Randal Rauser is a test case for how Christian apologists operate. So here is my open letter to him based on all of our dealings.
Dr. Rauser, I've concluded that you are just playing games, intellectual games, head games. You say you want to engage the non-believer and so you initiated a book with me to show that you do. But you don't listen. Of that I am sure.
For you, apologetics is an intellectual game to see if you can poke a hole in any argument against your faith, and you're very good at it. You don't see that you're doing this because you need a Gestalt Shift, a paradigm change, a new set of eyes. Your faith depends on the holes that you find, the possibilities. Faith depends on possibilities, nothing more. If you had the weight of probabilities behind it then I would be on the defensive, looking for holes in your arguments at every turn. But you are the one always on the defensive, at every turn, and that should be telling.
My case against your faith concerns every major tenet, both individually and cumulatively, as you can see in my books. My case does not depend on the possibilities. I do not have to explain why there is a lack of evidence for what I think. I do not have to explain away the weight of evidence that exists. You do, at every turn.
You remind me of a lawyer looking over a contract for some escape clause even though the intent of that document is clear. That's the game you play. I, on the other hand, want to know the truth, and the truth is based on the probabilities. I am not just poking holes, looking for loopholes, or escape clauses for that tiny thing about your faith I can deny so I don't have to believe. I am bulldozing your house of faith down with the weight of probabilities. That I might leave some plank of wood, or a chimney still standing, won't help you. Cling to that after I'm done. Proclaim to the world your faith still stands. But that's all you've got.
The fact is that you only have loopholes, escape clauses, and possibilities, when the overwhelming weight of evidence is against what you believe. So long as you can cling to them you feel justified in believing. That's faith for you. It depends on these things. Defenders of Scientology, Mormonism, Haitian Voodoo, the John Frum Cargo cult, and the Muslim faith must do the same exact thing when it comes to the overwhelming weight of evidence against what they believe. With faith any possibility can be accepted as true. With faith anyone can feel justified in believing anything. So your faith is on a par with all of the other religions who depend on it. They all depend on possibilities not probabilities. They must all explain the evidence away, or deny it altogether.
With this head game you're playing, you are demanding that I make a completely certain case against your faith before you can see that it lacks probability to it, which is an unreasonable reverse kind of standard. Faith therefore is unreasonable. At best it is an irrational leap over the probabilities.
I adjure you to join the rational world and think exclusively in terms of probabilities, not possibilities. Leave faith behind and see what you get. Hint: You wouldn't be a Christian, of that I'm sure.