.millican.org/other.htm http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/whos-who/modern-authors/william-lane-craig/#more-119 http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/02/01/william-lane-craig-interview/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-william-lane-craig-calls-atheist-hotline-a-wrong-number-98182/ http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/william-craig/profile http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392 http://michaelgleghorn.com/artReasonableFaith.php http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/craig-kalam-and-quantum-mechanics-has-craig-defeated-the-quantum-mechanics-objection-to-the-causal-principle-870.html http://www.christianpost.com/news/leading-apologist-william-lane-craig-to-join-houston-baptist-us-school-of-christian-thought-faculty-114001/ http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/a-philosophical-perspective-on-the-uniqueness-of-the-quran/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/04/05/debating-william-lane-craig/ http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/smith2.html http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2008/06/craig-vs-cooke.html http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/william-lane-craig-defends-viability-of.html http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/did-god-really-command-genocide/348680 (In this book Craig is described as a Christian philosopher (pp. 21, 81)) http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195331356.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195331356 (in this book WLC is mentioned alongside Richard Swinburne and William L. Rowe, without any qualification) Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (in this book William Haskar refers to Craig as a philosopher on page 139) 100.43.29.68 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Those sources fall into one of several categories: 1) low quality, blogs, lacking significance, 2) written by the subject, so not independent, 3) identify Craig as a leading Christian apologist and discuss his contributions to that field, not philosophy generally. Again, you need to read WP:BATTLEGROUND: it's not "Jess and his friends". I've presented a very clear case based on policy and sources which shows why the article has been this way for years. To repeat it:
 * MOS: The lead is intended to summarize the body. In the body, we have excruciating detail covering Craig's apologetics, but not one single section devoted to analytic philosophy or the philosophy of time outside of theology.
 * His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.
 * Sources: This article has a problem with using craig's promotional literature to describe and document him, instead of independent sources. The only sources which describe him foremost as an analytic philosopher are sourced to his autobiography. Independent sources describe him primarily as a Christian apologist. The source used to back up the label "analytic philosopher", in fact, never calls him that, and repeatedly refers to him as a theologian. Here are several independent sources: "a prominent Christian academic and apologist", "Chrisian apologist", [ http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/pitting-evolution-against-creationism/ "Apologist"], "noted Christian apologist", "Christian Apologist", "Christian apologist...Many professional philosophers" (outside of theology) "know about him only vaguely", "Christian theologian", "Theologian", "American theologian". These are literally the first results you find when searching for Craig online which give him any label. Not one calls him an "analytic philosopher".
 * Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and:... By the way, I provided several news sources above, but here are several book sources. The funny thing is, the difficulty isn't in finding book sources generally; it is in finding sources about WLC that aren't written by WLC.
 * Chris Sandoval: William Lane Craig of Biola University, the brightest and best apologist of our times...
 * Brian Morley: Classical Apologetics... One of the most prolific and respected scholars in the classical camp is William Lane Craig
 * Clifford McManis William Lane Craig, who many claim to be the premiere Christian apologist of our time
 * Alex McFarland: Moreland and Craig are two top contemporary apologists
 * Our primary interest should be reflecting our own article in the lead, but these sources give some indication of weight.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess, you will have to be more specific than this. Many sources were posted and all you’ve done here is make the claim, without providing evidence or going into any detail, that every single one of these sources fall into the following categories: low quality, blogs, lacking significance, not independent, etc. Further, blogs may be used as sources if the author “is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications”. So let’s look at one of these blogs that has been posted, namely Peter Millican’s blog, and let’s see if this standard set by Wikpedia has been met.

http://www.millican.org/other.htm

“In 2011, William Lane Craig, the prominent American philosopher of religion and Christian evangelist, toured a number of British universities debating with atheists and sceptics.”

Now, who is Peter Millican? Well, according to his article here at Wikipedia, he is the following: “Gilbert Ryle Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. His primary interests include the philosophy of David Hume, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, epistemology, and moral philosophy. Millican is particularly well known for his work on David Hume, and from 2005 until 2010 was co-editor of the journal Hume Studies.” Millican is atheist, by the way. Finally, a list of his published work in Philosophy is listed at the end of the Wikipedia article. So what we have here is an expert in Philosophy, with published work in Philosophy, who is an atheist, stating on his blog (before anything else) that William Lane Craig is a prominent American Philosopher.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned it looks to me like the criteria has been met.

This indicates to me that you didn’t look at the sources or you’re ignorant of some of Wikipedia’s policies pertaining to reliable sources.

Regardless of the reason, I ask you to 1) Stop edit warring while accusing others of edit warring (according to your talkpage you seem to have a habit of this) and 2) Examine the sources and explain in detail what's wrong with them. Otherwise, how are we to have a genuine discussion that will hopefully bring us to consensus about this issue?

