Even if they use metaphors they're still worlds away from proving their god actually said these things, and even another world from proving that they're true.

Oh it came up earlier - "why is one interpretation of the Bible better than another?" -> You have to look at the writing by considering the way language was used at the time and considering the culture etc.
Hence why (some atheists) arguing that the Bible says xyz from an English translation, and therefore is wrong, are missing a certain logic. Looking at the original Greek or Hebrew texts and considering other such texts along with the culture is important if you want to discuss the minutiae. (The English translations are generally fine for the 'big-picture' message)
That's not logical - if they can prove the former then the latter is proven by default (ie: Proving that God said something would require proving that God exists to have said it ;) )

So, do you agree with the simple points I asked or not?

Fine, I don't mind. I am sure you can find fun stuff in all versions.

What does that have to do with what he said?

No, it's logical one doesn't make the other true by default. He could say "I'm god in the flesh" doesn't make it automatically true.

No. What is your evidence for 'intent'?

"As the cause of space and time, this cause must an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. The only two things that fit that description are abstract objects, like numbers, or an intelligent mind. Abstract objects can't cause anything, therefore this cause is a personal, transcendent mind.

How else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then cause could never exist without its effect. If the cause were permanently present, then the effect would be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a person agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any antecedent determining conditions. Thus, is is not just the transcendent cause of the universe, but also its personal creator." - William Lane Craig

William lane craig is the master of the god of the gaps fallacies.

My apologies. I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth quoting of sources to support/refute either side. I long ago grew weary of this topic of discussion/argument and don't know why I bothered to even post here. Suffice it to say that IMO the quote provided here does not provide evidence of intent, no matter how much pseudo-logical legerdemain is involved in the attempt.

I'll bow out of this discussion now, as it will go nowhere. Neither 'side' in this argument is going to convince the other.

A logical fallacy is called a logically fallacy because it involves making an error in logic. If someone simply states their opinion, they could have any number of logical or illogical reasons for forming that opinion, but they are not making an error in logic just for stating their opinion. If he had said Dawkins and that group are wrong because they are stupid, then the formation of his opinion would have involved making an error in logic, and thus he would have committed a logical fallacy.

For instance, pimpmonkey2382 just said, "William lane craig is the master of the god of the gaps fallacies" without giving any reasons to explain why he has that opinion. Perhaps he has a logical reason for forming that opinion or perhaps not, but he has not committed a logical fallacy until he has made an illogical argument. The expert opinion of a professional philosopher should give you pause, especially when he is critiquing his own side. You don't have to believe in God to recognize that the logic Dawkins used was sloppy. I've called other Christians out for using sloppy logic as well.

Watch any of his debates.

Him and frank turek could be quite the most annoying masters of god of the gaps.

I have watched a number of his debates, which is why I disagree with you. There is a big difference between saying we don't know what caused it, therefore it must have been God, and using arguments that if work show that God logically necessarily exists. You are welcome to try to attack the premises or the form of Craig's arguments, but to say he used the God of the Gaps fallacy is simply incorrect.

All of his arguments always boil down to "You can't explain it...so god!"


Lets not forget his constant condescending tone either.

Ah, so much like everything else in this thread, you are unwilling to critically examine anything that disagrees with you.

When it boils down to "Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain it" yes I will dismiss it.