Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Alex K]

30 books? There is no arguing against that...

[SteveII]

Tell me what is wrong with what Augustine thought on the subject:

"Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?"[1] To this Augustine answered: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[2]

Augustine observed that evil always injures, and such injury is a deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation, there would be no injury. Since all things were made with goodness, evil must be the privation of goodness: "All which is corrupted is deprived of good."[3]

The diminution of the property of goodness is what's called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a "hole" in light, evil is a hole in goodness.

To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been. But the question remains: "Whence and how crept it in hither?"

Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked."[4]

Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[5] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[6]

from article by Greg Koukl http://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on...waWYfkrJhE

[Alex K]

I disagree. Nature, for example, is cruel, but indifferent. It would not be sensible to call it evil, but it contains at its heart great suffering and injustice, which is however not intentional.

[SteveII]

I disagree. Nature, for example, is cruel, but indifferent. It would not be sensible to call it evil, but it contains at its heart great suffering and injustice, which is however not intentional.

The article did not address "natural evil", instead focusing on choices or acts -- but following through on what was written, your characterization of nature does not seem to be in conflict.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

OK, suppose the biblical God character exists. According to the fairy tale he established a set of rules that need to be followed in order to stay in his good graces.  Such a creature could create dramas in which the people he's concerned with have to show that they are actually following the rules when faced with adversity.  It's the Job situation.  In this case the "people" who endure the actual suffering are soulless androids who are playing the victims to see how you, the real person, reacts.  The intent is to see if you will follow the rules.  

Now suppose that there is no God of any kind.  Everything is real and what you see is what you get.  How can any act be good or evil when all behavior is part of human nature?   Can you turn your blood into sand and expect to live as you do?  Can you purge yourself of all emotions and expect to remain human?  Everything that people do is normal human behavior that is in itself neither good or evil.  It's just a reflection of what we are as living creatures.

[Jehanne]

To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[5] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[6]

from article by Greg Koukl  http://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on...waWYfkrJhE

Yes, Augustine believed in the literal existence of Adam & Eve, who, per Augustine, would have lived forever in a natural Paradise had they not disobeyed god.

[Simon Moon]

Just listened to this last night.

Scott Clifton pretty much destroys William Lane Craig's cosmological argument.

I was pretty good at refuting this argument before this, but I never heard the approach he uses when he talks about "sufficient causes" and "material causes".

[robvalue]

Oh yes, that is a great video.

Steve should really watch that, if he's genuinely interested in the other side of the argument. Like you Simon, it's shown me more fundamental flaws than I was previously aware of. I had enough to simply refute it on logic, but this guy really takes the whole thing to task and shows the blatant trickery WLC is employing.

[Jehanne]

Oh yes, that is a great video.

Steve should really watch that, if he's genuinely interested in the other side of the argument. Like you Simon, it's shown me more fundamental flaws than I was previously aware of. I had enough to simply refute it on logic, but this guy really takes the whole thing to task and shows the blatant trickery WLC is employing.

Yes, great video, and in Kansas of all places!  As a side-note, I remember the evolution debates in Kansas 20 or so years ago; I emailed all of the state board of education members, stating how absurd their attempts to legislate creationism in their public schools.  One board member replied to me, stating, "Don't bother; these people's minds cannot be changed."

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Firstly, every single point he makes has been either long discredited nonsense or lying manipulation of other's research.

On the second point, from the way I read it I thought you were talking about the teaching posts, so I'm sorry for misreading your post. If you were indicating his intelligence from his degrees, well an appeal to authority (especially when the authority is in a subject whose conclusions are unverifiable and unsupportable by evidence) doesn't get you far. People can be brilliant in one area while still being absolute idiots.