Oh, and one other thing. You wrote, "'Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument.' If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist." For your argument to work one would have to accept the premise that only a Christian apologist would write about or defend the cosmological argument. To me this premise is obviously false and your argument fails. If you have a rebuttal to this then I'd like to see it. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The core defining characteristic of William Lane Craig, dominating almost everything he does in public life, is that he is a prominent Christian apologist. He sometimes enlists techniques taken from analytic philosophy and/or traditional logic as part of his style, but those are merely embellishments, the manner he chooses to decorate his arguments. I'm not aware of any plausible academic who thinks Craig has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy itself, or for that matter to formal logic. It is, right from the start, an unbalanced approach to the article to suppress noting in the lead sentence that he is, foremost, a Christian apologist. Accordingly I have reverted the contentious edit just made by . --Epipelagic (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

“The core defining characteristic of William Lane Craig, dominating almost everything he does in public life, is that he is a prominent Christian apologist.”

That’s what you’re claiming, yes. There is no doubt WLC is a Christian apologist, but should that be what is mentioned first in his article? Is that his core defining characteristic? Does his apologetics not flow from his expertise in Philosophy and Theology?

“He sometimes enlists techniques taken from analytic philosophy and/or traditional logic as part of his style, but those are merely embellishments, the manner he chooses to decorate his arguments.”

I apologize but this charge, in its current form, appears unfounded and emotional. You’re asking us to ignore WLC’s PhD in Philosophy, his published work in Philosophy, and the opinions of other Philosophers (regarding WLC’s expertise in Philosophy), to form the belief that he may appear to be a philosopher, but he’s not really a philosopher; he may appear to be doing philosophy, but he isn't doing philosophy. This just sounds silly to me.

“I'm not aware of any plausible academic who thinks Craig has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy itself”

This is just an appeal to ignorance. For those who don’t know what that is:

“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

So your proposition here is WLC has not made any useful contributions to analytic philosophy, because it hasn’t been proven that he has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy.

Now, if you were to demonstrate that you have a PhD in Philosophy and published work in peer reviewed journals, then this may mean something. Otherwise, it doesn’t. It just comes off as an appeal to ignorance from a guy who edits Wiki articles. Do you have a source from an accredited Philosopher who shares your opinion of WLC? If so then that’d help your case tremendously.

One other thing I noticed. The question is should WLC be referred to as a philosopher before he is referred to as an apologist, or a theologian. That’s not contingent upon whether or not he has “made any useful contributions” to philosophy. Instead, it’s contingent upon what reliable sources say WLC is.

Also, “Useful contribution” is a very ambiguous and person-relative term and in this case it's only coming from you. Meaning, you personally think he hasn't made any useful contributions. Forgive me for saying so but who cares what you think individually? I'd take the opinion over Peter Millican over yours, thanks.

Therefore, I’ve decided to revert your revert.

100.43.29.68 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This may be seen as irrelevant to some but I found it interesting. Googling William Lane Craig apologist returned 73600 results. William Lane Craig theologian returned 419000 results. And William Lane Craig philosopher returned 503000 results. So it's the last pairing that found the most results. Interesting. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Going back to that irrelevant question about whether Craig has made "useful contributions". "[A] count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam [cosmological] argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence…. The fact that theists and atheists alike “cannot leave Craig’s Kalam argument alone” suggests that it may be an article of unusual philosophical interest or else has an attractive core of plausibility that keeps philosophers turning back to it and examining it once again." Quentin Smith, atheist philosopher of time, language, physics, and religion (accessible source of the quote, pg. 183)

100.43.29.68 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Most sources state that he is a philosopher or Christian philosopher (and Christian philosophers are philosophers). Here are twelve. I could give hundreds if not thousands more (I already have given some in previous posts on the talk page).


