Jump to content

Talk:William Lane Craig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mojowiha (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 14 March 2015 (→Billionaire). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


There is absolutly NO critisism of William Lane Craig, for example debate style and opinions of other philosophers

I have the feeling that some specific person is changing this article in favour of Craig's arguments. He gets a lot of critisism from many philosophers. Would be good to add that, otherwise I will add a note on top which states issues with neutrality.--85.181.196.107 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be included, it's directly from Stephen Laws blog: The philosopher Stephen Law debated William Lane Craig in 2011 and was suggesting that one can use parallel versions of Craig's arguments to prove the existence of an evil God. In a follow up debate, Law alleges that Craig repeatedly misrepresented Law's position by suggesting that Law's objection relies on a presumption that Christians conclude God's perfect goodness is obvious from evidence in the world when Law's argument only relies on the theist accepting that God is good, not necessarily perfectly good, and that theists conclude God's goodness from facts about the world, not that they conclude his perfect goodness from those facts. Law states that Craig has repeatedly misrepresented numerous parts of his argument.[106]http://stephenlaw.blogspot.kr/2011/11/craigs-website-response-re-our-debate.html This was repeatly reverted, I think I'm going to report is as vandalism.And it is a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Blogs as sources

--85.181.196.107 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to find reliably published third party sources - not blogs for godsake. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this ignorance. Did you read the page yourself? "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—ARE LARGELY not acceptable. ". In this case it makes sense to cite it as source, it's Stephen Laws own freaking blog. This is just ridiculous, because that would mean that one never can get any critisism if it is expressed in a blog and it would never be displayed in a wikipedia article, which would make it not neutral, this is just stupid. And stop spamming with your strange accounts. If this get's thrown under the carpet one can actually get real critisism of Craig on this page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig Just for the record.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this isnt steven laws page hence the absolute NO for use of his blog here. see WP:BLP . And you need to stop making assertions about other editor's motives. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Man, yes of course that can't be Law's blog because there is only his picture, workplace, email and many articles written by him, the newest entry is 25 October 2014. Did you even visit the blog? You just state arguments without a rational reason, go work on Stupidedia or stop beeing ignorant. Even in the article of Stephen Law himself there is reference in the link section to his blog.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When The Red Pen of Doom said "this isnt steven laws page" he was referring to the William Lane Craig article NOT Law's blog! Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's even more absurd. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Steven Law says on Steven Law's blog solely about Steven Law might be appropriate for the Steven Law article, but it is not appropriate for any other article. what William Lane Craig says on William Lane Craig's blog about William Lane Craig might be appropriate for this article. But what Steven Law says on on Steven Law's blog about William Craig is not going to be appropriate anywhere. see WP:SPS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have actually ever read what I wrote? You keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. No wounder you are using many accounts like one guy said on your talking page. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep yelping about the very basic and non-negotiable attempt to use a blog in an article about a living person, or you can look for appropriately published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should undo the protecting, I found more "appropriate" sources for critisism: http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html , there are some published article.(Let me guee pen of death will not accept it?)--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i still object - that does not appear to be any better than a blog. it is not a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. anyone can put anything on the web. we use the highest quality sources, particularly for content about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and that link itself may fall under WP:ELNEVER - it looks like it is hosting lots of copyright materials without the permission of the copyright holders. