Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 13

Where are the critical voices?
Following the long discussion of criticism of WLC above ("Criticism ..."), I wonder why the critics of Craig are hardly mentioned on the WP page? In philosphy and among scholars Craig is a rather controversial figure. His attempt to mathematically "calculate" the probability of Jesus' resurrection (after about 42 min in the linked Youtube video) is ridiculous and a beautiful example for pseudoscience. That alone should be enough to debunk this guy. Peteruetz (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions, and I am sorry, I rolled back your good faith edits, but I believe there are some problems we should discuss. You wrote:

"Criticism. Craig's explanation conflicts with many others, e.g. Lüdemann's Hallucination hypothesis. [1 ] More importantly, Bart Ehrman and others have argued that the resurrection is a theological event that is not accessible or even supported by historical sources.[2 ] The Gospels of the Bible are the only sources for the resurrection but neither the identity of their authors nor their sources are known. In addition, almost all scholars agree that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death, hence the truthfulness of the event cannot be established with any certainty or even probability.[2 ]"


 * I like Bart Ehrman but he is not on record claiming that the resurrection is a "theological event that is not accessible or even supported by historical sources." Ehrman might agree that he views of the Gospels this way, but he regards Paul as a viable and credible witness for the resurrection (e.g. in Galatians), though he definitely does not accept the resurrection.


 * The Gospels are not the only sources for the resurrection, and Ehrman argues that Paul of Tarsus is a reliable witness, though Ehrman doesn't conclude that Paul's reports are sufficient evidence to convince him.


 * Additionally, Lüdemann's Hallucination theory is not widely accepted in academic circles, though it is rather common on the streets. There are some viable criticisms of William Craig's positions, but there is very little evidential support (one controversial academically documented case) for mass hallucination.


 * The use of mathematics to calculate probabilities Bayesian Probability Calculations) is performed by both theists and atheists. There are a lot of academics who would disagree with your assessment that Bayesian methods for assessing probability. The methods are used extensively in science, though it is true that Dawkins rejects these methods many of his peers don't, such as his colleague Richard Swinburne.


 * I know this subject matter well, and I'd be happy to help if you would like to discuss some more mainstream and convincing criticisms pf Craig, so let's talk.


 * Again, sorry for the revert, I don't do them often..


 *   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple points might be worth raising here:
 * If we're going to be inserting criticism into the article, let's make sure it's credible.
 * There's a delicate balance between criticizing a view, and criticism of a person. We need to ask ourselves how to incorporate criticisms of a view into a BLP. Might the criticism be best located in an article devoted to the view instead?
 * On some level, in academia, every view is criticized by others. This kind of criticism is trivial and might not be worth incorporating.
 * WP:CRIT recommends against a dedicated criticism section.

It might be best to have an idea of what exactly the planned criticisms are.

BabyJonas (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the post above, criticism should not be in a separate section, and for a living person, anything resembling a personal attack is off limits, as is poorly supported contentious content:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page."


 * Some of the dialogue on this talk page crosses the line.


 *   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Replaced references with wikilinks.


 *   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I recently updated the article to include a section for criticism against William Lane Craig. I used credible sources and was being 100% factual. Now it is gone. Whoever removed this section needs to say why. It is only fair that information critiquing Craig's arguments get presented, so people know that such information exists. My sources provide solid grounds for criticism against Craig's arguments. There is absolutely no reason why this information should be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinGrem (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Craig has iconic status among Christain apologists. For some background on why criticism of Craig is not allowed in this article, see the thread following this one. For a more comprehensive background, read the archives of this talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure about that, but WLC seems to live in the minds of militant atheists rent-free. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Craig does NOT have iconic status as a philosopher. There are many within his field who find his arguments and ideas to be fallacious and worthy of criticism. In my edit of the article, I cited reputable, peer reviewed philosophical journals which clearly gave legitimate criticism of Craig's arguments. You cannot reject these criticisms based on the fact that previous attempts at editing this article have been poor. You need to specify which of my sources you don't accept and why. KevinGrem (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, and good luck with pointing that out! It has been done many times before in the archives. You will find the response is to stonewall and give silly replies like the one above just before your comment. Many before you, like myself, have given up trying to maintain integrity in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Kevin, I'm the one who undid your good-faith edit. I think there ought to be criticism of Craig's views where appropriate. But there are some issues that need to be addressed first. I've listed them higher up in this discussion, as a series of bullet-points. If we can collaboratively work on a criticism section that incorporates everybody's considerations, as opposed to just piling criticisms up, it would be better all around. Also, as you can see in the comment above this one, some people take these editorial disagreements very personally, and become bitter when their demands are not met. I hope that serves as an example not to follow. I'm looking forward to working on criticism with you. BabyJonas (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I forgot add, Kevin, the responses in the archives also include silly personal attacks like the one just above. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Criticism of Craig is not forbidden but somehow logically impossible because it always turns out to be problematic. Edits containing criticism are always reverted because of some quick ad-hoc pseudo reasoning: in this case, the pseudo reasons are:
 * It is not "appropriate" and
 * there are "issues".
 * So, as you can see, there are grave problems with your edit. Issues! Whatever were you thinking, making an edit with issues? And why didn't you make an appropriate edit instead of an inappropriate one? Tchah!
 * I think we should report this article to the adminship, or 3M or something. This status cannot continue. --Hob Gadling (talk)