 * 1. Francis Beckwith 1992, 'Philosophical Problems with the Mormon Concept of God', Christian Research Journal, p. 96: "Philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 2. Bill Ramey 1998, The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary, ): "philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 3. N. Allan Moseley 2003, 'Loving God with Your Mind', in Thinking Against The Grain: Developing a Biblical Worldview in a Culture of Myths, MI: Kregel Publications, p. 25: "Philosopher William Lane Craig is another Christian leader".
 * 4. John Hick 2005, Religious Pluralism and Islam, Lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought in Tehran, February,, p. 7: "exclusivist Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig".
 * 5. Ron Rhodes 2006, Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics, OR: Harvest House Publishers, p. 10: "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 6. George L. Baker 2008, 'Human Free Choice and Divine Omniscience: Toward Resolution of an Apparent Incompatibility', The New Philosophy, January-June, p. 270: "The philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 7. "Michael Chamberlain 2009, 'First, the Log in Our Own Eye: Missionaries and their Critics', in Mary Shepard Wong & Suresh Canagarajah (eds), Christian and Critical English Language Educators in Dialogue: Pedagogical and Ethical Dilemmas, NY:Routledge,, p. 48: "philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 8. Christopher J. Yeung 2010, 'Divine Omniscience: Is God's Foreknowledge at Risk in the Context of Contemporary Science?', Theology and Science, vol 8, no. 2, p. 187: "Philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 9. Alex McFarland & Elmer L. Towns 2011, 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Thoughtful Responses to Strengthen Your Faith, TN: B&H Academic,, p. 35: "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 10. Tom Gilson 2013, The Party of Reason? in Tom Gilson & Carson Weitnauer (eds) 2013, True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism, MI:Kregel Publications, p. 22: "noted Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 11. Matthew R. McWhorter 2013, 'Aquinas on God’s Relation to the World', New Blackfriars, vol. 94, p. 3,6: "the contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig ... The philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 12. Simon Dein 2013, 'Religious Doubts: Implications for Psychopathology and Psychotherapy', Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, vol. 77, no. 3, p. 202 "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
 * 13. Corey Miller & Paul Gould 2014, 'Introduction: Faith, Reason, and God', in Corey Miller & Paul Gould (eds) Is Faith in God Reasonable?: Debates in Philosophy, Science and Rhetoric, NY: Routledge,, p. 5: "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".


 * More sources have been cited on this Talk page, including the 13 I have cited above and the ones I have previously cited in other posts, pointing toward the idea that he is known as a philosopher first and foremost. Statements like 'I'm not aware of any plausible academic who thinks Craig has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy itself, or for that matter to formal logic' are just posturing. As a person whose completed academic study is in the field of philosophy, I am aware of plenty of plausible academics who think Craig has made useful contributions to philosophy. I would not have had to study William Lane Craig as extensively as I have during my secular higher education in philosophy if he had not made any useful contributions to philosophy. Col8lok8 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring and establish consensus here before making further changes to the article. I thought your claim was that WLC was established as an analytic philosopher, rather than as a Christian philosopher. The Kalam cosmological argument is WLC's rehash of an argument used in medieval Islamic scholasticism. It is used today in Christian theology as a part of Christian apologetics, and has nothing to do with analytic philosophy. I understand from your user page, that you recently completed a bachelor of arts which included some Christian philosophy. Well done, but that does not make your opinions authoritative. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Kalam argument is mostly used today in Philosophy of Religion which is a part of Philosophy. William Lane Craig is well established as Christian philosopher of religion, and Christian philosophers of religion are philosophers. It seems then the only contentious word is 'analytic'. Also: why do you and others keep making the claim that the Kalam argument is primarily discussed and used in apologetics/theology? It isn't - this is just posturing in an attempt to discredit the argument. Most theology is concerned with special revelation, not general revelation. Theologians would agree that the God they discuss has most fully revealed himself in Scriptures and through miracles, and they are focused primarily on those. The bulk of their focus is not on the traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence from which they should say only a limited amount of information about God can be learned. Presuppositional apologetics, as a major form of Christian apologetics, always seeks to turns the focus of discussion on the Bible. Presuppositional apologetics "always find[s] a way to get to the gospel ... [and] refuses to leave the Bible behind" (Voddie Baucham Jr. 2015, Expository Apologetics: Answering Objections with the Power of the Word, IL:Crossway, pp. 65-66). Most discussions of the Kalam argument in contrast don't talk about the Bible but rather about the truth of the premises, and the philosophical and scientific support for the premises.Col8lok8 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a different person from Col8lok8. I'm currently going to school for Computer Science. :) 100.43.29.68 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that WLC is referred to as a philosopher too. The problem is not in calling WLC a philosopher. The problem is in removing that he is a Christian apologist, when that is his primary claim to notability, and claiming he is only a philosopher. I've copied the same bulleted post about 4 times now, and no one has yet responded to it in any depth. Every one of my bullets is a solid reason, on its own, to support the current ordering which has been in place for years. For example, we need to follow the manual of style, and the lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The body is entirely focused on Craig's apologetics. If you want the lead to say prominently that he's a philosopher, you would first need to rework the article so the weight of our coverage reflected that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And please try to keep responses short. We all have limited time, and 3,000 - 4,000 character responses (much less a series of them) will very quickly become unmanageable.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RE "we need to follow the manual of style, and the lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The body is entirely focused on Craig's apologetics."