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should add a notification into the article which says that the article is not neutral, because there is absolutly no critisism of him in the article. Thx. Ok wait, there is an article published in RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350), any objection? And that everything is without the permission is not true for example look at the artcile from Graham Oppy. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it is only "not neutral" if there are legitimately published perspectives that we are not covering in the article. see WP:UNDUE and its subsections. Do you have any legitimate critiques? The source looks legit at first glance, but it is 20 years out of date and so any use needs to be properly framed and not applied to anything after the publication. (and it should be compared against anything since that has refuted the analysis/commentary made back in the day. ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lex, why are you under the impression that if there is no criticism of WLC, then that means the article is not neutral? Many, if not most, BLP articles don't have criticisms of its subject. Does WLC in some way anger/annoy you? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While "criticism" for the sake of "criticism" and particularly sections dedicated to "criticism" are bad ideas, we do want to place a person's work into context and if a major part of the context is "negative", that should be included as well.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, WLC attracts the ire of radical atheists with the desire to misrepresent his positions and to basically call him "stupid" (or other hateful things; e.g. as Dawkins has done). Typical atheists/agnostics who WLC has debated, on the other hand, simply disagree with some of his positions/conclusions. These kinds of "criticisms" I have no problem with. It's the "defender of genocide" kind of statements that are slanderous and don't belong in the article. And that's what I'm concerned about. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can attest from personal conversation at the American Philosophical Association that many atheist philosophers, such as Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, admire and respect Craig even though they fervently disagree with his conclusions. Also, criticisms of his work should source peer-reviewed journals, not popular material such as blogs, and should mention his response to this criticism, if indeed he did respond to it.--TMD Talk Page. 15:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not critisim for the sake of critisism, it's just because THERE IS A LOT of critisism, and this is not reflected in this article. And articles shouldn't be poster boy representations of the people they are about. This just shows your igorance sry, if someone expressed critisism of Craig because he defends genocide, then that should be made clear in his article. Image that every information you had about a single topic was cooincidently only found in blogs (which is important today because of the rise of social media and the associated, and will get even important in the future), then, following the rules, this topic would never make it into an Wikipedia article. That's just irrational, one should think about altering the rules on that. And this discussion page is pervaded with "article owners" who are "concerned" about the legitimacy and critics free content of this article and who are trying to maintain the immunity to critisism as far as they can. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source which was published: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html in Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93. Here is another source http://infidels.org/library/modern/arnold_guminski/kalam.html published in the Fall-Winter 2002 issue of Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215) Here is one: http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/reply.html Published in "Reply To Professor Craig", Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29] I bet there are others, I will gather them.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to seperate this from the other comments I gathered all the critical and published sources that were referred to on this infidel site:
  • Why I Am Not a Christian (2000), Keith M. Parsons, Atlanta Freethought Society in 2000. [1]
  • Two Ways to Prove Atheism (1996), Quentin Smith, Atheist Alliance convention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996[2]
  • Review of Reasonable Faith (2007), Chris Hallquist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp[3]
  • Reply To Professor Craig (1995), Graham Oppy, Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29[4]
  • Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism (1997), Quentin Smith, Analysis 57.4, October 1997, pp. 295-304[5]
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities (2002)

