Personally I think you are an arrogant, educated fool, judging by your silly dismissals of a world class philosopher as having an "error rate" of near or at 100% in probabilities. I do have my concerns about your "answers regarding probabilistic reasoning," but I don't wish to discuss them with you because I'm fairly certain your inevitable disagreement would be heavily motivated by your incredible bias and I don't have enough knowledge about the subject to do it justice by clarifying pointed obfuscations. This bias is easily apprehended when looking at your unrealistically poor assessments of Dr. Craig.
Futhermore, as I already have alluded to in my very last post, I am posting this to let this thread's participants know of Dr. Craig's response because it is a direct response to this very thread. I didn't say "Hey guys, this answer totally destroys Kevin Scharp's laughable Divine Psychology objection. Take a look a Dr. Craig's unbeatable logic."
I never claimed to have a response of your rebuttal above, lol. I never claimed to have a position on this issue at all. My "personal attack" was merely an objection to your assessment, using the same logic and criteria as you did in your appraisal of Craig being like Oprah. In other words, if Craig is like Oprah, is "cnearing" like "Jar Jar Binks"?
If you want to throw down with someone about this so very badly, you're barking up the wrong tree, as I have no interest in doing so.