 * I agree with the first sentence. I disagree with the second sentence. Yes, the lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The problem is that the bulk of the article's body is focused on his personal life, his education/studies (in philosophy and theology), and his thought/work as a philosopher of religion and as a theologian. You are classifying too much Christian apologetics. There is one paragraph about his debates, there is one sentence about his apologetics site, and one paragraph about his 'other views' some of which may be classified as part of his apologetics. The rest is about his philosophy and theology (education/studies in philosophy and theology - philosophy and theology; Kalam cosmological argument - philosophy; attributes of God [aseity, eternity and omniscience] - philosophy and theology).


 * I am not removing the idea of Dr Craig as a Christian apologist from (someone who employs his knowledge and skills in service of Christian apologetics) from the entire article. However, since the article is primarily focused on his philosophy and theology it is more appropriate to put the idea that he employs his knowledge and skills in service of Christian apologetics next to the sentence introducing people to William Lane Craig's public debating, and to preface that next sentence with 'for example'.


 * Re: your four points


 * 1. I have addressed the first one (the bulk of the body is focused on his philosophy as well as his theology, not his apologetics, and the lead should reflect that).


 * 2. Dr Craig's own works focus on philosophy and theology, not apologetics.


 * Philosophy: 'About 16,200 results'
 * Theology 'About 11,700 results'
 * Christian apologetics 'About 4,440 results'.


 * 3. I am not arguing for Dr Craig as an analytic philosopher. As far as I rememmber, I was not the one who introduced the term 'analytic' - someone else did in the article's long history.


 * 4. If Craig is best known for his work on the Kalam argument, he is best known as a philosopher. The argument is mainly discussed today in philosophy as part of philosophy of religion, not in apologetics or theology. Christian apologetics and Christian theology mostly focus on special revelation in Scriptures and miracles, not traditional philosophical arguments for a god of the philosophers such as cosmological arguments which are properly classified under the term 'philosophy'. There is a wide chasm between the 'God of philosophers/philosophy' (as from the title of Roy Jackson's book 'The God of Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion') and the God who is presented in Christian apologetics and Christian theology. Here is a quote from Hans Schwarz (2011, The God Who Is: The Christian God in a Pluralistic World, OR:Cascade Books, p. 61):


 * "Both Plato and Aristotle talked about a first unmoved mover. Later on one focused on a world architect or at the most a creator and perfecter of the world. But the world architect or the first unmoved mover can at best push the button to get everything started or lay out the initial conditions according to which the world runs its course. This kind of God the French scientist and lay theologian Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) called the God of philosophers who is vastly different from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."


 * I invite you to stop confusing the Kalam Cosmological Argument with Christian Apologetics. Christian Apologetics and Christian Theology: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Kalam Cosmological Argument: the god of philosophers/philosophy. They are vastly different (as the literature acknowledges).Col8lok8 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, please try to keep things short. You think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not apologetics? The sources appear to disagree. For example: carm lists it under apologetics and even reasonablefaith.org says "The kalam cosmological argument is an exercise in positive apologetics". Our article has 3 main sections. "Life and career" aside, the other two ("Thought" and "Bibliography") are almost exclusively apologetics.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

“You think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not apologetics?”

Let’s try to be more precise, Jess. You’re asking if the Kalam can be used in Christian apologetics. The answer to that question is yes. However, it could also be used in Muslim apologetics (more about that at the end). WLC also uses the standard big bang model of the universe (and other scientific evidence) in his Christian apologetics as well. That doesn’t mean the standard big bang model of the universe is Christian apologetics. There’s a difference between something being used in Christian apologetics and something that is Christian apologetics (for an example of the latter look at the arguments used for the death and resurrection of Jesus). Moreover, the Kalam in itself says nothing about the truth of Christianity. If the Kalam is successful then it demonstrates that the universe had a cause; and once the cause is conceptually analyzed, the result may bring a person to believe the cause is supernatural. However, that doesn’t necessarily bring the person to the Christian God. In fact, the Kalam was created by Al-Ghazali, a Muslim; and some of the framework for the Kalam can be traced back to Aristotle who was also not a Christian apologist. I feel as though the aforementioned has completely demolished your stance and I wonder if you’ll even respond. Looking over the discussion thread you seem to ignore most of the arguments laid out in front of you. How can one have a discussion with you and reach consensus when you’re ignoring everything that is inconvenient to your position? You still haven't given good reasons why the sources I've cited are unreliable and you ignored my rebuttal in regards to Peter Millican's blog being used as a source. Then there are the other sources that Col8lok8 has mentioned...

100.43.29.68 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're doing a lot of original research here. Kalam isn't apologetics because I am arguing that it is. Kalam is apologetics because the sources identify it that way. Whether Craig "uses it" in Christian apologetics or it "is" apologetics is irrelevant to the point that Craig is engaging in apologetics when he uses it, and that is what he is most well known for.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you've seemed to have skipped most of what I've written and you've ignored my challenge to rebut what I've written about Peter Millican. Look, if you're not interested in having an honest discussion about this article, then step aside.

