Dedicated to the systematic debunking of Christianity, from modern Christian activities and evangelism to the problematic and contradicting Bible, via rationalism and evidence-based counterarguments.
John W. Loftus
David Madison
It is that simple, that clear, and that implacably true. And yet The idea encounters so much fierce resistance from believers, because they so ardently wish to continue to believe.
Just like William Lane Craig's central idea of the First Cause. I told Hans that when I was a little child, my little friends and I used to say, "if someone had to have created the world for it to exist, then who created its creator?" Our culture made us sweep that question under the rug a few years later, but my point is how easily it jumps out at even a child.
Whether the suffering is "unnecessary" or "necessary", is irrelevant. Anything that God needs any suffering to occur in order to achieve a goal, must be logically achievable. An omnipotent God can achieve that thing, sans suffering. If it can't, then it's not omnipotent. If it doesn't want to, then it isn't omnipotent.
William Lame Craig thinks the Fine-Tuning Argument is one of, if not thee, strongest argument in favor of the existence of God.
He is obviously not aware of the position of the Christian academic Hans Halvorson, a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Princeton University.
Fine-Tuning Does Not Imply a Fine Tuner
Some think fine-tuning is evidence for God, but in fact the opposite is true.
https://nautil.us/fine-tuning-does-not-imply-a-fine-tuner-236373
Or is aware, and Lame Craig is lying, again!