(Revised 2014), Arnold T. Guminski, Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215)[6]

  • Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1995), Graham Oppy, International Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 2, pp.219-221[7]
  • Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93[8]
  • God (1997), Jan Narveson, Reason Papers, #22 - Fall 97, pp. 109-118[9]
  • The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism (1992), Quentin Smith, RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350)[10]

These are all critical papers. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's interesting, no one cares anymore, so don't be suprised when I write a whole critical section with all the sources.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be surprised if you get reverted if you insert the claim that WLC defends genocide, or any other ad hominem statements. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And don't be surprised if we add a response to the criticism section and revert any attempt to delete it.--TMD Talk Page. 22:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This just shows very obivously and clearly your own agenda, now your masks have fallen. This has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works, you should be ashemed of yourself and stop editing on Wikipedia for the sake of the project. I was right with everything I said about the article and it's "owners". And as you can read from the sources there is obviously critisism. And IF one of the sources said that Craig defended genocide in a reliable source, then I WILL PUT IT IN, doesn't matter if it's ad hominem or not, you don't understand how Wikipedia works at all. Now that these sources are available the article became not neutral, which is a violation of the principles of Wikipedia.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2.0: Discussion continued

Generally speaking, Lexikon-Duff is correct in that there should really be a criticism section on this page, for two reasons. The first is that there is widespread criticism of Craig and his views to the extent that this is a part of his life, secondly that no only does it mean the article is incomplete, but it suggest an un-neutral POV. I am unsure why Lexikon-Duff did not pursue this, someone needs to. DocHeuh (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can't just charge in and make drastic changes, and then edit war when they don't stick. You need to build consensus on the talk page beforehand.--TMD Talk Page. 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, lets build a consensus. I see no reason why you would oppose the above proposal. The specifics of which is of course up for debate. DocHeuh (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most BLPs don't have criticism sections, so there needs to be a good reason why this article needs one. I don't see any good reason.--TMD Talk Page. 01:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose it simply because there are a lot of radical atheists out there who want to indirectly challenge WLC through Wikipedia since their idols (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) have either refused to do so or have failed in their attempts. At the very best, an inline quotation is all it deserves. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reasonable argument. Obviously there is critisism of WLC, just look at all the sources I gave. But I already said what I think about this article in my above comments. I don't think it is about writing a neutral article at all. I wanted to write something in the far future, but if someone wants to do it now, just use the sources I gave. And to always assume that any critical argument is from radical dawkins atheists is just...silly. But anyway, I don't think you can reach a consensus with the users that were part of the discussion here, which is anyway not necessary if you have good sources I think. And btw, there are many sources used in the article what would otherwise not be accepted, for example Craig's own blog, youtube videos and other blogs.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be done because 'there is widespread criticism of Craig and his views to the extent that this is a part of his life' just as there is for Richard Dawkins and just as there is a controversy paragraph on the Richard Dawkins page. Craig makes contervisial statements and has highly contrevsial beliefs. It can be easily argued, that there is even more need for such a section given that 'thinking creationism is a viable alternative for evolution and being against homosexulaity' are much, much more controversial views than that of new atheism. Looking at the page, it looks like this has been started commenting on particular beliefs in the 'other views' section. I've created a small section below this, explaining this in more detail, commenting on the Richard Dawkins turn down etc. I also saw he has been listed as analytical philosopher? I have no idea why, he just isn't, I mean it's like calling Einstein a biologist, it's just wrong, so changed this to just 'philosopher', he covers a wide range from religion to metaphysics to time. We can discuss, with an official dispute if needed what from the Lexikon-Duff sources we should include. DocHeuh (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WLC is an analytical philosopher. Not sure where you got the idea that he wasn't but if you have a source saying that he isn't, please provide it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the wikipedia page "characterized by an emphasis on clarity and argument (often achieved via modern formal logic and analysis of language) and a respect for the natural sciences." This is untrue of Craig. The fact that he thinks that intelligent design is a viable alternative for evolution is proof of this. The rest of the edits (criticism and controversy) still hold. DocHeuh (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Analytic philosophy is a school to which virtually all philosophy departments in the U.S. subscribe to. Your comments above simply reflect your own philosophical disagreements with WLC, and thus have no place in a BLP any more than mine. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Analytic philosophy is just what it sounds like. It focuses on analysis of concepts and putting them into a deductive format. This can be contrasted to the school of Continental Philosophy, which expresses ideas through through prose. Friedrich Nietzsche is an example of the latter. Certainly, you aren't arguing that Craig is a continental philosopher?