As I said before, there's a difference between the Kalam being Christian apologetics and it being merely used in Christian apologetics. But before I repeat myself, what I'm stating here is logical and a reiteration of information that I've garnered from Wikipedia and its sources. That being said, many things can be used in Christian apologetics, but that doesn't mean those things were created for Christian apologetics or that they are Christian apologetics. I illustrated this by bringing up how Craig uses scientific evidence, namely the big bang, in Christian apologetics. But that doesn't make the big bang Christian apologetics, now does it? The Kalam is an argument that demonstrates that the universe had a cause, without going into a detail about what the cause was or is; once the cause is conceptually analyzed, one may come to the conclusion that the cause is super natural. However, that doesn't bring you to Christianity. Far from it. This argument could be used by a deist, theist, Muslim, a Christian, or anyone that wants to argue in favor of a monotheistic God. But that's all the argument can accomplish. It tells us nothing about the personality of God, the point of human beings, their future, or if God has made a special revelation. Finally, the argument was developed by a Muslim, Al-Ghazali; and Al-Ghazali didn't develop the argument as a Christian apologetic. How can you ignore all these facts and logic? By the way, the information about Al-Ghazali can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#Form_of_the_argument

Also, I looked at your two sources and I don't see what the fuss is about. Where in the reasonablefaith.org source does it say the Kalam is Christian apologetics--or that it isn't a philosophical argument first and foremost? And where did you get the idea that whenever WLC discusses the Kalam he is doing so in the context of Christianity? And do you believe that is true for every philoslopher who talks about the Kalam? Here's a book about the Kalam written by Craig (http://www.amazon.com/Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-William-Craig/dp/157910438X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456731570&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=kalam+cosmoglocai+argument). Look at the table of contents or read the synopsis. Do you see anything about Christianity or Christian apologetics in there? And your other source has the teleological argument listed under apologetics, but the teleological argument, like the Kalam, doesn't bring you to a Christian God. In fact, it doesn't even bring you to a God, necessarily. The designer doesn't have to be "God." I think the issue is you're getting confused when people use Philosophical arguments in Christian apologetics. Yes, in Christian apologetics many kinds of Philosophical arguments are used. Another one would be the ontological argument. But when a person does so, that doesn't magically make the arguments Christian-only or Christian apologetics. This notion is reinforced by the fact that the ontological, teleological, and Kalam cosmological argument can all be used by deists, Muslims, etc.; and let's say a Muslim did use the Kalam (they have, obviously) or ontological argument. According to you, wouldn't that magically turn the arguments into Muslim-only arguments or Muslim apologetics? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they're philosophical arguments that are being used in Muslim apologetics? I just don't get you, man. Are you purposely trying to mislead people? Don't you want the article to be accurate? You've been policing this article for how many years? What is your deal with WLC 100.43.29.68 (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP. Craig is of course an analytic philosopher of religion. Look for example at the description of his forthcoming book at Oxford University Press on divine aseity: God over all, based on classical theism (i.e. not only christianity), is described as "a synoptic work in analytic philosophy of religion". link God over all Thucyd (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, Craig is a Christian apologist and a Christian philosopher. He is not an analytic philosopher. He merely uses some techniques and styles he takes from analytic philosophy to give his arguments about Christianity an appearance of contemporary respectability. He is no more an analytic philosopher than someone who uses mathematics to support arguments in astrology is a mathematician. If you think he is an analytic philosopher, you need to show where he has made significant contributions to analytic philosophy itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 100.43, I can't say this every time. Please shorten your replies. It is impossible to trudge through 4,000 character blocks of text multiple times a day. Briefly, your points about Christian vs Muslim are not relevant; we're talking about Craig being recognized as an apologist and/or a philosopher, not a Christian vs a Muslim. Do we all understand that apologetics uses philosophy to provide a rational basis for belief? Again, Kalam is not apologetics because I say so. It is apologetics because that's what the sources say. The same is true of Craig.
 * @Thucyd I have never disagreed that Craig is a philosopher. I have defended that Craig is a philosopher and an apologist. Yes, Craig often describes himself as "a philosopher" foremost, but he is described as an apologist independently. On wikipedia, we prefer independent sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's really not difficult to find a reliable source that describes the kalam cosmological argument as a work in analytic philosophy of religion: James F. Harris, Analytic philosophy of religion, Kluwer Academic publishers, 2002, pp. 129-131. It's just an example. Thucyd (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...which does not mean it is not apologetics. Again, apologetics often employs philosophy to provide a reasonable basis for belief. Craig is described as an apologist independently. Kalam, the thing Craig is most notable for, is described as apologetics independently. Finding sources that also describe Kalam as philosophy doesn't make Craig not an apologist.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess, I don't care if you want shorter responses. My responses are as long as they need to be. And, evidently, you're not interested in interacting with any of the very relevant points I've made (numerous points) nor are you interested in interacting with the point I made about Peter Millican's blog being reliable, according to the standards set by Wikipedia. There are independent sources that call Craig a philospher first and foremost and there are sources that discuss the Kalam without mentioning Christianity or Christian apologetics. The sources are in this very thread. Jess, one of your main issues is you're confusing Christian apologetics with what is used in Christian apologetics. Again, the Kalam is first and foremost a philosophical argument that argues in favor of a first cause of the universe. It has nothing to do with Christianity per se. However, it has been used in Christian aplogetics, Muslim apologetics, or by theists in general. At this point I'm beginning to question your intellectual honesty... 100.43.29.68 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , against all the evidence you have yet again removed the principal defining characteristic of Craig's work from the lead sentence, namely that he is a Christian apologist. Jesse has already set out some of the overwhelming evidence for this above. The screeds of unfocused attempts at rebuttal above do not provide any counter. Craig is not primarily the philosopher you seem to think he is, because the thrust of his philosophising is nearly always in the service of something else, Christian apologetics. Philosophy for Craig is largely a tool he uses to further his central interest, which is propping up Christian apologetics. Craig is not someone who allows philosophical thinking to lead where it will, as a true philosopher does. Instead he wields a metaphysical crowbar to bend philosophical reasoning in the direction of Christian apologetics, which is what he really about. You questioned Jess's intellectual honesty above. I now invite you to demonstrate some intellectual honesty yourself and undo your reversion. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For goodness sake, Jess in this conversations keeps switching between 'apologetics' and 'Christian apologetics'. Epipelagic, the principal defining feature of Craig's work is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The question is whether this argument, taken as an individual argument, is Christian apologetics, or whether it is more properly seen as an argument in philosophy for what is commonly described as the god of philosophers.


