I'm posting a link to another forum where a poster went over William Lang Craig's book
Reasonable Faith. I'm willing to bet that you've heard this arguements before from other apologists as well who ape WLC's arguments. It's a long thread but to I would focus on Original Position's posts.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/137/religion-god-theology/william-lane-craigs-reasonable-faith-1023351/There are typically two claims that contemporary defenders of Christianity want to make. Some defend the weaker claim that it is rational or justifiable to accept Christian beliefs. Others defend the stronger claim that it is irrational or unjustifiable to reject Christian beliefs. Among contemporary philosophers, William Lane Craig is one of the most well-known defenders of this stronger claim.
I am not certain whether I think the weaker claim is correct, but I am confident that the stronger one is not. Since bunny recently sent me a copy of Craig’s book, Reasonable Faith, I thought it a good opportunity to examine one of the more thorough defenses of the claim that those such as myself who reject Christian beliefs are irrational and unjustified in do so. Since there are a couple of fans (and foes) of Craig on this forum, I thought I could post my thoughts here and get some useful pushback.
Craig’s book has five sections , dealing with, in order: faith, humanity, god, creation, and Jesus. As I go through each section, I’ll post a brief summary of what I find most interesting or significant and some comments on where and why I disagree.