Here is My Friend Again, a Deluded Man.

May I present to you Dr. William Lane Craig, again:

Vinny noticed this and said: "Let's not forget what Craig said in his argument with Peter Slezak in 2002":
So when then does the absence of evidence count as evidence that something does not exist? Well theorists of knowledge agree that the lack of evidence for some entity X counts as positive evidence against X’s existence only in the case that if X did exist then we should expect to see more evidence of X’s existence than what we do see....Now apply that to the case of God, the absence of evidence for God’s existence counts as evidence against God’s existence only in the case that if God did exist, then we should see more evidence of his existence than we do in fact see."
Okay then. What kind of God is Dr. Craig arguing for here? He's arguing specifically for a God who reveals himself, who wants us to know him personally, who wants us to believe he did something in history in order for us to be saved from the horrors of hell. That's the kind of God Craig is arguing for. Given this God we should expect a good deal of evidence that he exists. To say otherwise is to end up denying the very kind of God Craig is arguing for. Because Craig cannot have it both ways! Either this God wants us to know him or he doesn't. If he does, then he should give us enough evidence to believe, otherwise this God is not a revealing God who wants us to know him personally, and so forth. Q.E.D.

And given the passion Craig has in arguing for this God, Craig would literally jump for joy about a new piece of evidence or a new argument to show this God exists. In fact, I am certain Craig prays for God to help him come up with better arguments using better evidence too. But God does not help him, even though he could easily do so. It would seem that Craig's passion to help the rest of us see the truth about God is not shared by God himself! Bill, doesn't that trouble you in the least? I mean really, God tells you to evangelize and then hamstrings you by not offering you enough help for the task? Surely, if you could help an evangelist/apologist like yourself wouldn't you want to give him more evidence and better arguments if you were God? Then why doesn't your God? You say that you don't know why? Then what exactly can you expect from God if he doesn't at least help you argue effectively that he exists? Isn't that the minimum expectation you should have for a God like that which you argue for? If not, why not?

It's abundantly clear there is not enough evidence for the existence of Dr. Craig's God, the God of evangelical Christianity, which is the God he needs to conclude from his arguments. Just look at the demographics, for example. 2/3rds of the world rejects Christianity. That's 4 billion people just counting the world population today, and not down through the ages. Since an evangelical like Dr. Craig would not grant that everyone who calls herself a Christian is a true Christian, then these figures are way too low to begin with. And he still wants to maintain God has indeed given mankind enough evidence to believe? On the contraire, it is very strong evidence against Craig's assertions.

Besides, what Craig defends, in the final analysis, is a particular Occidental concept of God, and such a concept by definition must solve all problems if it's to be worthy as a concept of God in the first place. But just like the Ontological Argument is faulty, so also is it the case that just because we can come up with a particular concept of God does not mean that such a God actually exists.