 * Admins are not appointed to resolve content issues, and are not necessarily equipped to resolve them. The issues concerning this article could be resolved if enough editors were willing put the required amount of energy in to resolve them, and were prepared to maintain a commitment to monitor the article indefinately. Countervailing is a small army of Christain apologists who emerge out of the woodwork to stonewall and attack editors who have more nuanced views of Craig. As you can see above, I have been attacked already twice in this thread. Personally I don't find Craig interesting enough to put in the necessary levels of energy, and in the past other editors seem to feel the same. You would have to make a long term commitment, because even if in the short term you achieved some balance in the article it would be subsequently undone as soon as you let your guard down. This is an ideological zone, and it is perhaps better to just leave the article marinating quietly away in its own ideological juices. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Epipelagic, WP:CRIT recommends against a criticism section. Instead of reflecting on the guidelines, you've accused people of stonewalling and silly replies. When people call out your response, you accuse them of making "silly personal attacks". You have made no constructive attempt whatsoever to engage with the problems of a criticism section in a BLP. No reason or evidence can convince you. How are people supposed to interpret this? BabyJonas (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh dear... perhaps you are not clear what a "personal attack" is. Let me try and clarify. Your first personal attack occurred earlier above when you said I was the type of person who takes "these editorial disagreements very personally, and become bitter when their demands are not met", and you hoped "that serves as an example not to follow". Your second personal attack occurred immediately above when you said "You have made no constructive attempt whatsoever to engage with the problems of a criticism section in a BLP. No reason or evidence can convince you."
 * You also seem unclear how personal attacks can be "silly". The reason your personal attacks are "silly" is because they are either pure fantasy or they are in blatant conflict with fact. The fact is that I never suggested, nor would I suggest that we have a criticism section. That is a strawman you set up yourself so you could knock it over. What I think is that there should be some allowance for critical views, and those views should be integrated into the body of the article in an appropriate way. The rest of your personal attacks are pure fantasy, a confession of what goes on in your own imagination when it is cut free from considerations of external reality. You have no idea what goes on in my mind – you just made things up. Another proprieter of this article also appeared above, just to make a silly personal attack on me.
 * If you look at the thread following this, you will see a flurry of further personal attacks by proprieters of this article. Again the attacks are also silly, because they are either pure fantasy or are in blatant conflict with fact. In that thread, I was repeatedly attacked for claiming RationalWiki was a reliable source. That was another strawman. The fact is I never claimed that, and never would claim that.
 * Now that's enough of this personal stuff you bring up, BabyJonas, and I'm out of here for now. But if you mean what you say when you said you "think there ought to be criticism of Craig's views" then you could perhaps revisit the section obviously spent time assembling, and give him proper and specific reasons why you rejected his offerings. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Needless to say, I think you're wrong, and I can explain why. But I want to move on from petty bickering to a substantive solution. Maybe it's for the best you take a break and cool down. Maybe when you're back, we can have a more constructive discussion. In the meanwhile, I'm going to invite KevinGrem (and others) to read over some of the issues raised at the top, particularly by KSci and I. Hopefully we can all work on a solution here. BabyJonas (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't explain why or you would have. And you're still projecting your own stuff, about cooling down... Stop it. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I find your conduct increasingly damaging to the atmosphere here, Epipelagic. Your reckless allegations have continued, your latest insinuating that I cannot explain why you are mistaken. You make this claim without evidence or prudence. These intemperate remarks damage your credibility, and I encourage you to take a different approach.


 * For the sake of posterity, I will address your complaint. Your first contribution to this particular discussion was the following statement about your fellow editors: "You will find the response is to stonewall and give silly replies like the one above just before your comment."


 * This is not true, you know it, and your willful denial of facts raises ethical questions about you. The evidence of your falsehood is present at the top of this discussion, where and I raised concerns about low quality criticism, among other things. Up until now, you have not engaged in that discussion. Instead you malign your fellow editors, calling their responses "stonewalling" and "silly replies". This was unacceptable, and I called it out as being unnecessarily bitter and unnecessarily personal.


 * But instead of correcting or refraining from such conduct, you called my callout a personal attack, a string of false accusations you have continued down to your last post. You've lost a lot of trust and goodwill with your behavior. You need to think about changing your approach. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Not your personal playhouse. BabyJonas (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you think your address to "posterity" might be ever so slightly pompous? Your replies are nearly all projection. Bye bye. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I have had discussions with people who wanted solutions. What they say is to the point. They address what the other users say. They do not handwave other people's reasoning away by using unhelpful fluffy phrases like "there are issues", "inappropriate", "calm down", and "I could explain but I won't". They do not remove all criticism without giving good reasons, then claim they want criticism. When criticized for bad reasoning, they apologize instead of counterattacking with spurious accusations.
 * We are not fooled. We can tell the difference between you and the type of user you are trying to pretend to be. It is just not credible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked by the intellectual dishonesty expressed by Epipelagic in this discussion. Given the facts before him, he has chosen to ignore them. Instead, he went straight for the personal attacks: complaining about pomposity and psychological projection. Sigh. I cannot do any more for people who are immune to reason and evidence. With him going "bye bye", and the rest of us waiting for Kevin, maybe we can discuss criticisms now.


 * Hob Gadling: Here's the point- Scroll up to the very beginning of this section. Read the issues. Engage with them. And respond. How do we ensure high quality criticisms in the article, as opposed to the internet atheist nonsense being dredged up here? BabyJonas (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * More waffling. Your responses above are useless, and vaguely pointing in their direction is even more useless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hob, personal attacks are unhelpful. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Bill, please examine what are considered to be personal attacks on Wikipedia. WP:PERSONAL is a policy which directs us to "comment on content, not on the contributor". Comment about content is permissible, and is not a personal attack. If you read again what Hob actually said above, you will find he is commenting only about a specific set of responses from someone else. What he actually said was: "Your responses above are useless, and vaguely pointing in their direction is even more useless". He characterises these responses as: "More waffling". That is commentary on a set of responses, not a personal attack. On the other hand, your comment, which erroneously implies Hob is making personal attacks, is itself a personal attack on Hob. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

BabyJonas, thank you for saying you would like to work with me to discuss criticisms made for this article. Now, I've noticed that you claim that articles should not have a section devoted to "criticism", but there are many wiki pages that have just that, and it is considered perfectly acceptable. How do you decide which articles get to have such a section and which don't? Anyways, when it comes to William Lane Craig, he does in fact receive criticism from many people, some of whom are very credible. How do you get more credible than Ph.D. level philosophers? You can't tell me I didn't use credible sources. Also, I noticed you deleted my edit only an hour or two after I made it, which tells me that you couldn't have even had time to read the academic sources I provided, which gave rigorous and detailed information on why Craig's arguments are flawed and deserve criticism. KevinGrem (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay. So Wikipedia is not a very tightly run ship. That's one reason we still see criticism sections still around. Another reason might be that you're seeing criticism sections of views, rather than people. The former is more viable than the latter, I think (Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued for permitting slander against living people). These issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As for us, why not follow the rules?
 * In fact, I noticed you inadvertently (or maybe intentionally, idk) framed the issue as criticism of the person himself. You said "...when it comes to William Lane Craig, he does in fact receive criticism...". We're best keeping that out of this BLP, like I said. For the record, I'm wholly in support of credible philosophers criticizing these views. And my reverting of your edit was because you created a new section.
 * So here's an idea I've had: Because BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons) are hairy places, where we have to be extra careful, would you be willing to help me draft a new wikipedia page dedicated to the views of William Lane Craig? That way, because it's dedicated to his views, we can be much more liberal about criticism. Is that something you're happy to work on with me? BabyJonas (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about a section entitled "Reception", whereby I cite both positive and negative feedback of the man? KevinGrem (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you wanna say about the guy, over and above his views, that cannot be folded into the article itself? I feel like discussing criticisms of his ideas will be a much more viable project on a non-BLP page. Approaching (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a lot I want to say. I'm probably more familiar with the man than anyone here. I have watched a hundred of his debates. I've been following him since 2007. I could easily expand this page by adding a new section. I thought wikipedia was the free encyclopedia where anyone could publish information online. I guess it doesn't work that way at all, which is disappointing. What would be the point of creating a new page dedicated to the views of William Lane Craig? What's the problem with just expanding his biography to include critical information? KevinGrem (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's great! We need someone highly familiar with his work (I've read up on quite a bit of his work too). But yeah, Wikipedia isn't a "say anything you want, how you want" website. Criticisms of the person have to be handled carefully. Criticisms of the views are fine, so long as they can be folded in and not in separate criticism sections.


