Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Class With Dr. William Lane Craig

RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 2:11:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:26:40 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

I'm taking a two-week class with Dr. Craig that beings tomorrow. Are there any questions that you'd like me to ask him?

Do you mean a class where you will be able talk to him in person ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 2:15:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.

I can answer that one, cause his arguments are cumulative to some respect, from general to specific.

The unembodied mind even if granted doesn't establish the christian God he believes in.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 3:02:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:26:40 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

I'm taking a two-week class with Dr. Craig that beings tomorrow. Are there any questions that you'd like me to ask him?

I certainly hope you didn't pay for that.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 8:53:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 2:11:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/6/2014 1:26:40 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

I'm taking a two-week class with Dr. Craig that beings tomorrow. Are there any questions that you'd like me to ask him?

Do you mean a class where you will be able talk to him in person ?

Yes
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 8:54:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.

Yeah, thanks, great question.

Should I make an angry, frustrated face and say "like" 5 times while I ask him this?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:03:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.

Yes, I hate that about Craig. He'll spew 5 arguments in a debate, each of which deserves its own debate, and when his opponent doesn't have enough time to respond to each one sufficiently he says "See? He didn't knock down all my arguments! Take that Atheist!".

I was speaking with Richard Carrier through e-mail a while back, and he says he lost to Craig because of his "shotgun" effect. He'll say so much that it is virtually impossible to respond to everything, then say he won when his opponent fails.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:04:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 8:54:46 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.

Yeah, thanks, great question.

Should I make an angry, frustrated face and say "like" 5 times while I ask him this?

So, ask him why he relies on the shotgun effect when he argues to win debates.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:17:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 9:03:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.


Yes, I hate that about Craig. He'll spew 5 arguments in a debate, each of which deserves its own debate, and when his opponent doesn't have enough time to respond to each one sufficiently he says "See? He didn't knock down all my arguments! Take that Atheist!".

I was speaking with Richard Carrier through e-mail a while back, and he says he lost to Craig because of his "shotgun" effect. He'll say so much that it is virtually impossible to respond to everything, then say he won when his opponent fails.

He lost to Craig because a) his arguments were worse (that's not to say Craig's arguments are good) and b) Craig is a better debater than him. The rest is incidental.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:38:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 9:17:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/6/2014 9:03:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.


Yes, I hate that about Craig. He'll spew 5 arguments in a debate, each of which deserves its own debate, and when his opponent doesn't have enough time to respond to each one sufficiently he says "See? He didn't knock down all my arguments! Take that Atheist!".

I was speaking with Richard Carrier through e-mail a while back, and he says he lost to Craig because of his "shotgun" effect. He'll say so much that it is virtually impossible to respond to everything, then say he won when his opponent fails.

He lost to Craig because a) his arguments were worse (that's not to say Craig's arguments are good) and b) Craig is a better debater than him. The rest is incidental.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:13:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:26:40 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

I'm taking a two-week class with Dr. Craig that beings tomorrow. Are there any questions that you'd like me to ask him?

Ask him how God created everything and what kind of flesh we'll be using in the next age.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:41:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ask him why I shouldn't kill his children. According to his logic, I would be doing them a favor (that's how he defends genocide at least).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:47:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is why Theism is bankrupt. If Atheism is true, then this is the only life we have, so that is a reason to make the best of it (If you only have 5 minutes with Scarlet Johanson, you are going to make the best of it!). If theism is true, then it doesn't matter what we do, because Heaven is so much better and longer that it makes this life infitesimely worthless (if you have eternity with Scarlet Johanson, you aren't going to try very hard are you?). Theism just makes life pointless. If it is eternal, then what is the point? It would be like having an infinite stack of cash; it is worthless (inflation).
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:48:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

It's true. According to his logic, the most moral thing someone could do would be to kill every child in the world. They would be trading their own salvation for the guaranteed salvation of every child.

Totally worth it, IMO.

