[1] How certain am I that a O3 God wouldn’t make this world? Well, I can’t make sense of the idea, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t make sense of it if I were omniscient.
[2] All I can say is that in the face of apparent nonsense, choose the sensible theory preferably.

1. You should be certain if you’re honest – the problem of evil clearly contradicts the O3 deity-construct.
2. Why choose any nonsense, when it provides no explanatory power? Apologists are in the position of justifying needless assumptions.

What I find is that it is extremely difficult to define a God, whose motives and powers would or very likely could logically entail the world we live in. Why would God choose to run us rats through a maze for the grand cheese? And why do it on a tiny speck-to-a-speck planet in some arbitrary part of a universe, sprayed out from a single point, then allowing for evolution and survival of the fittest to create the world in which you will breathe your subjects into? Our mouths are slaughterhouses, our stomachs graves. There are diseases everywhere due to unfavorable evolution, poverty due to limited resources, ignorance, hate, war, and strife due to our imperfect brain designs plus limited resources. 99% of all humans throughout history have lived through horrible living conditions. (These and other facts about the world make me think that the religiously-significant conception of “free will” is a farce. How freely are we choosing to fight each other if we’re put in an arena to struggle for survival in an uncertain world?) The idea that a powerful, loving, intelligent creator made this world for us doesn’t make sense to me.

But, to be honest, these arguments boil down somewhat to a kind of “policy debate,” where we make sweeping generalizations based upon sub-omniscient knowledge of the possibilities. I’m not giving logical proofs, but persuasive rhetoric for atheism. How certain am I that a O3 God wouldn’t make this world? Well, I can’t make sense of the idea, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t make sense of it if I were omniscient.

All I can say is that in the face of apparent nonsense, choose the sensible theory preferably.

> Oh, and per #2: God could give us additional moral/metaphysical tests post-Earthly life but pre-heaven, and #3: If we’re assuming God can manipulate our gullibility, then we’re also assuming God could have lied in the Bible in an ends-justify-the-means fashion. The closer we get to the fringe of logical possibilities, the less our theories cohere and more shifty is the ground we stand on to support our ideas – but confusion does not preclude possibility in the end.

Jesus said that “few” would find the way to salvation, which makes Molinism unbelievably pessimistic. Out of all possible realities, an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful God couldn’t even find one alternative that didn’t involve damning most of His beloved children to eternal punishment?

Even I can think of strategies that would work better than that. For example, if I have all of eternity to play around with, I could design creatures whose social needs didn’t develop until after their moral fiber was perfected, then just create them one at a time, raising each one to whatever state souls are supposed to be in when they go to Heaven, and then creating the next one, so that they’d be free from irresistible temptations and peer pressure.

2. The problem with defending gullibility as part of God’s plan is that the gullible person is essentially rejecting the truth in favor of the words of men. God therefore has no moral basis for rejecting the “guilty” or saving the gullible, because the gullible are only putting their faith in men, and not in God. Besides, what’s the point of doing a whole “free will” charade if it’s going to end up limiting you to choices that are based the inconsistent words of men rather than on the truth?

3. The problem with God withholding evidence is that (a) the evidence would be an inherent consequence of Him doing what the Gospel describes Him as being willing and able to do, and (b) the Bible frequently describes God as wanting to give us proof of His existence, and therefore any reason for consistently concealing the evidence would have to contradict the Bible.

4. It is important to separate known fact, known fiction, and unknown propositions into their correct categories, however.

5. It is the nature of evidence that it exists outside of theological speculations such as Craig’s claim of spiritual “tugging.” For example, we can observe whether, in the real world, this “tugging” pulls people to the same God. If this “tugging” is purely an artifact of the individual’s own subjective leanings, we would expect to see people being “tugged” in whatever direction seems right in their own eyes, to whatever god or gods seem most suited to their personal foibles. Since we see real-world behavior corresponding to the purely subjective “tugging,” rather than the consistent pull towards one objectively real God, I think it’s fair to conclude that this “evidence” is not objectively real.

I apologize for using the term “inconsistency” in a less formal sense than is sometimes done in rigorous philosophical dissertations. I’m trying to bridge the gap between technical discussions and any readers who might be more of a “lay” audience.

2. Under this view, it is still yet to be shown (if possible) that it logically follows God should be “fair” to us, or that we should expect him to sufficiently reveal himself to everyone. If gullibility plays a part in a grand plan that returns the most possible happiness, then why not go for it?

3. No, atheists rejecting evidence wouldn’t be a reason for God to withhold it. Perhaps there could be other reasons, though?

4. None of this is proof of anything. It is merely separating known fact, known fiction, and unknown proposition into distinct categories. Pure speculation.

5. According to Craig’s theology, there is evidence universally accessible to all skeptics. The Holy Spirit allegedly tugs on all of our hearts. This isn’t internal inconsistency; it is verifiable counterfactual.

To sum up: Inconsistency (lack of uniformity in substance) is not equal to conceptual incoherence, internal contradiction, or counterfactuality. Therefore, in purely logical terms, Craig’s is a partially successful critique of [gnostic] atheism.

A matter of indifference?! It’s the orthodox Christian view that those that don’t believe in God will suffer for eternity in Hell. And Christians are supposed to be indifferent about that? All they care about is that they supposedly have this relationship with God? (Or maybe all they care about is that it’s not them going to Hell?)

Look, if God really exists and is going to toss me into a lake of fire for all eternity for not believing certain propositions, I wish this God fellow would stop being so mysterious!

Lovely! I’ve struggled with people using Craig’s argument in the past. No longer. You have said all that needs to be said.