 * The point of having a new page will be to afford people the freedom to focus entirely on his views and not worry about the BLP stuff. And this main page could link to his views page. That page could go into as much detail as is possible, without people complaining that the details of his views detract from his biographical information. How about it? Approaching (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But wikipedia also advises against creating pages for things that do not warrant them. William Lane Craig is not a prominent enough figure to warrant a new page devoted to his views. For someone more influential like Socrates, that would make sense. And besides, we already have a page for Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. So what's the problem of doing what I suggested, making a section with information about his public image? Did I say anything about criticizing the man's character? No I did not. I talked about how his views are seen by other philosophers in the field. I could do that and also include information about his influence on the world of apologetics and his reputation as a public debater. KevinGrem (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You know, I wondered if importance may have been a concern, but then I realized there are pages for individual books, like Sam Harris' book Lying. If a single page on Craig's views covered ideas of his spread across multiple books and projects, I think it all but guarantees meeting the importance threshold. That solves the importance problem, I reckon. (And I didn't know there was a kalam cosmological argument page!) Approaching (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorporating Scholarly Criticism Into the Article
A number of people here have expressed an interest in incorporating criticism into the article. Because Craig is a philosopher, with his work rooted in academic analytical philosophy, a number of us agree that we need to present philosophically credible criticism of his work, rather than unscholarly or uninformed criticism. Craig is a controversial figure, a target of hate, anger and vitriol from extreme and fundamentalist critics of religion. I think it would be a mistake to incorporate hate or anger under the guise of criticism into the article, especially since it is a BLP. For all these reasons, I want to hopefully start working on this with the aforementioned considerations in place. The first suggestion I want to make is to start a separate Wikipedia article that can afford to go into sufficient depth into his work. This will be needed for many of the intricate objections raised against his positions. It will also keep the focus on his views, rather than his person, and the article will have more freedom as a non-BLP article. Approaching (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I trust you to only include "criticism" that considers Craig a sort of saint who can do nothing wrong. Disagreeing with him would be "anger" or "hate", so that is out. This will come to nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Craig is a Christian apologist who conducts "philosophical" exercises which miraculously resolve always in support of his Baptist beliefs. This is why he cannot be classified broadly as an academic philosopher, but only as a Christian philosopher, that is, an apologist who adopts a "philosophical" style when discussing Christianity., can you provide examples of the "hate, anger and vitriol" you see in the literature? If not, then perhaps you are projecting again. You talk about the many "intricate objections raised against his positions". These objections seem confined largely to meanderings by other Christian apologists, and the public debating platforms Craig so eagerly pursues. He is largely ignored by legitimate academic analytical philosophers. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It is apparent in this thread that you are escalating your attacks on editors here by posting elsewhere on Wikipedia. Specifically, you have characterised Hob as being "accusatory, hostile, aggressive" and you are claiming he is "being rude and insulting". It seems to me that those epithets apply more accurately to your own behaviour. According to what you have written on this page, you are detecting accusations, hostility, aggressiveness and other unsavoury behaviours everywhere. I have mentioned the possibility of projection several times to you, and looking in a mirror might clarify the matter. You did not extend to Hob the usual courtesy of notifying him that you were bad mouthing him elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please try and reduce the dramas and increase the focus on the issues that inflict this article. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I should add that frequently edits, both on this page and elsewhere, with the user name . This is a form of deception and (presumably blockable) sockpuppery which allows it to appear as if more than one editor hold his views. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Epipelagic, thanks for your comments. Some of which appears to be incoherent or false. I don't see why I need to provide examples of "hate, anger and vitriol" in the literature, nor do I see evidence that he is largely ignored by legitimate academic analytical philosophers: Can you support that last claim with any evidence? It's also worth mentioning that my Wikipedia name change is permitted, and in accordance with the rules, as far as I can tell. If you can find something specifically problematic in the rules that I need to consider, let me know. Approaching (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't really help if you find these matters incoherent and they appear false to you. You are the one claiming Craig is "a target of hate, anger and vitriol". Now you say you "don't see why [you] need to provide examples". Well you have been challenged, so withdraw your claim if you can't substantiate it. Then you say you want evidence Craig is largely ignored? Reading Russell's teapot might clear up your confusion. You counter something like that by showing Craig is not largely ignored. I can't do that, so that's why I am claiming he is largely ignored. As for your eccentric idea that it is permitted for you to post multiple comments on talk pages under multiple aliases, I suggest you test the matter by confessing what you have been doing on the admin notice board. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're clearly struggling with comprehension. I never said he was a target of hate anger and vitriol in the literature. In any case I'm not interested in your drama. So I'll refrain from responding until you say something substantive. Approaching (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm struggling with comprehension. I'm assuming you are not talking about editors on this page when you refer to "hate, anger and vitriol" and "extreme and fundamentalist" positions. I prefer to AGF and give you the benefit of doubt, because I prefer to think you are not so silly as to continue with vile personal attacks. Am I wrong? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm finding this rather odd. As far as I can make out the subject's career consists of reiterating longstanding theological arguments for the existence of God in newish language; some people obviously find him inspiring. Not surprisingly, the usual counter-arguments have been deployed, again slightly dressed up in newish language that may engage directly with WLC's language. I haven't seen any "vitriol" but then I haven't gone looking for it; this page does give evidence of a certain amount of mutual irritation. Please avoid any further such displays.


 * I suggest that there is a place in this article for the counter-arguments, and that they should be deployed, not in a separate Criticism section, but immediately adjacent to those of WLC's arguments to which they pertain. Could we please see either some bold edits along those lines, or drafts on this page? Followed, if necessary, by some civil and well-focused discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just google "William Lane Craig Hate" and you'll easily find the vitriol. You can also watch his debate with Lawrence Krause.  Krause just about has an apoplectic episode.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If appropriate secondary sources make the judgement that he has been met with hate, then this fact can be incorporated into the article. Our judgements are of course original research and disallowed here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is true many academics who dismiss Craig on Google, like Dawkins, find him disdainful. Lawrence Krause is a passionate person who is debating Craig as a scientist. He naturally becomes frustrated, as any scholar worth his salt would, at Craig's medieval scholastics, distorted logic and slippery machinations. But there is no justification for characterising this frustration and distain as "hate". Just as supporters of Craig on this page are framing the issue in terms of hate, most of the focus around hate on Google seems to come from supporters of Craig. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, could we please have either bold changes, or drafts here, of the encyclopedic changes that editors would like to see. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * How about this edit?


