Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Angrboda]

Is the importance of falsifiability really being questioned?

The problem is that the proposition "falsifiability is important" is not itself a falsifiable proposition. The criterion of falsifiability is justified on philosophical grounds which, themselves, are not falsifiable. It's a point about the self refuting nature of any propositions like "in order for a proposition to be considered true, it must be falsifiable." Falsifiability itself fails this test.

[robvalue]

Are you trying to make my head blow up?

[Edwardo Piet]

It is indeed a philosophical method to achieve results and need not falsify itself.

Science has never been in the absolute proof business and never can be, falsification is better to the alternative: confirmation.

Finding one black swan to falsify that not all swans are white, is better than trying to confirm that all swans are white by finding more white swans.

[SteveII]

I didn't look through all of your list. I only checked randomly, which you should do too if you are to speak about science journals. Who's behind these supposed science journals, what's their agenda, the works.

Obviously, checking your sources is something alien to the likes of you. It's my daily bread, so I'm used to it. Suffice to say, I would have been highly surprised if Craig actually did land a publication in a real science journal, apart from religious publications.

Here is the list of publishers that were not obviously religious. BTW, I did not say that WLC was a scientist so I do not know why you specifically said science journals. He is a philosopher. 

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
International Philosophical Quarterly
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
Oxford University Press (book publisher)
Philosophia Naturalis
Philosophy 
American Philosophical Quarterly
Georgetown University Press (book publisher)
Astrophysics and Space Science 
Southern Journal of Philosophy
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers (book publisher)
London: Routledge (book publisher)
New York: Routledge (book publisher)
Garland Publishing (book publisher)
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science
Ratio
Hadronic Press (book publisher)
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Rutgers University Press (book piblisher)
Copenhagen: Aalborg University Press (book publisher)
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (book publisher)
Mich.: Baker Bookhouse (book publisher)
Canadian Journal of Philosophy
Cambridge University Press (book publisher)
England: Ashgate (book publisher)
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (book publisher)
Frankfurt am Main:  Suhrkamp Verlag (book publisher)
Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing (book publisher)
London:  Macmillan (book publisher)
Philosophy Now
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
London: Bloomsbury (book publisher)
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
University of Notre Dame Press (book publisher)

I probably missed a few because of foreign language. Almost every one of these was repeated multiple times.

[SteveII]

indetectible?

From natural theology:
  KCA
  Moral argument
  Ontological Argument
  Fine Tuning Argument
  Argument from Contingency

OT Revelation
Miracles
Jesus
NT Revelation

Personal experiences of literally billions of Christians


Perhaps:
Life
Consciousness

A) your theological arguments are neither natural nor evidence. At best, they are special pleading. At worst they are lies.
B) The bible isn't evidence. If it were we'd have to accept that a Scottish giant destroyed a land bridge between Ulster and Galloway, because he was feared of Cuchulainn. This is, of course theGiant's Causeway myth, and it has the exact same evidential basis as the bible. On miracles name me one single one that has been shown to have happened and demonstrated to have no possible natural cause. Only then will I accept miracles as evidence.
C) Consciousness is an emergent property of human (and possibly other large brained species) brain functions. There is no wvidence to show that life neither needs nor has a supernatural explanation. As with miracles, bring evidence to the table and we'll talk. Until then I'll continue on the basis that you haven't the first iota of a clue about what you speak on.

DELETED. Changed my mind. I don't want to debate you.

[SteveII]

Can you provide a link to you list (and discussion thereof) of what makes a good explanation so I can better address each one?

It wasn't drawn from any particular source.  I tried to list them clearly in my reply, but philosophy of science is a favorite topic with me and the information is drawn from my experience as much as from online sources.

Then please elaborate on Relevance, Explanatory Power (before and after comparison), and Predictiveness and why God fails in these marks while another cause might score higher on such a thing as the creation of the universe. I have to think that applying principles in lab might be a little different when applying them to the creation of physical reality from nothing.

[SteveII]

Is the importance of falsifiability really being questioned?

The problem is that the proposition "falsifiability is important" is not itself a falsifiable proposition.  The criterion of falsifiability is justified on philosophical grounds which, themselves, are not falsifiable.  It's a point about the self refuting nature of any propositions like "in order for a proposition to be considered true, it must be falsifiable."  Falsifiability itself fails this test.

That is the same logic used to defeat the claim that we should believe only propositions that can be verified by science. You can't prove that claim scientifically.

[Edwardo Piet]

In short the "problem" with falsification theory isn't really a problem. Its strengths greatly outweigh its benefits and it gets results.

When it comes to science it's all about getting results. You know, unlike religion which is all about making stupid shit up.

Hammy

[Time Traveler]

A) you will have to point out the specific special pleading if you want me to address it.
B) The Bible is evidence. You may judge it to be poor, but that would be an opinion you based on other people's theories. Miracle example: Jesus rose from the dead.
C) Scientist are having a real problem with the origin of life. Dawkins thinks maybe aliens.

Working backwards...

C) It is true, science has not yet figured out the origin of life. However, science has figured out the evolution of life once it began, from single celled-organisms to multi-celled plants and animals (including humans), which directly contradicts...

B) The biblical creation story where God magically popped all multi-cellular life into existence (apparently skipping the single-cellular epoch), including laughably Adam made from dust and Eve from his rib (and don't forget the "Knowledge Tree!"),  which isn't "evidence" but "fairy tale," leading to...

A) Special pleading in that only your faulty notion of a supernatural God can explain the origins of life, whereas science - because it has yet to do so - cannot.

[Cyberman]

Richard Dawkins does not think it was aliens. How many more fucking times before it gets hammered into your skulls?