It's a weird concession that's made when Craig gets a free pass to
his evangelizing. He is a noted debater and often given the title of
Champion of Modern Day Christianity. Craig offers up an explanation to
trump any rational argument against him by saying areas of science -be
it understood or not- explain for god, the complete one eighty from the
usual theist argument that god explains science. He also doesn't rely on
his belief as substantial evidence for god, he sticks with combative
yet persuasive arguments that reminded me of Deepak Chopra with a well
made script to hide any mysticism as he continues to intently avoid a
suspension of belief.
There is however a
set of fallacies with Craig's position, you see religion isn't religion
without faith and to say that there is a scientific
explanation for god brings two questions to the forefront as debating
points. One, does Craig believe that science proves or explains for
miracle works in some way and/or the supernatural which in other words;
the what can only be explained by humans as supernatural? The second
question is then if he believes the first or whatever derivable
conjuration of the first question that he makes; does that mean science
proves Zues, Odin, Set, Sol, Vishnu and so on or does science adhere to
his dogma alone and only proves his god? Two fair questions I believe,
there is no sense in debating Mr. Craig because he takes up the
impossible task of saying science proves the supernatural when by virtue
if the supernatural was provable by science it would cease to be
supernatural. The challenge here is that gravity would be abstract
unless we knew what it was before we named it and yet god remains
abstract no matter what we name it.