 * Craig engages in medieval scholastics, distorted logic, and slippery machinations, so that justifies a near mental breakdown from scientists who are standard bearers for THE truth?


 * I'm not sure that would pass BLP standards, however. On a more serious note, the hatred exhibited by militant atheists (who sometimes include WP editors) is downright irrational and should, therefore, be examined very carefully before being included in a WP article.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Dishonesty is something scientists dislike intently, because honesty is the fundament of science without which it cannot function. That has nothing to do with "hatred", "militancy", or "atheism". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

So there it is Richard. In the archives you will find Bill the Cat (an SPA) and Approaching (along with his sock BabyJonas) are just two members of a dedicated group (including a number of other SPAs and possible other socks) that compromise the integity of this article in this sort of manner. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Amen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This page is not for discussion of the subject of the article. Again, could I ask for well-founded, appropriately-referenced edit suggestions for the article itself? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of working through some of peer-reviewed critiques of his work on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. What's the policy on giving access to pdfs of journal articles on Wikipedia? Can I link them here so that the rest of you can read it and help incorporate its criticisms into the article? Approaching (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the copyright policies of the publication you wish to make available... if it's OK with them it should be fine with us. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's a paper by one of the greatest philosophers of science, Adolf Grunbaum, postulating a non-theistic alternative to the beginning of the universe. The text has been placed online on the University of Massachusetts website, so I assume there are no copyright issues. I think this serves as an effective counterpoint to Craig's theistic claims in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Parallel%20Universes/Texts/The%20Pseudo-Problem%20of%20Creation%20in%20Physical%20Cosmology.htm

Approaching (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He mentions (well, references) Craig precisely once, as the author of one among various versions of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. If that's an accurate reflection of how Craig is seen by people outside his own religious tradition, perhaps we should remark briefly that "his publications have been received with enthusiasm by some within his own tradition; by other philosophers his work is regarded as reformulations of old ideas." What else can be produced? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are some pretty unusual insights to draw from the article. The paper is not meant to be a response to Craig in particular, but a rejection of the general theistically-inclined approach to the beginning of the universe that would serve to undermine the assumptions undergirding his Kalam argument. This work can be a little tough to digest so it's understandable if it's hard to make sense of. Approaching (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * They are the insights that are relevant to this particular article. The paper might, possibly, have more to offer on, say, the article about the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Anyway, what else can be produced about Mr Craig's reception by others? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For someone to draw the conclusion about "how Craig is seen by people outside of his own religious tradition" from a single paper, without any other relevant details is a pretty confused misstep. That's not reflective of an understanding of academia, and I wouldn't draw such an inference. In fact, I'm not sure how any of your claims are justified by any literature, so I can't say I find your insights particularly relevant or useful there. I want to focus specifically on criticism of his views. I've postulated one article, which postulates an alternative to his whole theistic framework. Give me some time and I'll look for more. Approaching (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is en encyclopedic article about an individual theologian, not an academic review of his theories nor even an encyclopedic article on them. I suggest that most of what you're trying to find would be more use for the pages which outline the various theological arguments to which he has contributed, and even more use for an academic review. We need here a brief account of his major contributions (his website would be acceptable for what he argues) and their reception, referenced mainly to third-party sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at the title of this discussion section. Follow the conversation thread. The specific issue people are worried about right now is not whether this academic philosopher's work has been fully laid out (although I agree that needs work, because his peer-reviewed publication list is extensive). The issue people are worried about right now is that the views aren't sufficiently criticized. So that's what we're working on in this section. Approaching (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree that his views are sufficiently covered already. From the above discussion it seems that we do need well-referenced comments, not so much on the detailed criticism of the minutiae of his ideas by theologian philosophers, as on his reception on his forays outside that community. I'd have in mind people who disagree with his entire line of thinking, quite possibly atheists. Some strong descriptors have been used above. What reliable sources describe - not illustrate - his approach to and reactions from, say, Lawrence Krause (or Krauss, as the case may be)? His own words, and Lawrence's, might be reliable and even useful descriptions of their own feelings. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. Krauss, being a physicist, is not trained in philosophy and would be unable to adequately engage with his views. Slander deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC) So it's curious why you would bring someone of his reputation up. Think about philosophers instead. Since you are an internet-based new atheist, I'm sure you have a deep reverence for the work of Daniel Dennett. Why not look to see whether he has commented on William Lane Craig's views. Approaching (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Approaching, where are your sources for your allegation that Krauss has "been caught engaging in academic fraud"? About the nearest I can find is this one. Please supply some reliable sources. Because if you don't supply them, then you have seriously defamed the man and it raises the issue of whether you are fit to be editing Wikipedia. To give you some perspective, you might explore the 78,000 articles on Google that mention Craig in connection with fraud. I won't comment on your quaint idea that a highly competent mathematical cosmologist such as Krauss is not equipped to engage with Craig's ill-advised presumption in addressing cosmological matters without a mathematical background. As for Dennett, he has rarely commented on Craig and seems to have little interest in him. Perhaps you are referring to these comments. If so, then the weary irony of Dennett's comments must have passed you by. Dennett understands the limits to his competence. Craig doesn't. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The point of this article and indeed this talk page is not to either support or denigrate the man, but to provide a neat summary of what other people have said about him. I wonder if we can reach consensus on some form of words. It seems to be universally agreed that Craig is a skilled debater. His reception varies by group. His evangelical supporters regard him as brilliant, inspired, and inspiring, wider groups of academic theologians are aware of him and occasionally mention his formulations, and his less-evangelical or non-religious opponents find his style irritating, meretricious, and un-original. I'm pretty sure that we could source some encyclopedic text along those lines. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving us a general overview of your perspective on this. What sources are you relying on for your characterization? Specifically, I'd like to know if you have any sources to support the following: His evangelical supporters regard him as brilliant, inspired, and inspiring, wider groups of academic theologians are aware of him and occasionally mention his formulations, and his less-evangelical or non-religious opponents find his style irritating, meretricious, and un-original. Approaching (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Should I take it that you agree that he is generally perceived as a skilled debater? (note, I'm not asking for your opinion of his debating skills. I wonder if you would agree that there is widespread agreement among those who have engaged with Craig that he is a skilful debater.) I'm asking you if you have any sources that may provide evidence that this, or any other, characterization of major responses to Craig is accurate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not making a claim about his debating skills one way or another. You did, however, say this: His evangelical supporters regard him as brilliant, inspired, and inspiring, wider groups of academic theologians are aware of him and occasionally mention his formulations, and his less-evangelical or non-religious opponents find his style irritating, meretricious, and un-original. And you seem to want the article to say something along these lines. So I ask: What is your source for this? Approaching (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you ignored Epipelagic's request for a source for your slander of Krauss, I conclude you were just telling lies but since nobody fell for it you will just skip the issue instead of retracting the lie. Right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please avoid unhelpful accusations or tangential arguments, this is not the place for them. To return to the point, we are searching for sources that may lead us to an agreed encyclopedic text on how Craig is perceived by certain groups. Sources, or drafts of what the text might be, would be helpful - I have made a suggestion above on how those groups and their reactions might be characterized, but what I'd really like is the efforts of more interested editors. Could I also ask Approaching how well-acquainted they are with the subject of the article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, Approaching can slander a person but others cannot demand sources? Why didn't you tell him to avoid unhelpful accusations? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a line that is useful to this page; neither attacks on Krauss nor their rebuttals belong here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Richard, I'm not a personal acquaintance. However, I have read a number of his works, both popular and academic, both out of personal curiosity and as well as academic interest. Note that I'm still asking you to explain your characterization, which I quoted twice above. Can you please address the question of what sources you rely on to come to your conclusion? Approaching (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * About half an hour of searching brought up quite a lot of reaction to Craig. Some of the more notable commentators might meet our reliable source requirements, quite a lot wouldn't. I am trying to draw out how you and others here might describe the main groups who have given responses to Craig, and how we might summarize those points of view. Do you have any suggestions? Or would you suggest that this article should mention only academic theological / philosophical responses? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think characterizing how he is reacted to is an absolute waste of time, if that hasn't been made clear already. Approaching (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd guessed, but thanks for making it clear. I suggest that his reception by various groups may be important to an encyclopedia article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

