Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.


  1. William Lane Craig in the Chronicle of Higher Education » trinities
    July 2, 2013 @ 5:01 pm

    […] the whole, a well done piece. Craig is indeed a fearsome debater, and a bold, and insightful scholar. His devotion to apologetics makes him a bit uncool among […]

  2. An Analysis of the Craig-Rosenberg Debate by Dale Tuggy | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God
    February 26, 2013 @ 9:44 am

    […] via Craig wins again (Dale) » trinities […]

  3. Craig v. Rosenberg: Debate or Debacle?
    February 21, 2013 @ 9:11 pm

    […] If you are interested in some really helpful notes on the debate check out this running commentary by philosopher Dale Tuggy. […]

  4. villanovanus
    February 16, 2013 @ 9:37 am

    Also, the article I recommended above is by CHRIS (not Christ) Heathwood.

    (Certainly worth a laugh.)

  5. villanovanus
    February 16, 2013 @ 9:31 am

    I see, so Anselm’s “ontological argument” and Aquinas’ quinque viae have been rediscovered by that amusing hybrid , “analytic theologians” to be still perfectly valid after all …

    … from Kant to Craig, over 200 years and an appalling waste of time … 😉


  6. Skylar McManus
    February 16, 2013 @ 3:13 am

    My favorite refutation of Kant comes from a one-star review of Critique of Pure Reason on Amazon: “Hume. QED.” (Certainly worth a laugh.)

    Also, the article I recommended above is by CHRIS (not Christ) Heathwood.

  7. Dale
    February 16, 2013 @ 12:38 am

    I don’t think Kant definitively killed off any of the old arguments for God’s existence. In many cases his objections are contentious, or work against some but not other versions of those arguments. All the arguments he claims to have put to rest have been much discussed since.

  8. Skylar McManus
    February 15, 2013 @ 6:16 pm


    There are several philosophers who are unsure that Kant debunked Anselm for good, as you say. That is, if you are referring to his objection to the ontological argument that “existence is not a predicate.” Alvin Plantinga thinks that Kant’s objection is irrelevant to Anselm’s argument. Gareth Matthews and Peter Millican seem to agree. Others, however, have pushed back and invited more discussion to be done on the issue. For example (if you are interested) see Christ Heathwood’s article in Religious Studies (2011) called “The Relevance of Kant’s Objection to Anselm’s Ontological Argument.”

  9. villanovanus
    February 15, 2013 @ 4:35 pm


    I looked at your link (‘As Kant has Shown . . .’: Analytic Theology and the Critical Philosophy, by
    Andrew Chignell, Cornell University), and, as I disagree right from the start, with Karl Barth’s quotation (that, at most, is a witness to Barth’s —unsurprising— incapacity to understand Kant), before I even consider embarking in reading that article, can you please tell me if you (personally, without further links), have any doubt that Kant “had debunked Anselm and Aquinas for good”?



  10. Dale
    February 15, 2013 @ 11:08 am

    Villanovanus, you may be interested in this.

  11. villanovanus
    February 14, 2013 @ 2:04 am

    Poor Immanuel Kant! I’m sure he is turning in his grave at the thought that, after he had debunked Anselm and Aquinas for good, now here comes that presumptuous upstart Craig, and uses the “cosmological argument” (and maybe all of the other quinque viae) as though he had debunked nothing at all …

  12. Skylar McManus
    February 13, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

    Whoa, something went terribly wrong with my HTML there (I would edit it if I could). That all links you to here: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/?s=stephen+law

  13. Skylar McManus
    February 13, 2013 @ 9:39 pm

  14. Dale
    February 12, 2013 @ 8:45 am

    Thanks, Skylar.

    Yes, I thought Millican did pretty well, although I thought Craig did a little better. I also thought the Kagan debate was excellent. My upper level philosophy of religion class and I all picked Kagan as the winner of that one.

    Have any links to blog reviews of the Craig-Law debate? I’d like to see that one too.

  15. Skylar McManus
    February 11, 2013 @ 8:40 pm

    Correction: Arif* Ahmed.

  16. Skylar McManus
    February 11, 2013 @ 8:39 pm

    I actually created a template in Word that is essentially a debate flowchart. I expected (like many people) that Craig would give his typical five arguments and that this would be a good test run of my template. Needless to say, there is a lot of empty space on Rosenberg’s part due to all the extra arguments added in this time around!

    For better Craig debates, I would suggest those with Stephen Law, Aris Ahmed, Michael Tooley, and Peter Millican. All four of these opponents are philosophers and have a lot of interesting things to say.

  17. B. P. Burnett
    February 11, 2013 @ 11:40 am

    Everything is right about this post.

  18. Anthony Bigg
    February 11, 2013 @ 3:04 am

    I’m glad to see that you could put the meme to use straight away 🙂

    I share in the sense of frustration that you seemed to have with this debate. Rosenberg just flat out failed to engage Craig’s arguments with any substance. That he harped on about how the logical problem of evil is just irrefutable and to insist that theists have never rigorously addressed it was embarrassing, especially because only 15 or so minutes earlier Craig surveyed the key work done in that area, and the impact had by that work (namely, the rejection of the logical version of the argument, even by most atheists)!

    But what really grated on me was the constant criticism, by Rosenberg, of the debate format itself. I agree with you 100%, it’s very poor form to criticise so incessantly the format, yet voluntarily participate. (Though I guess he rejects the view that he participated of his free will).

    Overall, a easy win by Craig, up there, in terms of clear victories, with his Krauss and Hitchens debates.