TESTIMONIALS

For the last year and a half I have been a night shift janitor at a grade school. The position has given my the time to listen to some great ministries, the Bible, and praise and worship on my Ipod. About 9 months ago I was on Fox News web site and read a article about a Christian embarking on a debating tour with few Atheists excepting your challenge. Ironically enough Richard Dawkins led me to your web site. To my surprise. I found something my witness was lacking. Good, honest, and understandable answers to the really difficult questions facing Christianity today.

I've been born again and saved for 12 years and had no idea about natural evidence and the defensibility of my Christian believes. I have downloaded and listen to all your Defenders class 1 & 2, also your reasonable faith pod cast. I now have an argument for an Atheist likes the Cosmological and Kalam argument, If asked about the problem of suffering I can ask "Do you have a logical problem or a probabilistic problem, the Jehovah witness I've learned about Christology... I have started a "Defense never rest" class in my church. I am also reading "Reasonable Faith" and going through the study guide in hopes of starting a Reasonable Faith chapter. Thank you for your ministry.

-Tracy

I cannot express the gratitude that I have for your body of work, Doctor Craig. In listening to your speeches and reading your books it is increasingly obvious that God is the only reasonable explanation for almost every element of the world. I consistently see you leave the opposition with only anger and vague statements of the inherent invalidity of your argument.

I did initially suspect that this was a result of, as Richard Dawkins suggests, an advanced debate strategy. But the more I study your work, the more I am able to think philosophically in regard to the oppositions' claims. I constantly find myself using the phrase "The conclusion does not follow the premise."

Further, I constantly find myself rejecting atheistic arguments that I previously always considered unchangable. For instance, I never considered the possibility that I would be able to demonstrate that atheism is not the conservative or 'negative' worldview.

You are arming this generation of Christian apologists with what seem to be infallible argumentation to which not even leading atheists have an answer for. Further in adopting your philosophical method of thinking, it is increasingly easy to identify an atheist fallacy.

It is becoming more obvious that atheists are merely blowfish. They make claims of evidence, science and logic despite that they cannot demonstrate these elements. You have indicated that they give truth to the prophecy, "In professing themselves wise, they became fools."

-Richard

I want to thank you for your views on homosexuality and the truth you have voiced on the subject. I am a college student, I was reared up in a very devout Christian family, and I have always (at least as long as I can remember) been attracted to other males. As a spirit filled Christian I have known that homosexuality is not within God's will and that the act thereof is sinful, but my mind always fought to understand how I could have such feelings (that felt very natural) and yet it be a sin. I read your response to a woman who asked you many questions dealing with homosexuality and I must say that the Holy Spirit used you to speak profound truth. I could not agree with you more and I am so very encouraged by what you wrote. I pray God's blessings over you and your ministry. Thank you so much for speaking truth in a world full of lies.

-Anonymous

Currently, I am in a philosophy of religion class at a ____________ University, and as a part of our readings this semester, we'd been assigned to read:

William Lane Craig, "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality," Afterall.net (November 1996)

This was by far the most lively discussion that we'd had in class this semester. My teacher took issue with your paper. He went on to accuse you of a false dichotomy between an objective foundation for morality in God and a subjective foundation of morality in a person. Further, he argued that the two horns of the dilemma presented in your paper were an objective foundation for morality and a subjective foundation. His escape route between these two horns was to posit a inter-subjective foundation for morality. Now, I'm known by my professors for being well versed in philosophy-No thanks to me; I have a great teacher his name is Bill Craig-so I was more than ready to answer his rebut his objection. My professor said, "Sean make the case for Dr.Craig." I accepted the challenge. I told the class and the professor, in a charitable manner and with Christian politeness, that the problem with inter-subjectivity grounding ethics was that people could have agreed on different values or even contrasting values (e.g., it could have been the case that rape was permissible.) He then objected stating that if God's commands determined what was good then one would still be left with a contingent and arbitrary foundation for moral values. Au contraire, the foundation for moral values is found in God's nature. His essential nature just is what Plato called "The Good." And with this, the class joined in and raised almost every objection possible, so to speak, to your argument, and one by one, I rebutted them.

-Sean

Currently, I am in a philosophy of religion class at a ____________ University, and as a part of our readings this semester, we'd been assigned to read:

William Lane Craig, "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality," Afterall.net (November 1996)

This was by far the most lively discussion that we'd had in class this semester. My teacher took issue with your paper. He went on to accuse you of a false dichotomy between an objective foundation for morality in God and a subjective foundation of morality in a person. Further, he argued that the two horns of the dilemma presented in your paper were an objective foundation for morality and a subjective foundation. His escape route between these two horns was to posit a inter-subjective foundation for morality. Now, I'm known by my professors for being well versed in philosophy-No thanks to me; I have a great teacher his name is Bill Craig-so I was more than ready to answer his rebut his objection. My professor said, "Sean make the case for Dr.Craig." I accepted the challenge. I told the class and the professor, in a charitable manner and with Christian politeness, that the problem with inter-subjectivity grounding ethics was that people could have agreed on different values or even contrasting values (e.g., it could have been the case that rape was permissible.) He then objected stating that if God's commands determined what was good then one would still be left with a contingent and arbitrary foundation for moral values. Au contraire, the foundation for moral values is found in God's nature. His essential nature just is what Plato called "The Good." And with this, the class joined in and raised almost every objection possible, so to speak, to your argument, and one by one, I rebutted them.

-Sean