Religion is a cancer.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:49:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean, even if I go to hell, I would still be sending children to heaven early. Why not go on a killing spree? All those children leave this Earth early to spend time with God. How am I not doing a good thing?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:52:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 11:48:40 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

It's true. According to his logic, the most moral thing someone could do would be to kill every child in the world. They would be trading their own salvation for the guaranteed salvation of every child

Exactly! It is is a Jesus like Sacrifice! I am willing to go to hell, just so I can send Children to heaven early.

It just goes to show that if Christians really believed the crap they do, they should be throwing parties when their kids die because they are now with the creator. Their sadness just proves that they don't even believe in the nonsense they claim the do.


Totally worth it, IMO.

Religion is a cancer.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:36:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 9:38:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 9:17:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/6/2014 9:03:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.


Yes, I hate that about Craig. He'll spew 5 arguments in a debate, each of which deserves its own debate, and when his opponent doesn't have enough time to respond to each one sufficiently he says "See? He didn't knock down all my arguments! Take that Atheist!".

I was speaking with Richard Carrier through e-mail a while back, and he says he lost to Craig because of his "shotgun" effect. He'll say so much that it is virtually impossible to respond to everything, then say he won when his opponent fails.

He lost to Craig because a) his arguments were worse (that's not to say Craig's arguments are good) and b) Craig is a better debater than him. The rest is incidental.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Who wins debates has no impact on my sleep, thanks. Carrier clearly lost and not just because of Craig's debating strategy.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:59:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:36:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/6/2014 9:38:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 9:17:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/6/2014 9:03:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 1:39:49 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Why?

Anybody who thinks religion can justify infanticide, genocide, and rape is insane. I'd tell you to ask about something like that, but he will proudly state that any act God commands is the moral thing to do, including killing infants and raping women.

Ask him, if he thinks his logical arguments for God are so secure, why he always has to argue several of them in a debate. Surely, if the Kalam Cosmological argument is so airtight, he shouldn't feel the need to gish-gallup 5 complex arguments in an hour-long debate.


Yes, I hate that about Craig. He'll spew 5 arguments in a debate, each of which deserves its own debate, and when his opponent doesn't have enough time to respond to each one sufficiently he says "See? He didn't knock down all my arguments! Take that Atheist!".

I was speaking with Richard Carrier through e-mail a while back, and he says he lost to Craig because of his "shotgun" effect. He'll say so much that it is virtually impossible to respond to everything, then say he won when his opponent fails.

He lost to Craig because a) his arguments were worse (that's not to say Craig's arguments are good) and b) Craig is a better debater than him. The rest is incidental.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Who wins debates has no impact on my sleep, thanks. Carrier clearly lost and not just because of Craig's debating strategy.

Perhaps, I was just being a dick. I think Richard Carrier has some strange fringe views (Jesus never existed ect..). However, some of his arguments for naturalism are pretty good.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:14:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

Except, of course, that Craig is not a consequentialist. Geez, guys. I knew there were going to be some stupid questions but I wasn't expecting this level of swill. Especially from you, RT. You'd think given your being extremely well-versed on the subject matter (philosophy of time, that is) that you'd have something not laughable to add.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:15:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 11:48:40 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

It's true. According to his logic, the most moral thing someone could do would be to kill every child in the world. They would be trading their own salvation for the guaranteed salvation of every child.

Totally worth it, IMO.

Religion is a cancer.

Craig is not a consequentialist. But you should probably add another "religion is evil lol skydaddy lol stupid" comment for added effect.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:18:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 5:14:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

Except, of course, that Craig is not a consequentialist.

Well that's how he justifies Genocide. I am just using his argument....

Geez, guys. I knew there were going to be some stupid questions but I wasn't expecting this level of swill. Especially from you, RT. You'd think given your being extremely well-versed on the subject matter (philosophy of time, that is) that you'd have something not laughable to add.

