I would have to read the book first. I just don't trust Craig to read it for me.

Please expand on this, I would love for you to give your accurate protrayal of the text.

Interesting. Thank you for the suggestions, and for the ideas you have presented.

I am also not a fan of Craig, but what does this have to do with the fact that he is spot on refuting Dawkin´s ¨central argument¨?

I question whether or not he is accurately choosing Dawkins central argument and whether or not he is accurately portraying it.

I'm not going to take WLC's word for anything. I haven't read The God
Delusion, but when I see the debates, I agree with some of what he says
and disagree with other parts. He is good if not great at explaining
evolution.

I am also not a fan of Craig, but what does this have to do with the fact that he is spot on refuting Dawkin´s ¨central argument¨? His ¨word¨ has nothing to do with what I linked since those thought are true or false regardless of what you think of him.

I don´t doubt that Dawkins is great at explaining evolution, but he should stay away from things that he has no understanding of (like religion or philosophy). His central argument against god is not even logically coherent! The conclusion doesn´t even follow from the premises! But that won´t stop him from starting his own foundation for Reason and at the same time claiming that atheism has the intellectual upper hand. It is really laughable if you think about it.

David Mamet uses it to great effect.

Hitchens does not make as many basic mistakes as Dawkins or Harris, even
though most of his conclusions do not follow from his emotional rants.

I think most of Hitchens arguments can be made rigorous. You might disagree with a premise or two, but he's not a sloppy thinker. Mistaken sometimes, sure, but not a lightweight by any means. Certainly a more interesting writer than any of them or most apologists.

Here is Dawkin´s central argument:

I'm not going to take WLC's word for anything. I haven't read The God Delusion, but when I see the debates, I agree with some of what he says and disagree with other parts. He is good if not great at explaining evolution.

There are a lot more like these. I would recommend reading their books, they are painfully ignorant.

Seems like a good reason not to read them. :-)

well they do...seriously the f word is like a dog whistle for sophistication.

try Yea Olde Stat and he might be able to point you towards something or honestly try Mark Shea.

anyway DON'T look to miracles for EVIDENCE of God. evidence of God is metaphysical like the 5 ways the fact that nature is consistent the fact that it is intelligible the fact that math works the fact that science is possible the fact that Formal causes exist the fact that Final causality exists and on and on.

i believe that God exists indeed there is no doubt in my mind that God does but i don't expect to see even 1 miracle in my life. i believe bc it makes logical and 'anthropological' as well as emotional sense to me and so i have faith in what reason has revealed to me. but as for all the details of 2,000 years of christianity i can't possibly verify each and every instance of something happening.

I am not asking you to go over it, but to direct me to the best literature provided by skeptics who witnessed it so I can go over it. However, if you wish to end here, thank you for the exchange as well.