So, one possible form of words is to divide reactions into three broad groups: "His evangelical supporters regard him as brilliant, inspired, and inspiring, wider groups of academic theologians are aware of him and occasionally mention his formulations, and his non-evangelical opponents find his style irritating, meretricious, and un-original." Before we spend too much time and trouble on it, does anyone actually disagree with it? And if so, what changes would you like to make? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, I don't see the point in dividing reactions to WLC into 3 groups. It doesn't really say anything, other than who is pro, con, or neutral to him.  This can be seen as the real problem per Hob's original response to Approaching:


 * I trust you to only include "criticism" that considers Craig a sort of saint who can do nothing wrong. Disagreeing with him would be "anger" or "hate", so that is out. This will come to nothing.


 * In other words, WLC is either angel or devil, saint or sinner, hero or villain, us or them. Since neither is appropriate for a WP article, I guess I'll have to agree with Hob in that it will come to nothing.  Of course, if Approaching is correct that we can add "philosophically credible criticism of his work" in a neutral WP voice, I don't have an issue with that. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Arguably, the most notable feature of WLC is that he arouses particularly strong reactions, and as Bill the Cat 7 points out, the nature of these reactions is determined by group identity. Clearly those reactions should not be expressed in Wikipedia's voice, but they do need to be described here. I've yet to see any serious counter-argument to the inclusion of the text above, nor to the point that he is a skillful debater. The only point that may be controversial is an assessment of his standing among professional philosophers, and here is where your detailed knowledge of him may be particularly useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well here's my take... Craig's contributions to academic philosophy are among his lesser achievements. His academic standing as an "analytical philosopher" is slight, and if that was all he had achieved he wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. His main claim to notability is his role, an iconic role even, of providing an intellectual facade for American Christians. He is a consummate self-publicist, constantly provoking news outlets by raising news-worthy controversies and soliciting public debates. Craig is more the embodiment of enterprises than a mere academic philosopher. He has developed his enterprises by presenting himself in many different ways. One way, overplayed by the current article, is as a Christian philosopher. More notably, Craig is highly skilled public debater, a strong rhetorician who debates the existence of god about as well as it can be done. He achieves this with a battery of finely honed debating techniques – most prominent, as widely commented around the web, is his highly accomplished Gish galloping. However, public debating with its focus on scoring points is not an appropriate way of presenting serious philosophical issues. Other components of the Craig enterprises include his huge output of books favouring his version of Christianity, the staff positions he has achieved at various Christian colleges which give him a measure of academic respectability, and his high energy Christian apologist web site. I agree broadly with Richard's three-fold characterisation of Craig's reception. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of antagonism towards Craig (in the world at large, and among Wikipedia editors) is the result of an adherence to the belief system of "new atheism". New atheism is an intellectually inferior belief system compared to classical atheism, and thus receives sustained critique in the work of Craig, who exposes in minute detail many of the irrational, hokey, and unscientific ideas peddled by the new atheist salesmen. This work of Craig is threatening to the new atheist wikipedia editors here, and this explains not only their prejudiced perception of Craig, as well as their sole interest in including negative information into the article, as opposed to improving the article as a whole.

