Q & A With Dr. Craig: Are My Arguments Totally Nonsensical?

Q: Dear Dr. Craig,

My Name is Michael, and I campaign in the UK against the religious indoctrination of children.

I have viewed many of your debates with interest, and I have to say – without the intent of appearing insulting – that your content always brings to the fore, the concept of the emperor’s new clothes.

It seems that your following can only be pretending to agree with – and accept – your arguments, because they feel that they are supposed to understand them in order to be considered Christians. But in actuality, your arguments require more credulity to accept, than the core concepts of Christianity itself. You seem to be of the view that: it is difficult to challenge your arguments. This is not because they are good sound arguments; it is because they are totally nonsensical.

I could give you an argument in your own style: We could if we wanted to, make water run uphill without the use of mechanical energy, and in doing so solve the planet’s energy crisis in a heartbeat; if we would only be prepared to pray hard enough to make water run uphill. The reason water does not run uphill, is not because it is impossible to make water do so, it is simply because no one has yet prayed hard enough to initiate the process. When someone does finally pray hard enough, water will indeed start to run uphill.

Ok, this sounds utterly ridiculous as an argument; but it cannot be proven wrong, even although it clearly is. As such, it mirrors the constructs of your own arguments precisely.

To your own apologetic work I would say, you can along with other theologians state as many times as you like that there is written evidence for the historic existence of the Jesus character, but the hard fact is that this is a fallacious statement; no matter how many times it is claimed, or by how many people; it is simply a false statement.

So, to forward sensible arguments, I invite you to view a documentary titled ‘Just Suppose’ which proves by means of mutual exclusion that you are quite incorrect in your defence of a historical 1 to 30 CE Jesus character. The character is, without question, a mythical construct.

All best regards


United States

Dr. Craig’s Answer: I’m glad that you found your way to www.Reasonablefaith.org, Michael, and I welcome your question about the apologetic arguments I’ve defended.

Unfortunately, you begin by insulting, not me, but thousands of others–many of whom have become Christians or have returned to Christian faith by being convinced by the arguments–, when you say that they “can only be pretending to agree with – and accept – your arguments, because they feel that they are supposed to understand them in order to be considered Christians.” This claim is on the face of it incredible. Are you so audacious as to think that all these people are prevaricators? Do you really think that these people don’t understand the arguments? To claim that they merely pretend to do so in order to be considered Christians is preposterous, Michael. I have never in my life met anyone who thinks that in order to be considered a Christian he has to understand these arguments.

So your claim is prima facie highly improbable and thus requires strong evidence if we are to accept it. So what evidence do you present in support of your bold assertion? Here it’s hard for me to discern any evidence you present to back up your claim. The best shot I can give is that you think that the arguments are totally nonsensical; therefore…


Are My Arguments Totally Nonsensical? | Reasonable Faith