William Lane Craig has had to be kicked around a bit here on the forum recently; so, while I’m not uncritical of him in other regards either, I thought I’d at least provide a link to archived WLC debates along with his Spring 2009 debate/panel schedule (one of which is today, Feb 11, vs. his longtime sparring partner, Muslim apologist Shabir Ally.
Jason, this may not be the best place to ask, but what are your thoughts on Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument?
In the past, my thoughts on that have ranged from “meh” to “problematic at best”. I haven’t seen his latest work on it, though, so I don’t feel right mehing it at the moment. Also, it’s been several years since I looked at it closely, so I’m not sure I can reconstruct an evaluation on it, pro and con, other than a general impression of “intriguing on the surface but looks to be based on category errors”.
He might be doing much better today. But when fellow apologists ask me about the kalam, I currently recommend that they avoid it.
(And I caution that a more philosophical version of the cosmological argument has stringent limitations to what it can validly accomplish. It’s a great tool for arriving at a conclusion in favor of one Independent Fact instead of multiple-IFs or an infinite regression. But it’s practically worthless for arriving at a conclusion in favor of supernaturalism vs. naturalism, much less theism vs. atheism, which is what apologists tend to want to reach for. The CosArg is very helpful for supporting other arguments to those conclusions; but I would say that it cannot arrive there itself. And I don’t bother using the kalam at all. Yet. )