This one is not in my entry on William Lane Craig’s stupidities because I had not heard of this one before now, but it certainly qualifies as one of his most moronic moments.
In Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Faith, he interviews a number of theologians, and unfortunately one of these happens to be William Lane Craig. Craig makes complete, absolute mush of the issue of miracles contravening natural law, demonstrating once again that he’s very bad at explaining things that should be soft pitches for any theologian worth his salt. Here is the best part, where he denies that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence:
This standard would prevent you from believing in all sorts of events that we do rationally embrace. For example, you would not believe the report on the evening news that the numbers chosen in last night’s lottery were 4, 2, 9, 7, 8 and 3, because that would be an event of extraordinary improbability. The odds against that are millions and millions to one, and therefore you should not believe it when the news reports it.
The Case for Faith, p65
Also on the same page:
I would agree with Hume that a natural resurrection of Jesus from the dead, without any sort of divine intervention, is enormously improbable. But that’s not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead. That doesn’t say anything against the laws of nature which say dead men don’t come back to life naturally.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you fucking kidding me? Craig, are you trolling us? Are you a deep undercover agent working for the Atheist Conspiracy?