He has stated in several of his debates that the "Argument of Evil" is a "dead argument," abandoned by "philosophers everywhere."  I used to believe his shit; no more:

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/does...sprove-god

You're find several distinguished philosophers in the above list (such as Tooley & Smith) who explicitly invoke the argument of evil against the existence of god.

Don't believe Criag; he is a conscious liar.

And here I had thought so highly of him up to this point. 

I've never even heard of him lol

(April 4, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: He has stated in several of his debates that the "Argument of Evil" is a "dead argument," abandoned by "philosophers everywhere."  I used to believe his shit; no more:

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/does...sprove-god

You're find several distinguished philosophers in the above list (such as Tooley & Smith) who explicitly invoke the argument of evil against the existence of god.

Don't believe Criag; he is a conscious liar.

He also states that there is a stronger argument made by philosophers in the form of "If benevolent God exists, then evil would not exist to the extent it does in the real world". He is right most philosophers don't defend the argument that if evil exists at all, even to a minuscule bit, that it definitely proves a good creator doesn't exist, because no one has been able to show the link between that statement with disproving God. 

I remember watching that video, you have to see all that he says. He doesn't say philosophers don't argue that this world is incompatible with God due to the evil in it. He is saying the classical Greek argument, if God exists, and evil exists, then there is a necessary contradiction, is abandoned.

And he is right. If you can show me anyone arguing for that, then do so. What people argue now for is a different version of the problem of evil than the classical one. 

And regarding that one, he is even humble enough, on some days, it rattles his faith.

I won't say you were dishonest, but rather, it's one of those things I find common in many Atheists, in that they take what Theists say out of context and accuse them without understanding but just out of haste to attack the Theists or their arguments.

(April 4, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: He has stated in several of his debates that the "Argument of Evil" is a "dead argument," abandoned by "philosophers everywhere."  I used to believe his shit; no more:

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/does...sprove-god

You're find several distinguished philosophers in the above list (such as Tooley & Smith) who explicitly invoke the argument of evil against the existence of god.

Don't believe Criag; he is a conscious liar.

Come now. He's not that bad. I mean, he has to sleep some time and I'm fairly certain he's not lying to anyone then. Though, I could be wrong.

I would bet he is lying to himself in his dreams.

Yup, the problem of evil is (in my opinion) a very strong argument against certain types of god claims. Of course, it's not an argument against an evil, indifferent or underpowered God. It's just pointing out the huge gulf between what you'd expect from the thing actually being described, and what we see.

If people didn't insist on primping their God up to level infinite, they wouldn't have such a hard time defending him for being a cunt. They constantly used flawed analogies, comparing him to very limited humans, with power and resource constraints, to try and imply the same is true of God. But when questioned, they won't admit this to be the case.

(April 4, 2016 at 11:02 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I won't say you were dishonest, but rather, it's one of those things I find common in many Atheists, in that they take what Theists say out of context and accuse them without understanding but just out of haste to attack the Theists or their arguments.

I have listened to nearly every one of Craig's debates; it's just another pathetic straw-man that he uses, just like he uses the BGV theorem, which, I doubt, he has even read.

I wouldn't know how often exactly he lies. I usually feel compelled to throw my computer out of the window after a few seconds of hearing him talk.

I don't think Craig really cares whether he is lying or not. He has a higher purpose than merely telling the truth. Such a character twisting position to be in.

Perhaps some content instead of "Dr. Craig is a liar"...

From the article: The Problem of Evil
William Lane Craig

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...z44yYtw9hL