I think we are in agreement. Indeed, why are there so many discrepancies about Jesus and so little information about him as a man, or his family, etc?
The quick answer is that he didn't exist, or didn't exist as described in the Bible, but was a victim of legendary development.
Quick answers are, in general, the least trustworthy of all. Deep analysis is required on important subjects such as this.
I just saw the debate and was quite impressed by Kappel. I thought he, more than most (except Tabash & Kagan perhaps) cracked the facade of Craig's arguments.
Craig's arguments all require a host of priors that are simply not settled by any stretch of the imagination.
It's becoming rather apparent that Craig's "good explanations" are only good to him and others who think likewise, but not good to anyone who doesn't believe a God exists.
After all, he says the explanation of Christianity makes perfect sense if there is a God.
He seems to ignore that without that prior assumption it makes no sense.
His response, as always, is "well I feel I have good ideas for God".
He may feel that way, but that isn't an argument. His arguments require us to ignore the full weight of modern philosophy that either rejects or questions all of his arguments.
Atheists disagree with Christian claims? I think if we're all being honest, we can all agree that changing a person's opinion is really difficult in general. Thus, I should think it's obvious that Craig's explanations fall short for non-Christians. That doesn't necessarily suggest that Craig's arguments are bad. In fact, what you're suggesting is that they lack the ability to convince. An argument can be unconvincing, yet still be a strong argument (and vice versa).
Notice that Craig repeatedly mentions in private discussions or lectures that he feels that the moral argument is the most convincing, and that the ontological argument isn't terribly convincing because people are "apt to consider it trickery"? The ontological argument is actually fairly strong and simple, most rejections to it have been dealt with for a long time. Whereas the moral argument is still very much up for debate even to this day, subjective morality is possibly true (though less likely) and many people believe in other forms of objective morality. An argument's ability to convince is not the same as how good it is, it's a package.
Let's start with his assertion that the question of God is the most important question we can ask - if Christianity is true.
We can create all kinds of imagined important things. This is not an argument, it's an emotional appeal
Well, if it's not true, it's not. Or, if there is a plant, if ingested, that can extend our life and make us Gods then the discovery of such a plant is the most important thing we can do.[/quote]
This is a good analogy for demonstrating your point, but your point doesn't take the full situation into account.
1. Over 30% of the planet does not believe in your plant.
2. You have no evidence for your plant whatsoever, whereas there is--though debatable--good evidence for a god.
3. This isn't an argument for the existence of God, or even an argument to begin with. He's saying that the topic of God is important, not that the topic of God is important, and therefore He exists.
The irony with Craig is that as he debates more and more people, there is a larger and larger record of his inability to meet the demands of his claims. I respect that he continues to do it, but I'm a little more than concerned that he seems to not learn from his interaction with philosophers and scientists that his arguments are so heavily dependent on priors that simply aren't automatic.
What demands? Most of the time I hear atheists say how Craig's claims fail, but they never give any good examples when they make that claim. Take for example your previous point, you essentially attacks a straw man. You destroyed an argument that wasn't an argument...
Just because he feels some things are settled, despite the philsoophical community not agreeing with him, is a stark reminder his position is - as he always ends his debates - an emotional appeal to believers to keep believing and not a philosophical argument meant to weed out truths from the chafe.
The philosophical community doesn't agree with what priors, exactly? Most philosophers would agree that the topic of God is extremely important. If there is a deity out there that created the universe, that knowledge is highly important. If there's any evidence for your plant, then that topic is also highly important.
I know since you're an atheist you like to claim that there's no evidence for God whatsoever, but it's irresponsible and unreasonable. There is a lot of it, some good and some not-so-good. Even incorrect positions often have good supporting evidence, so it's quite unreasonable for people to act like there can't be any for theism because they think theism is false.
