Dr. Craig contradiction.

[Harry Nevis]

Making the claim that such a fantastic creature as that exists and then not providing any evidence is the cosmological problem.
In theism it seems its fine to make a definition of a god, then make an argument that matches that definition, that way they seem at ease with using a definition of how they feel a god must be to be proof of a god.

Seems back to front to me

 Craig never said that God was falsifiable, He said the way one would need to go about it is through who He is and to date no one has. We begin with faith in Christ and what He did on the cross. Then we will move on to belief as we experience God through Bible study and then in the personal relationship God will reveal to the faithful Christian that He is real and who He says He is. Before you come to Christ there will be no proof and after only you and those who live in a personal relationship with Him will understand what God has done in His revelation of himself to the believers.

GC

Typical game of con-men everywhere.

---

In which a deity's "nature" is invoked to avoid the simpler, straightforward explanation that the deity was made up by bronze age clerics and their ancestors and has no existence other than an incoherent concept in the clerics' minds.  To counter this, apologists have to stretch, twist and torture logic to get to a point where the deity is no longer the logically inconsistent paradoxical thing described. Even then, they are only able to, under special circumstances, argue that such a being could exist, not give actual evidence that one does.

Although it is trotted out regularly as a "flaw" in the God hypothesis, it is both ignorant and illogical to define omnipotent = do anything. 

There is evidence of the existence of God. You just don't believe it. Not my problem. I was merely correcting a theological mistake.

If it was real evidence, I wouldn't have to believe it.