WLC

William Lane Craig  is an unmitigated disaster!
 The previous article details his lies.
 He credulously accepts as true the uncorroborated statements of the  writers of the Tanakh and the Testament. He revels in proclaiming "facts' that prove the Resurrection but no, manifest the woo and -the barbarism of the writers of the Gospels. Those supposed facts ring no more true than those about Muhammad' ascension on that horse or his splitting the Moon.
  He not only accepts the genocide as moral but also the Deluge and - Hell as moral. His morality then is no more than might makes right, hardly an objective one but instead an egregious simple subjectivism, whilst the simple one of Lord Russell is quite good. I favor the wide-reflective subjectivism, which I find underpins objective morality!
   So, he hardly can find his morality superior to that of humanism.
  He whines that minus Deity, we are forlorn, but why whine when reality favors humanism as making for the more abundant and happy life.
  " Life is its own   validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn [ me]
    Eternity cannot further validate any life,because life has value for us no matter how long it lasts. That evils happen cannot gainsay that but can instead gainsay Deity. What I post will pass away but it validates itself for all who read it. The Founding Fathers would have validated their lives even had they failed.
   All the good will still be good when the Universe passes away. What intransigent whining about its end to humanity! Instead of whining,people should study Robert Price's " The Reason-Driven Life" and Albert Ellis' " The Myth of Self-Esteem," books that challenge in effect that very whining.
   WLC's Kalam argument fails as it assumes a starting point. He uses the red herrings of the hotel and the library, which don't portray the impossibility of infinity as he conflates finite and infinite mathematics. The potential infinity is the actual one in that one never arrives at infinite end point as that would contradict infinity: so adding makes for infinity!
   His sophistry here is so apparent.
  Also, he finds the Big Transformation- the Big Bang- as the origination of everything when it was just a transformation of the quantum fields!
    His personal explanation fails, just another argument from ignorance as saying that why, as the world is had to be a personal decision or otherwise, things would have turned out differently. No, no choice involves itself but necessity as Leucippus teaches. Actually, he thereby proclaims the reduced animism that theism is as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes. No divine intent manifests itself no more than the intent of spirits of full animism or polytheism.
     People so overrate him as a philosopher! Why, Ayn Rand ranks with him.