Tommykey - Rhology is a creationist and (IIRC) a college kid who thinks he invented Christian apologetics. He hasn't got the brains his god gave an end table. He's a joke on the atheist blogs.

If Craig truly believes the whole story, including its omnimax god, what he ought to say is "What? You don't see the justice of Hell? You think you'd be sad that your son was being infinitely tormented for rejecting Christ? What is wrong with you? When we're saved together, I'll pass you some popcorn, it'll be great."

In other words, the Aquinas answer, which strangely enough doesn't work so well for us modern globalized folk who more easily see all humans as fellow beings.

Invective is no substitute for thinking. If you cannot see that "value" requires a valuer, and is thus inherently subjective -- subject to individual perceptions, then fine. If you honestly accept a Platonic shadow world of ideas, so be it.

I am not going to waste my time explaining to you. To quote Robert Anton Wilson: “Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”

Have a great day. And learn some manners.

Lets clarify the premises of this.
A) Humans, as all other life on earth, came into existence by complete chance. Through presumably a vat of primordial soup, consisting of basic elements (o2, hydrogen, etc) that repeatedly is struck by lightning. Despite the unbelievable odds, boom, we get the first single cell organism. That, in a nut shell is abiogenesis. Life springing from Nonlife.
B) From that organism, natural selection could then take place. Eventually animals evolved from it and from them, us.
C) There is no designer/creator/deity
D) Concepts such as an afterlife cannot be true because we are fully only physical beings with only one conciousness. Once our physical bodies die. We no longer exist, and by default no conciousness.

Now, I feel like from reading a lot on this site before ever posting, this sums up some basic statements which many of you would agree with. Let me know if you feel differently. Because I cannot think anything besides those, that defines Atheism.
After humans came on the scene (neanderthals) we somehow came up with morals. The following short essay is why, with the presuppositions stated (A, B, C, & D) This is not a logical conclusion.

I have made a grave error. I had assumed since you were arguing so vehemently agains evolutionary basis for morality that you understood evolution. From the above it is apparent that you don't. You are making the kind of crass assumptions and leaps of logic common to many creationists making your subsequent conclusions irrelevent.

After humans came on the scene (neanderthals)

No, that is not correct. Neanderthals were our cousins - an offshoot of the hominid line that eventually became us.

Why has everyone ignored my point on justice and the few analogies I've used? If we all are guilty and deserve a just punishment, but a pardon is made available, we would HOPE that everyone for that pardon. If they do not, we understand the sentence of judgment is warranted. Thats the simplest way to answer the original question asked of Craig.

Oh, quite the contrary. Your points have been directly addressed by me and others. You are the one that is ignoring our points. To wit - if you are saying that we'll be sad that people are in hell, then it won't be eternal bliss in heaven. If you are saying that we won't be able to be sad for those people, then it's because god has altered who we are and has usurped free will, etc.

The fact that we use our reason to interpret reality, and the fact that we trust these conclusions also shows that we believe that there is an orderly and rational basis to the universe.

We accept that the universe is orderly (on a macro level) because it has consistently shown itself to be through empirical study. There's no reason why an atheist can't accept these conclusions.

Such reasoning, and such confidence in reason is consistent with theism (belief in an infinite personal God, like the God of the Bible), not with naturalism (the belief that nothing exists but matter and energy). As theists, we argue that this reasonable and orderly basis behind the universe is none other than the reasoning and personal one who created all, and is himself the ground of all being

This is only potentially true in the case of a deistic god that set the universal laws and has been hands-off ever since. With a personal god that can and has interfered with the laws of this universe, the theist can make no claims to order. Afterall, a miracle could occur at any time, right?

When we act as though we are free choosing beings, rather than determined ones, we imply that we believe there is a basis for freedom. Again, belief in personal freedom is only consistent with theism, never with naturalism. As a theist, I argue that this basis is the eternally free and sovereignty choosing creator God who has made us in his image.

Then perhaps you'd care to demonstrate how it is possible to have free will with an omni-max being having created the universe. Seeing as how everything that has happened or will happen was scripted from the moment god thought it up. Do you think you are free? Try doing something that wasn't already scripted for you. But, be careful as you may prove that god is not omni-max.

People who accept that there is such a thing as morality must also presuppose a personal basis for morals. But naturalists have no such basis in their world view. Ask yourself, "Is it morally wrong to sexually abuse 3 year olds?" "Is this purely a personal moral preference, or is there a universal moral standard at stake?" If such a moral is universal, and lies outside of the individual's decision to make it a moral, then there must be a basis.

The basis of our morality, as you keep ignoring, is our shared evolutionary history. We also base morality on empirical results.

Because your analogies refer to punishing people who committed crimes against other people to justify your belief that your mental construct of a god is justified in punishing people who refuse to kowtow to it. The god you purport to worship is just that, a mental construct. You don't have an objective moral system, you simply subscribe to someone else's subjective moral system that is wrapped up in the guise of divine command.

Does God want a relationship with people who are born with severe brain damage? If so, how? They are not in a position to understand Christianity and its claims. They are incapable of making the choice. Do they go to hell when they die, or does God give them a pass?

If such a moral is universal, and lies outside of the individual's decision to make it a moral, then there must be a basis

The basis is its universality. Nobody wants to be raped, even people who commit rape. In a world where there is no legal sanction against rape, people will still fight back against it, and the stronger will avoid being raped by the weak. Therefore, rape is not universally applicable. It would be a matter of personal preference. But non-rape is universally applicable, precisely because nobody wants to be raped. Same applies to murder, theft, et cetera.

But naturalists have no such basis in their world view

Then why aren't we all out committing crimes? You people can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you claim, like one of Dostoevsky's characters, that without god all things are permissible, but then when atheists behave morally and advocate good morals, we're criticized by theists for doing so. Well, which is it, Elijah? Do you want Ebon, Thumpalumpacus, myself and the rest of the gang here to go on murder and rape sprees in order to validate your theology? Or would you rather we behave like good and moral beings even if we don't believe in the existence of your sky daddy?