 * In philosophy, apologetics is a general term in relating to, as Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach & David Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 9) states: "the defense of a position or point of view". Philosophers who defend a position or point of view engage in apologetics for that point of view, and if they are best known for doing that they are best known as philosophers (albeit ones who defend specific positions or point of view). Apologetics is part of the work of every philosopher who defends a specific position or point of view that is not ubiquitously accepted against critics of that view. There is no need to add apologist when you have philosopher. It adds no new information.


 * (A) Positive forms of apologetics, and
 * (B) negative forms of apologetics


 * as Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 9) state, are


 * (A) attempts to "show that the position is reasonable or credible", and
 * (B) attempts to "show criticisms of a specific ... position fail".


 * Any point of view or position that needs to be defended against critics (not ubiquitously accepted) comes with apologetics when it is defended.


 * The question before us is whether the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as an individual argument, is Christian apologetics (apologetics for a distinctly Christian conception of God involving a God who most fully reveals himself in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth).


 * Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue for a distinctly Christian conception of God? No, in fact as Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 86) state: "the kalam argument often presented by Craig actually says nothing identifying the cause of the universe".


 * Using these points we can say this


 * 1. An individual argument is in and of itself a Christian apologetics argument when the individual argument, when defended by a defender, defends a distinctly Christian point of view against critics of Christianity.
 * 2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument "says nothing identifying the cause of the universe" (Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger 2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 86). It has more in common with arguments for a unidentified uncaused first cause and arguments for the god of the philosophers than with a God who most fully reveals himself in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.
 * 3. Therefore the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, as an individual argument, not Christian apologetics.
 * 4. William Lane Craig is best known for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
 * 5. Therefore, William Lane Craig is not best known for Christian apologetics.


