Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

You may not agree with him, but he certainly way smarter than average and has thought more on these topics than you ever will.

You're right, he can't claim stupidity or ignorance.  That's why I'm confident that he's lying.

[robvalue]

Exactly. He knows damn well when he's burying a logical fallacy so deep it's turning into one of Satan's fossils.

He knows what he is doing. He may believe the conclusions. But he knows his methods are flawed.

http://youtu.be/5e1lfIpQD3w

[robvalue]

Also...

Saying it's possible that there can be a "good god" and evil at the same time, doesn't mean that it's acceptable. The God should have the power to make this not be the case. If not, he's underpowered. So he's choosing to allow evil to remain. He is endorsing evil; he thinks evil is in some way "good". If I allow a rape that I could easily stop, I am endorsing that rape. Holding God to a lower standard is baffling.

This fucking nonsense about evil being the absence of good is poor, as well. The absence of good is neutral. I'm fine with neutral.

People who try to rationalise the POE sound exactly like battered spouses, making excuses for their violent partner.

This does not make sense.

http://youtu.be/xwdba9C2G14

[robvalue]

If he didn't smack me around and half-starve me now and again, how would I appreciate the times he is nice to me?

[Alex K]

If he didn't smack me around and half-starve me now and again, how would I appreciate the times he is nice to me?

Wouldn't it be great if God had made us such that we didn't get bored and take the nicest things for granted so quickly?

[robvalue]

That would be awesome too.

If I was in charge, "getting bored" would never be a problem. And you'd never have to endure horrible things to appreciate nice things.

Oh, and people would never be able to hurt each other in any way, shape or form. And no one would starve, or suffer...

These are all just the reality of how things are. But if we were designed to be this way, it's a stupid design.

[Pat Mustard]

t
You may not agree with him, but he certainly way smarter than average and has thought more on these topics than you ever will.

On your first point, if he were so clever why is his whole schtick to bring out PRATTs and only discuss his strawman refutations of those PRATTs. If he were so clever wouldn't he have come up with his own arguments instead of using long discredited arguments and distorions of and lies about valid research?

On your second point, his teaching consists of preaching in two very minor biblical literalist "colleges" where your ability to toe the party line, viz "the bible is always right. If we find something in nature which contradicts the bible then nature is wrong", counts far more than the relevance of your arguments, your ability to carry out research and, indeed, your intelligence. You cannot use his teaching experience as a testament to his intelligence.

[SteveII]

You may not agree with him, but he certainly way smarter than average and has thought more on these topics than you ever will.

You're right, he can't claim stupidity or ignorance.  That's why I'm confident that he's lying.

It has not been shown he is lying. You misunderstood the context (there have been a couple of posts about that). He can't help the fact you can't follow him.

[SteveII]

t
You may not agree with him, but he certainly way smarter than average and has thought more on these topics than you ever will.

On your first point, if he were so clever why is his whole schtick to bring out PRATTs and only discuss his strawman refutations of those PRATTs. If he were so clever wouldn't he have come up with his own arguments instead of using long discredited arguments and distorions of and lies about valid research?

On your second point, his teaching consists of preaching in two very minor biblical literalist "colleges" where your ability to toe the party line, viz "the bible is always right. If we find something in nature which contradicts the bible then nature is wrong", counts far more than the relevance of your arguments, your ability to carry out research and, indeed, your intelligence. You cannot use his teaching experience as a testament to his intelligence.

To your first point, what topic are you suggesting that have been "long discredited" and what "distortions of and lies about valid research"?

To your second, I did not bring up his teaching posts. I brought up the fact he has 2 doctorate degrees and written over 30 books.

[robvalue]

Feel free to bring any of his arguments to us and we'll highlight the logical fallacies.