You allege there are no serious counterarguments to the inclusion of the above text. Let me offer you some. (1) This characterization is not made in the Wikipedia articles of any other public figures, so your attempt here would be unusual and require special justification. (2) There are a vast number of different reactions and responses to Craig, and it seems inaccurate to characterize the number of responses as falling broadly into three categories. (3) Even if we assume that people divide neatly into three groups, there is a great deal of diversity within those groups that your characterization fails to account for. (3) The threeness of your categories is not only suspect, but also suspect is the whichness of the three you emphasize and how you characterize them: His supporters extend far beyond evangelicals, the scholars interacting with his work go far beyond academic theologians, and his critics include some evangelical Christians. I could go on, but this is plenty reason to discard the perspective you want to include in the article. Approaching (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Evangelical" may indeed be too narrow, can you think of a word that would neatly describe his Christian supporters? And can you demonstrate that any academic philosopher regards him as one of themselves, or regards his arguments as significant? These are areas where you may well be able to help. As I've mentioned before, detailed rebuttal of his philosophical arguments does not belong in this article, but rather on the pages about those arguments, to an extent that their philosophical notability or lack of it should determine. And this page is here to discuss improvements to a specific encyclopedic page, not to irritate people with whom you disagree nor to express rejections of their worldview.
 * I don't see any disagreement on the point that he is skilled at winning debates, and at annoying his opponents. There are several notable blogs, such as Pharyngula, that would be suitable as references. More would be good, if possible one from a supporter, rather than one of his many annoyed opponents. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think an adequate descriptor for his Christian supporters would make the overall proposal worthwhile, given the above counterarguments. That said, there is one issue where we actually agree: I, like you, believe rebuttals to his arguments are best located in other, more appropriate pages (and I have an outstanding offer to editors here to work on such a page). Really, it's trivially true that any given position has people disagreeing with it (and perhaps even being annoyed by it), and you don't need to verbalize that.
 * Where this leads us is, as expected, to the possibility that we might need a dedicated page on which to lay out objections to William Lane Craig. And, like I said, I'm happy to work on it here with anybody who wants to do so with me. Approaching (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Goodness, you are amazing. What "counterarguments" are you talking about. You have made no counterarguments on this page. Or are you referring to the babble above about threeness and whichness? Richard referred to detailed rebuttal of Craig's philosophical arguments as belonging "on the pages about those arguments". This does not in any way lead us "as expected, to the possibility that we might need a dedicated page on which to lay out objections to William Lane Craig". You keep reiterating that you are "happy to work on" issues, but you never cease rejecting everything that is suggested. You tell Richard that he doesn't "need to verbalize that ", when he clearly needs to verbalize that because he is pointing to your personal attacks on this page, which also never cease. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're having comprehension difficulties previously unseen. You are confused by just about everything in this discussion, and you do it in a truly disturbing tone of frantic hysteria. You've misunderstood Richard's aim (to discuss "the way groups react to Craig"), you've misunderstood my counterarguments, you are mystified as to why rational people reject your low-quality content proposals on an encyclopedia article (a BLP no less). You're even confused about what I'm referring to when I say we don't "need to verbalize that". Epipelagic, you are truly incompetent at the task of editing Wikipedia, of understanding basic English, and you don't seem to want to take feedback that can help you get better. Truly, this is the wrong place for you to ply your abilities. Your conduct is damaging to the website and its editors. You should think about taking an extended break. Approaching (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for an administrator to review the personal tone on this page. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of article
RationalWiki has some pretty harsh criticism of this article (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Now.2C_try_an_experiment). Obviously we can't take their Snarky Point of View but it is something to consider for updates to this article. Sizeofint (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Checked it out. The criticisms are junk and that website is run by arm-chair philosophers who hate religion. Why consider it? 2601:C0:C400:D500:E5D8:22B6:2B59:8AFB (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It should be considered because many of the comments in that article are very much to the point. The Wikipedia article eccentrically claims Craig is primarily notable for his claim to being an "analytic philosopher" (a claim the analytic philosophy community would roundly reject), so it would be entirely appropriate for philosophers to write an article taking issue with him. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your evidence that the "analytic philosophy community" (whatever this is) rejects William Lane Craig as being an analytic philosopher? Is it 51% against WLC being labeled as such? 78%? 100%? Can you provide a definition of "analytic philosophy community"? Is there some kind of membership involved? How does one become a member? Afterwards, can you explain why one would need to be labeled an analytic philosopher by the analytic philosophy community in order for that person to be an analytic philosopher? Wouldn't it make more sense to assess the merits of each individual, assess the definition of analytic philosopher, and then see if the two meet? From what I understand, analytic philosophy is the dominant style of philosophy in English-speaking countries. WLC received his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham. Are you saying that the philosophy taught at the University of Birmingham isn't analytic? If it isn't analytic, then what style of philosophy do they teach there? Finally, I still don't see any good reason to include the mutterings of anonymous people, many of whom have no expertise in philosophy or science, who have shown a prejudice against anything involving the idea of God. 2601:C0:C400:D500:5866:C338:2BEF:F5BB (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a list of four or so issues that criticism needs to address in the context of this BLP. See the tail end of the discussion in the previous section. Also, rationalwiki really is a terrible website. I don't think they are run by philosophers at all, since some of their objections are laughable and cannot be taken seriously. Maybe there should be an article or section about his views, and the criticism should be folded into the sections about his views. BabyJonas (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrational people do not like RationalWiki, obviously. But that does not matter: wikis are not considered reliable sources anyway, and that is the reason we cannot use it. But much of what they say seems to be reasonable... at the time the paragraph in question was written, the WP article was indeed a puff piece. Their analysis of Craig's fallacies is also spot-on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking over the WLC article at RationalWiki and their criticisms are not spot on. The people who wrote this article are obviously unsophisticated in philosophy and especially logic. For example, I invite you to read this blurb about WLC’s formation of the Kalam from “RationalWiki”.

“First he creates the escape hatch that only things that begin to exist need a cause to avoid the infinite regression of who created God etc.”

Notice how the writer assumes bad faith when assessing WLC’s arguments by labeling aspects of his line of reasoning as “escape hatches” and insinuating that his arguments are ad hoc rather than reasoned out. This alone demonstrates the lack of sophistication of the writer. To say the least, this isn’t how things are done in the academic world. Moreover, even if the writer’s pop psychology were correct, it does nothing to undermine the premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. The writer then goes on to say,

“but as it becomes clear that only God didn't begin to exist this is actually a piece of special pleading to make God exempt from the general premise that Craig is basing his KCA on.”

Evidently, the writer doesn’t know what special pleading is. For those of you who are reading this special pleading is, “a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn't apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.” http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SpecialPleading

So how in the world is Dr. Craig guilty of committing this fallacy by saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause? Dr. Craig is open to the idea of the universe being eternal or God beginning to exist, but he has reasons for thinking these propositions are false. The ignorance of this writer is startling, but this is the kind of trash you want imparted to WLC’s article here at Wikipedia.com? I think not. 2601:C0:C400:D500:E5D8:22B6:2B59:8AFB (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you built yourself a net of excuses why the logic of RationalWiki does not count, including ad hoc ad hominem such "obviously unsophisticated" and category error like "assumes bad faith" (that is just a Wikipedia rule). But it does, and it is special pleading, "a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn't apply his or her principles consistently": the principle is "Everything that is sentient has a cause" but God is supposed to be exempt from it because of word games and lawyering. Craig knows the result he wants, and he rewords his principle in order to be able to get it. "Everything that begins to exist" is convoluted and obviously designed for the "this does not apply to God" result. Serious academics do not do this.
 * Actually, lambasting fallacies, as in the RationalWiki article, is "done in the academic world", but those who commit the fallacies are students or charlatans or frauds or experts on something else, or short, people who do not know what they are talking about. Of course theologians cannot expunge fallacies consistently because their whole field is based on them, so, within theology, it is, as you say, "not done".
 * But this is beside the point. This page is for improving the article, and the discussion has drifted away from that. So, EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

“So you built yourself a net of excuses why the logic of RationalWiki does not count, including ad hoc ad hominem such 'obviously unsophisticated'”

1. If the writer of the article in question cannot even understand what special pleading is, then they’re unsophisticated in philosophy. Earlier, I explained what special pleading is and provided my source (a good one), and then I gave reasons showing why WLC isn't guilty of committing the fallacy.

2. You don’t need to be on Wikipedia to assume good faith. In academic circles, people typically assume good faith and interpret the arguments of others in the strongest possible way; and they don’t assume the person behind the argument is trying to deceive them, nor do they focus on speculating on the intentions of the arguer like the editors at RationalWiki do. This is just another example of the immaturity and lack of rigor that goes on at that website.