 * Intellectual honesty demands that we describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher and theologian first foremost. William Lane Craig is best known for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He certainly defends (engages in apologetics for) it, yes. However if that is what he is best known for, he is not best known for anything distinctly Christian because the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as an individual argument, is not distinctly Christian. While it is philosophy and philosophers can engage in apologetics for it, it is not Christian apologetics. Moreoever, simply adding 'apologist' adds no new information, as apologetics (without the word 'Christian' in front of it) is part of the work of any philosopher defending as specific hotly debated position against critics.Col8lok8 (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is all original research. Kalam is described as apologetics, and Craig is described as an apologist by the best sources we have. The idea that Kalam can also be used in Muslim apologetics is irrelevant. Craig doesn't use it that way, which is why he's not a "Muslim apologist". The "Chistian" or "Muslim" is an adjective describing the type of apologetics. If we have a green apple, I'm saying we should call it a "green apple", and you're saying "apples can also be red, plus saying it's just 'an apple' doesn't say much, so we should just call it a fruit." While it is also a fruit, that doesn't make it not a green apple, and we need to represent our sources that describe it in that way.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what Jess isn't getting. The Kalam is first and foremost a philosophical argument. **Maybe** a Muslim apologetic (since it was developed by Al-Ghazali, a Muslim). The fact that it is sometimes used in Christian apologetics doesn't magically turn it into a Christian apologetic whereas anyone who talks about the Kalam is magically turned into a Christian apologist (first and foremost). Moreover, Craig has talked about the Kalam outside of a Christian context with the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-William-Craig/dp/157910438X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456871349&sr=8-1&keywords=william+lane+craig+kalam. I'm just at a loss of words here. This isn't "original research", lol. This is common sense mixed with reliable sources. William Lane Craig has a PhD in Philosophy, has published work in peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, has had his work published in books, and he has other philosophers calling him a philosopher first and foremost. Craig is a Philosopher who defends Christianity. His Christian apologetics flows from his expertise in Philosophy and some of the arguments he uses in his Christian apologetics are intrinsically philosophical. Finally, the Kalam doesn't even get you to Christianity! It's just an argument in favor of a first cause of the universe! Lol, this is just getting ridiculous. I don't know what to write anymore. Clearly, Jess is outside of his comfort zone or he's being intellectually dishonest.

100.43.29.68 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree 100.43.29.68. Would you agree that the general public is aware that taking a debated position in philosophy and defending it against critics (apologetics, with no adjectives) is part of the normal work of every philosopher who doesn't simply sit on the fence for every debated philosophical issue? Would you agree that it adds no new information that isn't already present with the general public's understanding of the word 'philosopher'?


 * Jess, you are the one doing original research. Apologetics, in philosophy, is simply when a philosopher defends a specific view in philosophy. It adds no new information that we don't already have when we say 'philosopher'. Every philosopher who defends specific hotly debated views in philosophy from critics of that view engages in what Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 9) call "apologetics". The general public's understanding of what a philosopher does includes among other things defending positions in philosophy against their critics (engaging in apologetics). Apologetics, as Peterson, Hasker, Reichenback & Basinger (2013) says nothing to disagree that it is part of the normal work every philosopher does who defends a specific position or point of view. We need to represent our sources. The Kalam Cosmological Argument "says nothing identifying the cause of the universe" (Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger 2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 86). It is not proper to describe the Kalam Cosmological Argument first and foremost as Christian apologetics when it has nothing distinctly Christian in content as that quote demonstrates - the cause of the universe is not identified as Christian. The sources do not identify it as Christian apologetics. The sources describe it as apologetics. You want to add something unsupported by the sources as far as the Kalam Cosmological Argument is concerned.


 * Comparing
 * (A) "the Kalam Cosmological Argument in Christian apologetics" with
 * (B) "the Kalam Cosmological Argument in philosophy"
 * via Google Books:


 * (A) "1 result"
 * (B) "About 80 results"


 * On the other hand James Franklin Harris in his book Analytic Philosophy of Religion (2002, Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 129) stated: "Perhaps the best known and most clearly formulated version of the cosmological argument that incorporates the fundamental concepts of big bang theory is found in the work of William Lane Craig. Craig seizes upon the fact that before the big bang nothing can be said to exist and that all matter and energy as well as space-time itself began with the big bang to construct an updated version of what is called the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God". Similarly, William L. Rowe, in his book Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction (2007, CA:Thomson Wadsworth, p. 33), stated "A version of the Cosmological Argument that has its origins in Arabic philosphy is also receiving attention in contemporary philosophy of religion". Everything suggests the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument in philosophy, and if that is what William Lane Craig is best known for then he is best known as a philosopher. Putting anything before 'philosopher' is intellectually dishonest as far as the Kalam Comological Argument, which William Lane Craig is best known for, is concerned.


 * Jess, you yourself said: "For example: carm lists it under apologetics and even reasonablefaith.org says "The kalam cosmological argument is an exercise in positive apologetics"". These sources do not use the 'Christian' adjective because they know it is just philosophy, and when a philosopher defends a view in philosophy they engage in apologetics (and unqualified without any adjectives it adds no new information that we don't already get with 'philosopher'). The sources you provided do not support the claim that the Kalam argument is 'Christian apologetics', only 'apologetics'. In philosophy, that means a philosopher defending a point of view in philosophy. This is something, as I have already said, the general public already knows philosophers do. The general public doesn't think that most philosophers simply stand on the fence on every hotly debated point of view in philosophy. They are aware of the process in philosophy of taking a position and defending it.