--TMD Talk Page. 22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I'm acting as a WP:3O here between User:Heuh0 and User:TMDrew as there seems to be some history between you two, I have just made comments on another page of dispute between the two of you. After reading Heuh0's recent edit, while correctly written and appropriate to make such a paragraph/distinction in this article, you SHOULD NOT have made this edit without letting another editor reply. As a third opinion I can tell you that the content was correct and also that the section is needed to serve an optimal WP:NPOV, and in this case, also due to my appearance as a WP:3O, the edit can be kept, to other editors therefore, please do not revert this edit. However, where TMDrew was correct was that you must talk in the talk page first. DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT edit in the future before your discussion reaches a consensus. This applies to all other editors in the discussion. Dirac (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill the Cat: You can't prove a negative. Don't be silly. According to you, one should provide source where people said what attributes don't belong to Craig? That doesn't make sense. I think one should provide a source which says that Craig is a analytical philosopher. And thx @Dirac, I approve your comment.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two citations regarding his status as an analytic philosopher, and can find more if needed.--TMD Talk Page. 20:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LD: Yes, you can prove a negative. I think we can all agree that we can prove that WLC is not a Muslim. At any rate, TMD provided a reference. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No you have no clue at all. Ok then let's see. Could you please cite a source where he explicitly states that he is not a muslim? Ok and what about Buddhism? Ok then we have to find a source for every possible attribute. For example, he clearly didn't state that he is not a vegan. So could someone please put that in, if not you have to provide a source which says he is not a vegan. Then since no one has provided a source that said the opposite he also thinks that scientology is partly right. You need to provide an infinite amount of sources that deny every possible attribute, otherwise this has to be put into the article ! But maybe Bill the Cat can prove that the invisible man exists and that invisible unicorns exist. And since no one has prove that the devils doesn't exist, he must exist lol besides an infinite number of unobservable creatures, because there is no prove that they don't exist. This is a hopeless fight. And since when is the website closertotruth.com a reliable source? Shouldn't some academic source say that he is? How silly, let's see what would happen if I would use such a website to source some critisism hm. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's both the Closer to Truth program and the Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology that specify that he is an analytic philosopher.--TMD Talk Page. 03:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that Bill the Cat reverted the Heuh edit due to the 'analytical' section. In an attempt to build a bridge I shall re-edit the other edits of that edit, that obviously meet general consensus, and need to be kept in. Dirac (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop throwing the criticism section back on the page before we can discuss it. Most BLP pages don't have criticism sections, and I don't see how Craig's views on homosexuality, for example, are even relevant. He is not known for his views on this area, any more than his views on popular music. I don't even see how Other Views contributes to the article, let alone the section on controversy and criticism.--TMD Talk Page. 23:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that if there were no clear and numerous criticisms of Craig, but there are. To reflect that, it would make sense to add a critical section where some or all of the critical sources I gave above could be expressed. Otherwise it would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as other users have already mentioned.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that, I think large portions of the article should be placed in other articles. For example the section on his arguments is super large and longer than the stuff about him as a person (remember this is an article ABOUT a person, it's not necessary to list every details of the person's work). I also don't think one has to list every single debate or discussions he had. Only the notables should be listed. Same goes with the list of his publications. Usually one chooses some of the most important, and not almost every single publication. Also I'm skeptical about the sources from his own website (Reasonable Faith), that should be checked.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that there shouldn't be any criticisms of WLC. But, let's see here...1) You want to remove, or significantly cut down, the Thoughts section; 2) You want to focus upon his person; and 3) You want to devote an entire criticism section to his person. It sure seems to me that you want to transform this BLP into an ad hominem article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bill the Cat. Please explain to me why my suggestions would make this into an ad hominem article. I gave good reasons for all my proposals. And don't forget that the article in it's current state is in conflict with the Wikipedia standards on neutrality Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I also don't see why it is ad hominem if the details of his arguments are placed in the other relevant articles, that would actually improve these articles. And actually Wikipedis is not about not making ad hominem arguments. If a notable person makes ad hominem comments about Craig, and if that is well sourced and had an impact, then it should be in the articles. Wikipedia is not a philosophical platform.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bill the Cat 7,
"1) You want to remove, or significantly cut down, the Thoughts section" - Not at all. If you read the additional section to be added, it only moved information from particular sections to a section on its own, along with other information on Craig's criticism, rather that simply saying, 'this view is very controversial' or 'this view has been criticised' after almost every 'thought'.
"2) You want to focus upon his person;" - What?
"3) You want to devote an entire criticism section to his person." - Yes. This is the correct course of action concerning wikipedia's rules and keeping NPOV. You'll see such sections on BLP pages of people who attract similar amounts of controversy or criticism like Richard Dawkins. It is needed because controversy and criticism is a major part of WLCs life.
It simply needs to be there. DocHeuh (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 4 November 2014 a

