The William Lane Craig Phenomenon

Appeals to ridicule? Veiled arguments from authority? Which authority would that be?
No, I'm simply suggesting that if there are no professionals using the argument one uses, then one should simply ask if there might be a reason why that is. You say you're interested in that reason – I'm suggesting you take a moment to think about what that might be, nothing more.

Given I made no refutations here, I have no fucking idea what your talking about.

Didn't say you had. Read back through the conversation thread and you'll see what my comment was towards

Do you think I might… oh I dunno…. think about WLC's arguments before posting a refutation (when I do)

The point was- do you ever ask yourself why the professionals he debates don't use the same argument (if that is the case – I'm assuming you've watched his debates?) That is most definitely NOT to say that yours is thus wrong – but it is a cause for question.

Sheesh.. you really know how to take tongue-in-cheek comments intended merely to prick thought way further than that, don't you! :D

As I explained above, it is not a claim that WLC's arguments are necessarily valid, nor an argument from authority. I absolutely did not say "The 'pros' don't even refute this argument, so it must be true!".

The problem with formal debates, is that one side can throw out unchecked facts, and essentially throw up a smokescreen.

Maybe so – as far as I'm aware the 'facts' are not under contention, it is the logical and philosophical syllogisms he uses them – that certainly can be countered in a debate.

So, why don't you ante up and present what you think is WLC's best argument, something that can't be refuted.

As I said – I'm still waiting for Andrew to respond to my argument ;)

What I have come to learn is that many believers gesture vaguely towards refutations rather than actually address the arguments presented. We are indirectly informed our arguments are amateurish and easily refuted, yet these refutations are often never tabled. One might wonder why that could be.

Then why did you bring it up?

See above.

The implication is obvious. Or at the very least you should be able to see how someone could draw that implication and admit to a mistake in communication.

I can see how one might, but if that implication is held after I've rejected it, then the mistake is theirs. It is not an error on my part simply because someone reads more into my words than they actually say.

So basically you can't pick out an unbeatable WLC argument because you haven't finished a discussion with someone else on the Internet, that's what your excuse boils down to.

Not can't – don't wish to. Besides, where did I say WLC had 'unbeatable' arguments? What I happen to think of arguments of his is not my point, and I'm sorry you missed it.

Lighten up.

How is "ever wondered why pros don't use you argument' in any way like "your wife is ugly"..?

really.. lighten up.

I apologise that my less than earnest intent, and intended point was not clear in my comment, and I regret that the point of the comment was missed it spawned such a silly 'cockfight' and that my attempt to point to the light-hearted intention of my comment was perceived as 'slippery'. I agree that this has degenerated, and I should have had more of a clue about the futility of trying to salvage such a throw-away comment in the first place. My bad.