Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Alex K]

Anyone who just plain claims that the problem of evil is either dissolved or not, without acknowledging and specifying the assumptions made and definitions used, is just spewing noise and should be slapped.

The fact that WLC has a doctorate from the University of Munich is nothing more than a wakeup call to serious universities to finally get rid of their theological appendices. He wrote a dissertation on the historicity of the resurrection. Really? That kind of nonsense has no place in a world class reasearch university like the LMU.

[robvalue]

Damn straight! What a load of ball-bag hockey. A "qualification" in theology is a joke.

[Simon Moon]

The fact that WLC has a doctorate from the University of Munich is nothing more than a wakeup call to serious universities to finally get rid of their theological appendices. He wrote a dissertation on the historicity of the resurrection. Really? That kind of nonsense has no place in a world class reasearch university like the LMU.

Quite true.

When it comes down to it, theology is almost entirely the study of what other people have said about religious texts and the gods in those texts. Not a single theology Ph.D is actually studying gods.

What a useless degree.

[abaris]

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.

If I feel like wasting my time, I fire up a video game. More fun than listening to Craig, even for one second.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Pain and suffering may be a valid source of incredulity but not sufficient to serve as a proven contradiction. The unbelievers must show that this is not the best of all possible worlds and none have been able to demonstrate that conclusively. Emotionally yes, logically no.

[Crossless2.0]

The fact that WLC has a doctorate from the University of Munich is nothing more than a wakeup call to serious universities to finally get rid of their theological appendices. He wrote a dissertation on the historicity of the resurrection. Really? That kind of nonsense has no place in a world class reasearch university like the LMU.

Quite true.

When it comes down to it, theology is almost entirely the study of what other people have said about religious texts and the gods in those texts. Not a single theology Ph.D is actually studying gods.

What a useless degree.

Exactly. The study of gods. The baseless presumption of such a "field of study" should be enough to make an ordinarily honest child of ten vomit in his mouth.

But what the hell! Let them keep their silly graduate programs, so long as they rename them. I doubt apologists who cite the likes of WLC would be quite as enthusiastic about linking to Dr. So-and-So, who has a PhD in speculative sophistry.

Truth in advertising.

[abaris]

The unbelievers must show that this is not the best of all possible worlds and none have been able to demonstrate that conclusively. Emotionally yes, logically no.

For an omnipotent, omniscient being, this is certainly not the best possible world. Assuming it created it, that is.

But for me, the pain and suffering schtick never was any reason to not believe. I never even reflected on that part. Other factors led me to disbelief quite nicely.

[SteveII]

If the atheists would stop breeding new people to dream up theories about God, we would be able to do the same. Don't know anything about the site, but this was an interesting section from http://www.iep.utm.edu/religion/

Given the advances of science and the retreat of religious beliefs, many in the latter half of the twentieth century agreed with the general Freudian view that a new era was on the horizon in which the infantile illusions, or perhaps delusions, of religion would soon go the way of the ancient Greek and Roman gods. With the onset of the twenty-first century, however, a new narrative has emerged. Religion has not fallen into oblivion, as many anticipated; in fact, religious belief is on the rise. Many factors account for this, including challenges to psychological and sociological theories which hold belief in God to be pathological or neurotic. In recent decades these theories have themselves been challenged by medical and psychological research, being understood by many to be theories designed primarily to destroy belief in God. Another important factor is the increase in the number of believing and outspoken scientists, such as Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project.

At the other end of the spectrum regarding religion, however, is a fairly small but vocal band of intellectual atheists who have spawned a movement dubbed the “New Atheism.” These atheists, whose leading voices include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, attempt to demonstrate that respect for belief in God is irrational and socially unacceptable. But despite this orchestrated opposition arguing the falsity and incoherence of theism, it has proved rather resilient. Indeed, the twenty-first century is reflecting a renewed interest in philosophical theism.

[Alex K]

If the atheists would stop breeding new people to dream up theories about God, we would be able to do the same.

Huh???

Don't know anything about the site, but this was an interesting section from http://www.iep.utm.edu/religion/

Given the advances of science and the retreat of religious beliefs, many in the latter half of the twentieth century agreed with the general Freudian view that a new era was on the horizon in which the infantile illusions, or perhaps delusions, of religion would soon go the way of the ancient Greek and Roman gods. With the onset of the twenty-first century, however, a new narrative has emerged. Religion has not fallen into oblivion, as many anticipated; in fact, religious belief is on the rise. Many factors account for this, including challenges to psychological and sociological theories which hold belief in God to be pathological or neurotic.

You think religious belief is on the rise? Because some psychological theories are being criticised? That sounds really made up.

In recent decades these theories have themselves been challenged by medical and psychological research, being understood by many to be theories designed primarily to destroy belief in God. Another important factor is the increase in the number of believing and outspoken scientists, such as Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project.

Ok, you have one prominent candidate who is famous for his work in the 20th century. Quite the systematic increase!

At the other end of the spectrum regarding religion, however, is a fairly small but vocal band of intellectual atheists who have spawned a movement dubbed the “New Atheism.” These atheists, whose leading voices include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, attempt to demonstrate that respect for belief in God is irrational and socially unacceptable.

Erm, no they don't? Irrational, sure, but trying to demonstrate that it is socially unacceptable, where did you get that from?

But despite this orchestrated opposition arguing the falsity and incoherence of theism, it has proved rather resilient. Indeed, the twenty-first century is reflecting a renewed interest in philosophical theism.

It is as resilient to logic as its believers

[Jehanne]

Pain and suffering may be a valid source of incredulity but not sufficient to serve as a proven contradiction. The unbelievers must show that this is not the best of all possible worlds and none have been able to demonstrate that conclusively. Emotionally yes, logically no.

A "better of all possible worlds" would be if the omnipotent god would heal 1,000 amputees.  It's just nonsense to say that "this is not the best of all possible worlds"; it's like saying that we should stop vaccinating children because we, as moral agents with free will, are "interfering" with god's plan of pain and suffering.  In this sense, modern medicine has made of our World worse off than it was before.  Can you conclusively demonstrate that such is not the case?