3. The premise in question is “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”. For this to be special pleading Dr. Craig would need to inconsistently apply this premise. That’s not the case though. He applies it to God, but it turns out that the very nature of the premise excludes God for if the premise is true, then it’d only describe things that begin to exist; however, God is by definition an eternal being. This premise can also be applied to an eternal universe with a similar result. Similarly, if somebody created an argument with the premise, "Everything that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has duck DNA--is a duck" it wouldn't make sense to say this is special pleading merely for the reason that the premise cannot be talking about human beings. You and the writer of this particular RationalWiki article just don’t seem to understand what special pleading is.

4. “Craig knows the result he wants, and he rewords his principle in order to be able to get it”

This is the kind of nonsense the writer of the article in question was espousing. Emotionally driven pop-psychology designed to attack the man rather than the argument (ad hominem). It doesn’t matter what the intentions of the arguer are. What matters is the merit of the argument itself. My suggestion to you is to stop reading RationalWiki and start reading actual books on philosophy written by people with adequate credentials, because learning about philosophy, science, or theology from RationalWiki is a baby step above getting your education from YouTube comments.

2601:183:8202:3D81:5CB5:3E87:BC26:F69F (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You are misusing this page. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @HobGadling, a couple things:


 * 1) Wikipedia is not a forum. See WP:FORUM. We are discussing the potential quality of Rationalwiki as a source, or even a starting off point for research, where it is seriously lacking. We are not discussing the merit of the website itself, or of Craig's arguments.
 * 2) Stop with the personal attacks please. You will have trouble if they continue.
 * 3) The discussions of criticism so far, don't seem to warrant inclusion in the article, because of their low quality, and their lack of notability. There are non-notable criticisms for every view one can think of. We need a higher standard of justification to want to incorporate criticism in the article itself.

BabyJonas (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * All this is bullshit. I already said "But that does not matter: wikis are not considered reliable sources anyway, and that is the reason we cannot use it."
 * The one who used this as a forum was the letter salad user, and all I did was counter a little bit of its nonsense and point out that all that soapboxing is not needed because RationalWiki is a wiki and therefore not acceptable anyway.
 * And refuting stupid reasoning is not a personal attack, so you can stick it. Stop using strawmen, it will not work with someone like me who is accustomed to debating creationists. EOD, again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Relax Hob. This article is heavily controlled by Christian apologists desperately in need of someone to champion their cause. Without Craig who would they have? So Craig is elevated as the anointed one. Rationality has no place here – better to gracefully accept the situation as it is, and allow them to celebrate their dubious trophy. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this article is sort of a Conservapedia exclave? That would explain it... --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, I was just passing through, and noticed your comment about, "The one who used this as a forum was the letter salad user...". That is an IP user. His signature is his IP address, which uses the IPv6 protocol. It isn't his deliberate choice to use it. Also, IPv6 supported addressing (as opposed to older but more common IPv4) is encouraged by Internet engineering authorities, e.g. IETF. In other words, even if he seems to be espousing unscientific viewpoints, he is to be commended for using the most up-to-date medium of online communication.--FeralOink (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It is quite endearing to see how under the thin veneer of civility and polite debate, many editors would rip out each other's proverbial throats (at least verbally). The way this page is going, a moderator should be summoned, and quickly. As for RationalWiki's valid points, i would put them somewhere below those on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

User:Uriel benziel zvosel (talk) 17:01, 03 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Epipelagic is clearly a prejudiced figure who thinks that if RationalWiki isn't quantified as a valid resource by Wikipedian editors, then it must be due to the evil Christian apologists who kiss Craig's feet in desperate need of help from science!! Of course, such is nonsense and Epip is quickly losing credibility when he employs such reasoning. One of Wikipedia's policies is WP:IRS, and RationalWiki fails to qualify as a reliable source. Epip clearly has a conflict of interest here with RationalWiki, and this is especially true if he cannot even get past that RationalWiki is not a reliable source and the vast majority of users on the site are religion-hating charlatans. Discussion on the veracity of RationalWiki as a reliable source should be closed now.Korvex (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A gentle notice to everyone: I see an influx of people with a certain agenda here, and they are trying hard to impose their agenda on this BLP. When editors don't bow to their demands, these people get angry and accuse the editors of being "Christian apologists". In fact, I think the editors only care about maintaining the standards of Wikipedia, and not serving any narrow agenda.

In the face of insults from these new people, I suggest editors don't respond with further insults. Instead, take your concerns to administrators, who will introduce disciplinary measures if the bad-faith responses and insults keep coming.

