William Lane Craig's empty chair thread.

[murshid]

Why fear someone in debate when your opponent isn't qualified? Should be a walkover for Craig then. Plus, it's an admittance of being an incompetent teacher when Craig thinks one of his former students is unqualified to debate him on a subject he taught this student himself.

Also this (from a comment on that page):

Bill could possibly also be thinking, if i ever do need to end up debating one of my own former students .Then it will also have become obvious to "me" in my own mind, that it seems i haven't really done such a very great job with properly introducing all my students to Jesus.

Bill might feel he needs to have some fear of that. He might tend to see it like as if he's been found kind of guilty of letting down the great heavenly big-boss, by not doing the job properly when teaching his students about Jesus. Bill might likely be like a whole lot of other faithful folk are on this earth, who honestly do feel like its still really very obvious , that the "existence of God" is actually already been found to be such a obvious given fact.

[Umakemyheadswim]

It depends on what you mean by literal. Critical reading of the genesis text shows that it may not be referring to a literal 6 days as we read it.

It seems to me that "critical reading" here must mean striking out most of the verses in Genesis 1 and 2. Not when it comes to determining how long it supposedly took mind you; I'm just interested in the "critical reading" part of the sentence. If we're going to start reading the text critically by some standard - which I assume has something to do with what modern science has discovered - there won't be much left, what's left must be contorted and shuffled, and one may then wonder why we are reading an ancient text for any kind of information on our origins in the first place.

Why strike out genesis 1 and 2? As I said. Craig accepts a long creation days. Genesis indicates long creation days. Not a literal 6 days as we know it.

[pelfdaddy]

Where does Genesis indicate long creation days? It says "the evening and the morning were the (nth) day".

[Oldskeptic]

It depends on what you mean by literal. Critical reading of the genesis text shows that it may not be referring to a literal 6 days as we read it.

It seems to me that "critical reading" here must mean striking out most of the verses in Genesis 1 and 2. Not when it comes to determining how long it supposedly took mind you; I'm just interested in the "critical reading" part of the sentence. If we're going to start reading the text critically by some standard - which I assume has something to do with what modern science has discovered - there won't be much left, what's left must be contorted and shuffled, and one may then wonder why we are reading an ancient text for any kind of information on our origins in the first place.

Why strike out genesis 1 and 2? As I said. Craig accepts a long creation days. Genesis indicates long creation days. Not a literal 6 days as we know it.

If you're trying to suggest that days are equal to longer spans of time to make Genesis compatible with cosmology I recommend that you read it again because the story is almost completely backwards. Days and nights come before the sun and moon, and stars come after that.