Per the above discussion, please place the {npov} template in the "Thought" section. Lexikon-Duff has made the claim that there are views of the subject's work that aren't being covered and has provided a source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 4 November 2014

Please add {{pp-dispute}} to the page so that others can see that it is protected. As well, please fix the accessdates in some of the cites.--Auric talk 19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Protection icon added. I didn't fix the accessdates, because I'm not sure whether they meant September 10th or October 9th when they said "10/09". Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When will you unprotect the article? There is obviously critisism of Craig and I have reliable sources, which means that this article is not neutral. You can't protect the article forever.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction concerning Richard Dawkins

I just came across this article, and I see a contradiction. In the Life and career section, it reads "Thus commenced a series of debates on philosophical and theological questions that has pitted Craig against philosophers, scientists, and biblical scholars including Antony Flew, E. M. Curley, Richard Taylor, Quentin Smith, Michael Tooley, Paul Draper, Shelly Kagan, Peter Millican, Paul Kurtz, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ray Hoover, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, Christopher Hitchens, Ray Bradley, and Sean Carroll."

However, in the Controversy and criticism section, we find, "Due to some of his views being so controversial, some academics, such as Richard Dawkins have simply refused to debate him."

It can't be both ways, right? The source I examined seems to indicate that Dawkins indeed refuses to debate him. Dontreader (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct, somehow Dawkins was added into the list even though the two have never debated. It may be partly due to the way the introduction sentence was worded. On my next edit, I will rephrase the "thus commenced a series... that has pitted Craig against" to directly state "participation" and remove Dawkins from the group. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AzureCitizen, for the prompt reply and for the edit. I think you did a great job with that part to improve clarity. Thanks again, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dontreader, good catch! I think this contradiction stems from the fact that Craig and Dawkins participated in a group debate in Mexico a few years ago. Craig has since asked Dawkins to debate one-on-one on multiple occasions and this is where Dawkins has turned him down. Bobby (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources say about a subject and preferably what reliable third party sources say. This article includes 108 references of which 59 are primary sources and mostly his own website Reasonable Faith. This doesn't help with the neutrality of the article which reads as if he wrote it himself. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reason for a 'criticism' section (see above) DocHeuh (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources about his life are secondary sources. As far as an academic's work, you generally have to use primary sources to determine what position they take on an issue.--TMD Talk Page. 03:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"you generally have to use primary sources to determine what position they take on an issue" I strongly disagree, Wikipedia relies on what third party sources have reported, NOT what WLC says about himself and his work. Any criticism can be added to the appropriate sections, I'm not sure that it needs it's own section. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite right. It is right that Wikipedia cites an individual when stating their own views or position. Wikipedia then relies on third party sources to critique the person's view or position where necessary. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Bot time

Hi, I found it unreasonable that the discussion page gets archived after only ONE month (30 days). This will prohibit important and lengthy discussions. You can't assume that everyone works every night and day to get an issue resolved, some things take time. It also can be abused if some people are just sitting out an issue. And further to that, new people who want to contribute to the article won't see the recent discussions about the article. The archiving time should be raised to like six months. --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaire

Why do people consistently call him a billionaire? I see no way he could have made or inherited that kind of money. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? Where "do people consistently call him a billionaire"? Certainly not in this article or on the talk page - your claim is the first time I've ever heard it mention and I've read plenty of criticism of Craig (which I actually tend to agree with, btw).
Are you sure you've posted this on the right talk page? Or perhaps you've just seen the provocative titles of a couple of YT videos? If so, these video titles were the only accurate hits a quick Google search gave me on William Lane Craig and billionaire. Mojowiha (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Lane_Craig&oldid=651317345"