After all, this is Wikipedia, not the Richard Dawkins Wiki. BabyJonas (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you please start acting honestly and acknowledge that you used invalid reasoning against what I said? Your contribution above is 100% ad hominem, none of it is to the point, and none of it is "gentle". I don't care what type of apologist you are or are not, I only demand that you follow the rules of discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk)
 * I don't see how what you've said is pertinent to the issue at hand, namely Wikipedia standards about criticism. You seem more interested in having a personal dispute. I have no interest in that. BabyJonas (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hob, the behaviour above shows why it is better to gracefully accept the situation, and move on. Trying to stem the apologist relays and counter the projections and schoolboy levels of reasoning is Sisyphean. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Epipelagic, I had hoped you were above this grade of discourse, and your contributions to a potential criticism section would be more substantive than what we've seen so far. Nevertheless, in your post, you seem to tacitly endorse Hob Gadling's rhetoric, and chosen to raise the specter of "apologist relays", "projections", and "schoolboy levels of reasoning". Can you clarify what in this discussion falls into those categories? BabyJonas (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am someone who believes that discussion is a working way of conflict resolution. When people use spurious arguments, as is customary on this page, discussion does not work, and it has to be demonstrated why.
 * So, since Jonas was obviously wrong, all I wanted was: have Jonas admit that he was wrong (moving this into the direction of serious discussion), or, failing that, have everyone see that Jonas is a person who cannot admit he is wrong, and therefore still carries with him every mistake he ever made in his life - showing to the watchers that Jonas is an untrustworthy person discussing whom is pointless. I have achieved the second goal. EOD, as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's better to move on to the issue at hand, namely a discussion of criticism, that responds to the relevant points made above. BabyJonas (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I read the RationalWiki page. About the fallacy thing, 2601:C0:C400:D500:E5D8:22B6:2B59:8AFB  says "Evidently, the writer doesn’t know what special pleading is. ". I think by special pleading, what is meant is that religious people like William Lan Craig state that my pen had a starting point, my chair had a starting point, the Earth has a starting point, the universe had a starting point, but the god that they believe in has no starting point. A special exception is made for the god that they believe in. This is something that I have seen from various religious people. Some even state that their god is a constant, that it never changes. So, I think the argument being made by RationalWiki is that since people don't want to get rid of their religion, they tend to give whatever god that they believe in special qualities. They don't give these special qualities to inanimate objects. Vmelkon (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising a substantive issue. I'm actually studying philosophy, so I know a little bit about this issue. This special pleading objection is almost never raised in the academic literature, but it is commonplace on the internet. The reason scholars (both theists and atheists) reject this objection is because it doesn't represent the way philosophers reasoned. Ancient philosophers who invoked the idea of an unmoved mover were trying to figure out how to get out of an obviously incoherent notion of an infinite regress of "starting points" (as you call it). The way that made most sense to them was to suppose that in order to avoid this infinite regress, the only way would be to have something that didn't itself have a starting point. The philosopher who came up with this notion was not trying to preach religion, he was philosophizing about the nature of the world. So clearly you can see that this objection doesn't line up with the philosophical origins of the unmoved mover. Rather, this objection presupposed a RationalWiki revisionist history like this: "There are these evil/bad religious people, using bad logic to preserve their irrational beliefs. One example of their bad logic is how they apply to God a special pleading by saying he didn't have a cause." Clearly this is a historically and philosophically ignorant and inaccurate idea. And this is why I support the idea of scholarly objections being raised. Approaching (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Clearly this is a historically and philosophically ignorant and inaccurate idea" It is also a strawman. All the stuff starting with "There are these evil/bad" is purely your own invention and thus irrelevant.
 * Dismissing a line of reasoning because of its origin ("commonplace on the internet") is a genetic fallacy, and trying to understand what the originators thought does not make their thinking valid, and "almost never raised in the academic literature" is an argument from silence. You managed to cram three fallacies in that paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Approaching, I understand that they wanted to get out of a infinite regress, so naturally, you end up with the idea that there is a first in the series. If we do accept that there is a first in this series, how exactly are philosophers going to describe it? This is where theists insert their god and assign the properties that they want to it. I think there is a desire from theists, to make their god non created, non-material, not made of anything (?), not affected by time, does not require energy to function (?), and they use the singular form of god instead of saying gods. I guess I don't understand why do they think the first mover has intelligence. Because science has its own thing to say. Total destruction of particles or energy is never observed. You have an anti-proton and proton that collide and this might emit a couple of gamma ray photons (or thousands of subatomic particles). There is also the case of 1.1 MeV gamma ray passing near a strong electric field of a nucleus and generating an electron and positron. There is also the case of space generating particles for a very short period of time. These things don't have intelligence. The universe itself is a big process just running on whatever properties it has. The universe itself might be some "particle" generated by some process. I'm not sure why philosophers are bringing an intelligent agent to the table. If I missed that part of your explanation, pardon me William Lane Craig et al. Vmelkon (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But keep in mind, the theists of the time (which included Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) didn't simply concoct the idea of God out of thin air, just so they could illegitimately apply theism onto this "first in the series". If this were true, we would see the concept of God arising post hoc, or invented after the fact, in order to fit the data. The situation was actually different: independent of philosophical speculation existed this intuition of God, this longstanding and widespread sense in the minds of many people at the time (and still today, in a growing majority of the non-western world) that there was a divine person (or divine persons) who was the greatest being in existence, created everything, issued moral commands, etc. It was simply a matter of putting two and two together to think both these two existing notions ("the unmoved mover/uncaused cause" and "God") referred to the same entity. In fact, here's an interesting side note: The famous Euthyphro Dilemma raised by Socrates in Plato's dialogue of the same name is meant to argue for monotheism in the context of the larger dialogue (cf Euthyphro, 7b). Long story short, I think the best way to get a handle on this issue is to delve into the peer reviewed literature, to see what objections the experts raise. I'd love to be able to do that with someone, as this is an area I love to read about. Let me know if you'd like to take me up on the offer. We can make this article pretty great once we represent the critical voices among professional philosophers. Approaching (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't accuse Socrates, Plato, Aristotle because I don't know what exactly they are proposing. I have found that over time that the word god means many things to many people. For example, Einstein talks about Spinoza's god. He considers the entire universe as a god, an impersonal god. I suppose this means that this god has no intelligence. I have heard similar statements from people I have spoken to. We can accuse christians with the fallacy of special pleading because there is an intention to put the god of their religion into this spot. They are trying to make it fit. I have read the bible and to me, it is clear that the ancient jews were flat Earthers, they believe that heaven is in space and there is talk about a dome. As science collected data, the believer's belief evolved to match up with it. In other words, they are also trying to make it fit with science. These days, this "god" is outside the universe while there is no mention of the word "universe" in the bible. There is no mention of this universe expanding from a quantum singularity in the bible. What is your offer exactly? You want to look up peer reviewed literature and possibly add it to the article? Anyway, what is lacking here is an argument why the first mover is intelligent. What does intelligence do to create universes or space or time or subatomic particles? Vmelkon (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the relevant distinction here (among philosophers) is between classical theism on one hand and non-classical theism on the other. It's a discussion worth having, but for now I want to focus on improving the article with peer-reviewed philosophical criticism of William Lane Craig's work. Is this something you're willing to commit to? I'll start a thread on a new section on this. Approaching (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, we can do that. What sources do you use? Is there a repository of white papers from philosophers somewhere? Vmelkon (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Craig says
Is there any particular reason nearly every single sentence in this article beings with Craig says or some variant of this; Craig claims, Craig believes, Craig concludes. This is exceptionally poor writing; the only thing that it does do for the reader is force them to adopt his voice in their head and read the article as such. It gets repetitive extremely quickly. At the very leasy every instance of "Craig" should be changed to "he" after the first mention in each paragraph. For example; Should be;
 * Craig believes that recent discoveries about the expansion of the universe and relativity theory support his view that thermodynamic properties of the universe show it is not eternal.[40][41] Craig says that postulating a multiverse of worlds in varying thermodynamic states encounters the problem of Boltzmann brains—that it becomes highly probable for any observer that the universe is only an illusion of his own brain, a solipsistic conclusion Craig says no rational person would embrace.[42]
 * Craig believes ... eternal. He says ... a solipsistic conclusion he says ... embrace. I'm sure that much more can be done to improve the prose in the article, but, that would be a start.Mr rnddude (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go through and do some adjustments to prose myself, without changing any content, but, given the disputations above, I'd rather not touch it without a go ahead. Bear in mind, there'd be quite a bit of copy-editing required. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for you to go ahead and do it. The disagreement above is merely limited to the question of the kind of criticism that should be included in the article. Your adjustment of the prose is welcome. Approaching (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, go ahead. You should be safe. :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers Approaching and Bill the Cat, I'll get started on it tomorrow night. I've had a busy day today and expect a similarly busy one tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I had wondered whether the prose style was intended as a subtle insult to the subject... probably not, but in any case an improvement would be welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: maybe we get "Craig says" and "Craig says" again simply because of citations... each sentence in Wikipedia needs citations and is subject to debate. So it's possible for paragraphs to appear as conglomerates of a pile of sentences without anybody doing a "readability" test to see how it sounds, as Mr rnddude is doing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)