 * Jess, I too will not heed your advice of keeping responses short. That is an unreasonable request for the topic being discussed.Col8lok8 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the deal. The sources are clear. The article has represented the sources correctly for the last several years. Your proposal has been reverted by 6 different editors over the last 2 weeks. None of those editors appear to have an interest in discussing this in detail, in part I'd imagine because neither of you is willing to be concise, and this section has turned into a massive essay of IDHT which gets enormously bigger every day. Your refusal to work with others and abide by reasonable requests (like briefly answering questions instead of posting 4,000 character off-topic replies), and repeated battleground behavior makes this conversation essentially impossible to continue. Your option right now is to pursue dispute resolution, such as starting an RfC with your proposal. I don't really know what else to recommend... but outright refusing to work with others is not going to get you farther on a collaborative project. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal. The sources are clear. They do not support your view that the Kalam Cosmological Argument taken as an individual argument, an argument which you acknowledge William Lane Craig is best known for, is Christian apologetics. It is clearly philosophy, and when philosophers defend specific views by providing point in support of its reasonableness and highlighting how criticisms of it fail, they are doing the ordinary work of philosophers known as apologetics. Adding the word apologist adds no new information that the words 'philosopher' and 'theologian' do not already contain. Such people not sitting on the fence for every debated issue but defending specific positions are understood to be apologists for their positions. But all of this comes into the public understanding of the word 'philosopher' and 'theologian' already. The article has represented sources about William Lane Craig incorrectly for the last several years (a clear example would be in using the word 'analytic' when no provided sources use it when directly referring to Craig), and I have provided sources to back this up. You and Epipelagic, as editors, appear to be intent on engaging in or provoking in others edit warring behaviour.


 * You and Epipelagic's refusal to be intellectually honest as well as refusal to work with others and abide by reasonable requests (like providing sources which say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is Christian apologetics, a claim you have repeatedly made without sufficient backing), and repeated battleground behavior makes this conversation difficult. One option you have right now is to pursue dispute resolution, such as starting an RfC with your proposal. I don't really know what else to recommend... but outright refusing to work with others is not going to get you farther on a collaborative project. I on the other hand have demonstrated my willingness to be collaborative by removing the word 'analytic', based on suggestions which the article has used without a source for years. I will acknowledge that 'boldy' too may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia (even though that description matches a word, 'boldest', used in the title of a source), and will remove it.Col8lok8 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is the abundant number of sources clearly stating words to the effect that 'the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument of Christian apologetics' or 'the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument that attempts to show that it is reasonable to believe in a distinctly Christian conception of theism'? If none, you have failed to show that the Kalam Cosmological argument, an argument for which Craig is best known, is at its heart Christian apologetics. The lead of an article should reflect the body (and the body suggests that what William Lane Craig is best known for is this very argument).Col8lok8 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Col8lok8, except when he says that Craig is not an analytic philosopher. The kalam argument is a work in analytic philosophy of religion. I have already provided a highly reliable ref.: James F. Harris, Analytic philosophy of religion, Kluwer Academic publishers, 2002, pp. 129-131. Thucyd (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Thucyd, that William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher. I have never denied the fact that he is an analytic philosopher. I just don't think it is widely sourced, and so I have never made an argument for putting it in the article or keeping it in the article before I removed it. But the discussion about the nature of and differences between analytic philosophy (such as that of Rawls) and continental philosophy (such as that of Kierkegaard) don't get much air time at a popular level so I am not suprised that William Lane Craig is referred to as a philosopher more than analytic philosopher. I agree with you that the JF Harris source is a reliable source of information about William Lane Craig. However, while the JF Harris source is certainly titled 'analytic philosophy of religion', is there a quote in that book which explicitly refers to him as an analytic philosopher? For example is there the words "the analytic philosopher William Lane Craig". I am meticulous about making sure claims made about people are sourced. In this case I would prefer a direct quotation rather than rely on both the book title, and the fact that William Lane Craig is demonstrably mentioned in the book over a number of pages. Am I being too fastidious by asking for a direct quotation in this instance? Col8lok8 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All editors, do we all agree on this statement (see sources I have listed on the entire Talk page for the construction of this statement):

“The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as it is presented by William Lane Craig who is best known for using it and defending it, is first and foremost a piece of philosophy that represents no particular (or single) world religion and over which there is intense debate.”

If so, it is clear for the following reasons, that whatever else William Lane Craig is, he is best known as a philosopher.
 * 1) We can't use the adjective Christian because the argument itself does not represent any single world religion.
 * 2) Apologist, without the word Christian, just means that William Lane Craig defends the concluding position of the Kalam argument (that the universe has a cause of its existence) in philosophy. That tells people nothing new as they already know philosophers often do that with specific positions in intense debates over various philosophical arguments.
 * 3) The idea that the universe has a cause of its existence is clearly one, first and more foremost belonging to philosophy, not Christian apologetics.Col8lok8 (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that that is reasonable. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as it goes I would have to agree. Pleonic (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)