You're committing the logical fallacy of failure to state. You're only attacking your opponent's position and not establishing a case of your own.

No I don't think that's a fair interpretation so I feel inclined to disagree. What he's simply pointing out is that the evidence which is causing doubt is very often not the type you find in the analogy [viz. that of a wife caught in adultery]. Instead it is theory-laden 'evidence' similar to that which one would call a hypothesis in science. And what he's pointing out, by way of counselling more than anything else in this interview, is that it would be epistemologically unsound to throw first-hand experiences out of the window on the basis of something which is nothing more than a hypothesis which can be overthrown within a few years. Then he urges the person to tackle that problem head on and investigate it. I see no harm in that advice. Most of us do this all the time actually.

Let's use an analogy to grasp this. I have the experience of my my wife loving me. It is a personal experience. I cannot possible prove to anyone else that I have had such experiences but I know I have had them myself since they are first-hand experiences. If someone else then comes to me with conflicting data which causes to bring my experiences into question would I not be completely irresponsible to throw all my experiences out of the windos at the drop of a hat? Of course I would. And that's all Craig is saying here. He then urges that person to go and INVESTIGATE [intellectually] the charges brought against the validity of the experiences.

And this is why you deserve condescension. Because you are not quoting from Craig to begin with. You're arriving with your own silly quips based on what you think Craig is saying. For example Craig NEVER said the HS "trumps evidence"! So already you are attacking a straw man. Try verbaim quotes if you want to be taken seriously. Then make sure you listen to 4:38ff.

I appreciate you demonstrating that you don't know what the argument from authority really is because if you did you would know I did not commit it. It is always good to admit one's lack of understanding so thanks for that. I submit you have misunderstood the video you make reference to. But you have already shown you are far too biased to listen to an answer and too defensive to consider the broader context of it. Quote mining is the game nobodies play. They can play it because they're nobodies. There is a difference between presonal knowledge and demonstrating the rationality of a personally held belief and that's what you fail to take into consideration. But I don't think you're really interested in an answer.

You would have done well to listen to Christopher Hitchens speaking about Craig just prior to debating him about how seriously both he, and his atheist friends, take Craig. You then should have listened to the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith call him a "leading philosopher of time". You then should have noticed that according to Hirsch calculations Craig is joint 14th on the list of philosophers of religion alongside the very notable atheist philosopher Michael Tooley [who is extremely well respected]. Do you guys really think you can get anywhere with your endless ad homs? Listen to atheist academics please. Not the laymen.

The ban not to eat from it would remind them of constant necessity to turn to God for knowledge and not to try to act according to their natural ignorance(as if having the needed knowledge=having the right to eat from it). Lesson for us all is the same: If we want to move toward eternal life we need to turn to God for Knowledge how to live and not die. Knowledge is the first thing we need. Then comes for ex.love, mercy etc.because in order to love first we have to KNOW what true love is. So the tree gives us very precious lesson that if one learn he's got the key to endless life. "Man must live not by bread alone but by every utterence(knowledge of good and bad)coming out of God's mouth" Math4:4. The more one study the Word of God and lives by it the closer he is to endless life.

The meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and bad is as follows:to be able to live endlessly one needs KNOWLEDGE what is GOOD for life and what is BAD -harmfulf to life, what supports life and what destroys it. Naming one of the trees in the paradise in this way God acted as a loving parent giving his children precious information how to keep their life forever, not to lose it. The tree would remind them that life depends on knowledge which they didn't have as having just been created, being very young in contrast to God who HAD the knowledge as the Creator and Source of life. to be continued

Great vids =)

Thanks but I don't care about christianity