This has been likened to creationists throwing a brick through a window and leaving the rationalist to clean it up.

Thanks for the simile, OMGF (what does that stand for, anyway, if anything? I always misread it as OMFG), that's exactly the image I was trying to convey.

Since most people, in my experience, are not familiar with logical fallacies, it's much easier for one person to toss them out (usually several in their allotted speaking time) while it could take the other person's entire time to explain why just one of them is wrong, let alone trying to fit in their own points as well.

This has been likened to creationists throwing a brick through a window and leaving the rationalist to clean it up. It's much easier to throw out discredited sound-bytes that are dishonest and wrong than it is to undertake cleaning up the mess that results.

and the theodicy of free will, as argued by Plantinga, Moreland, and William Lane Craig is unbeaten by atheist detractors( see Craig's website)William Lane Craig has NEVER lost a debate with an atheist(are you curious as to why in the whole world of atheist academicians that no one can beat him?) [sic]

I admit that it depends on the format (something like a blog or forum tends to work much better), but I would say that most formal debates are absolutely useless when it comes to finding the truth. Who "wins" a debate is usually the one who is more charismatic, prepared, and has plenty of feel good sound bites, not the one who argues logically. Since most people, in my experience, are not familiar with logical fallacies, it's much easier for one person to toss them out (usually several in their allotted speaking time) while it could take the other person's entire time to explain why just one of them is wrong, let alone trying to fit in their own points as well. Guess who usually comes out the "winner" in such cases?

I haven't seen any of Mr. Craig's debates (something I'll try to correct, if only to find out if I'm correct in my assumptions or not), but I can venture a guess as to how they probably played out...

And I find it strange that defenders of Biblical mass murder should get so worked up over Communist mass murder. Could they be projecting whatever distress they might feel as they defend Biblical mass murder?

omgf, you confuse foreknowledge with omniscisnce. foreknowledge is philosophically an archetype of omniscience.

Then god is not omniscient? I guess that means that god is not perfect. For in order to be perfect, god must have perfect knowledge. You are telling me that god does not have this, so god is not perfect. Further, with god's foreknowledge, he still allowed such evil to happen and did nothing to counter it.

William Lane Craig has NEVER lost a debate with an atheist(are you curious as to why in the whole world of atheist academicians that no one can beat him?) or is it the ideas that he espouses (hint)! and cutting to the chase....

You can stop with the William Lane Craig worship, because his claims of invincibility are highly overblown. Bart Ehrman destroyed him when they met up. And, of course, claims of victory are solely in the eye of the beholder in most instances. The thing is that Craig relies on begging the question. His normal mode of argumentation, that the apostles would not have believed in Jesus had Jesus not been the son of god and risen from the dead, makes many category mistakes and assumptions that are unwarranted. Craig's arguments are actually not that great.

worthy of worship? look up sovereignty , look up "king" , look up "judge", creator

So, because god created you he has license to do whatever he wants to you and you have to not only suck it up but worship him?

you know, omgf, you arent exactly spending 24/7 over on the islam message board, or the peter pan message board, or the flying spaghetti message board, becAUSE you think these entities have some truck with evidentiary forensic reality!

Actually, I'm on an atheist blog, so what of it? Are you saying that I think that Xianity has some validity and that's why I'm arguing against it? Well, I don't see myself on the Xian message board either, so what's your excuse?

I think I did in faCT FOR forensic purposes shift the burden of proof to your side, omgf, and perhaps, in time , you will come to realize just how slippery the burden of proof is, especially when it shifts!

It's actually not that slippery since you are making the claim that prophecy has been fulfilled. You have yet to tell me exactly which prophecy you think has been fulfilled (where it is written, what it says, etc.) nor have you answered any of the objections. In short, the burden of proof lies on your positive assertion that prophecy has been fulfilled, and until you fill in the gaps and answer the criticisms, it remains on you to prove your position.

God has 'foreknowledge' of events, he does not force those events in apposiiton to human free will.

This is rather contradictory. god relied on our free will in order to bring the prophecy about, yet if we have free will then we have the ability to choose other than what god has planned. Further, if god is omniscient, then he knew all this would transpire (thus negating our free will) and not only allowed it but created it to happen as it did. Thus, he is still a monster. Even in the first scenario, he would have foreknowledge or at least knowledge at the time that so many people were being persecuted and killed and he did nothing about it. So, why is this a god worthy of worship?

It amazes me at the complaints about the old testament, quite frankly the old testament is a graphically accurate and reliable cultural telling of the brutal, genocidal, human race. To my mind, it fits like a glove. 100% truthful.

It also paints your god in a very unfavorable light. Your god committed genocide and ordered it of his people. He regularly acted in arbitrary ways towards them and punished them mightily. He ordered people to sacrifice their own children. god acted like an a-hole throughout the OT.

It also makes me wonder why god would create such creatures that were capable of so much evil. Isn't god omni-benevolent? An omni-benevolent god would abhor evil, yet he created evil beings. This is contradictory.

It amazes me at the complaints about the old testament, quite frankly the old testament is a graphically accurate and reliable cultural telling of the brutal, genocidal, human race. To my mind, it fits like a glove. 100% truthful.

I was pretending to be arrogant earlier,(i'm really not,trust me!) just to make a point. Atheists use just as conclusory "ad lapidem" statements as do theists, and ne' more so (imho).

You were trying to make the point that we make conclusive statements and you did that by acting like an arse? Well, you failed in your attempt, and you still haven't answered any of the rebuttals against your position. You've simply restated the same thing over again and declared that you've just about won; that somehow the burden of proof has shifted even though you haven't answered any objection. We are well aware that you find these events to be far-fetched except for the will of god. You completely forget about the will of man to make god's prophecies come true, as Ebon pointed out already, just as one example of something that you are ignoring.

I'd still like to know why you think a god that kills millions upon millions of innocents just to make a prophecy come true is worthy of worship.

I'd also like to know if your critter (your horse?) made it through all right?

okay fellas, burden now shifts to the atheists. your ball at the twenty yard line!(the atheist twenty yard line)

Couldn't the same be said about any fulfilled prophecy?

Ding ding ding, that's the point. Any "fulfilled" prophecy could fit this description, so what makes the prophecies about Jesus any more important or compelling or whatever than any other prophecy?