I've found some of the characterizations of Craig's arguments and debate style baffling.
When he debates the existence of god, he always delivers the same five arguments (technically, it's four: his fifth claim is that god can be known directly, independently of any argument). He develops these arguments as carefully as time allows, and defends each of his premises. He uses the kalam cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, and the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. This can hardly be characterized as dumping.
Also, his arguments are logically valid; you won't see any, 'brain teaser, therefore god!' moves from him. He's not only a 'theologian'; he's a trained philosopher (he... (read more)
I've found some of the characterizations of Craig's arguments and debate style baffling.
When he debates the existence of god, he always delivers the same five arguments (technically, it's four: his fifth claim is that god can be known directly, independently of any argument). He develops these arguments as carefully as time allows, and defends each of his premises. He uses the kalam cosmological argument, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, and the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. This can hardly be characterized as dumping.
Also, his arguments are logically valid; you won't see any, 'brain teaser, therefore god!' moves from him. He's not only a 'theologian'; he's a trained philosopher (he... (read more)