Well, then you are laughing at Craig, because he was the one who said slaughtering babies was ok because they will have eternal life with the creator. You can't blame me for using his line of reasoning.... Of course, it was ok in the other situation only because God command it. I guess Craig could find some way to justify whatever God commands, no matter how horrific.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:22:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Craig even said that they weren't ordered to do genocide, just to drive them out of the land, and if the tribes would have just fled, and listened, they wouldn't have gotten slaughtered. It was their fault basically. My jaw dropped when I heard that.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:26:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 5:15:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:48:40 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

It's true. According to his logic, the most moral thing someone could do would be to kill every child in the world. They would be trading their own salvation for the guaranteed salvation of every child.

Totally worth it, IMO.

Religion is a cancer.

Craig is not a consequentialist. But you should probably add another "religion is evil lol skydaddy lol stupid" comment for added effect.

He wouldn't call the action moral, but he would admit that the consequences of the action were beneficial, and even merciful to those children.

So, if God says to kill infants, then:
1 - Killing them is moral
2 - They go to heaven which is an act of mercy since they don't have to face life/damnation

If God doesn't say to kill infants, then:
1 - Killing them is immoral
2 - They still go to heaven which is an act of mercy, etc etc etc.

It's the logical extension of his position. Killing children is moral if God says to do it, and an act of mercy toward the children since they go straight to heaven.

His arguments, take it up with him if you don't like it.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:29:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 5:18:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 5:14:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

Except, of course, that Craig is not a consequentialist.

Well that's how he justifies Genocide. I am just using his argument....

Geez, guys. I knew there were going to be some stupid questions but I wasn't expecting this level of swill. Especially from you, RT. You'd think given your being extremely well-versed on the subject matter (philosophy of time, that is) that you'd have something not laughable to add.

Well, then you are laughing at Craig, because he was the one who said slaughtering babies was ok because they will have eternal life with the creator. You can't blame me for using his line of reasoning.... Of course, it was ok in the other situation only because God command it. I guess Craig could find some way to justify whatever God commands, no matter how horrific.

No, to no one's surprise, Craig has never said that "slaughtering babies" was ok. Rather, if I remember correctly, Craig takes the position that God had morally sufficient reasons for allowing (or commanding) the death of Canaanites. That's all. At any rate, WLC has written extensively on this and so I have no intention to ask him about this at all.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:31:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 5:22:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Craig even said that they weren't ordered to do genocide, just to drive them out of the land, and if the tribes would have just fled, and listened, they wouldn't have gotten slaughtered. It was their fault basically. My jaw dropped when I heard that.

Secular people even said that they weren't ordered to abort children, just that they should have the license to engage in consequence-free sex and kill a child is a woman gets pregnant. Had the woman never had sex, she wouldn't have to kill her child. It was the child's fault basically. My jaw dropped when I heard that.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:32:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 5:29:14 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 5:18:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 5:14:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

Except, of course, that Craig is not a consequentialist.

Well that's how he justifies Genocide. I am just using his argument....

Geez, guys. I knew there were going to be some stupid questions but I wasn't expecting this level of swill. Especially from you, RT. You'd think given your being extremely well-versed on the subject matter (philosophy of time, that is) that you'd have something not laughable to add.

Well, then you are laughing at Craig, because he was the one who said slaughtering babies was ok because they will have eternal life with the creator. You can't blame me for using his line of reasoning.... Of course, it was ok in the other situation only because God command it. I guess Craig could find some way to justify whatever God commands, no matter how horrific.

No, to no one's surprise, Craig has never said that "slaughtering babies" was ok. Rather, if I remember correctly, Craig takes the position that God had morally sufficient reasons for allowing (or commanding) the death of Canaanites. That's all. At any rate, WLC has written extensively on this and so I have no intention to ask him about this at all.

He said it was the morally correct thing for Israel to do, and that it was 'merciful' to those children.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:33:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 5:32:03 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/6/2014 5:29:14 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 5:18:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 5:14:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/6/2014 11:42:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I mean the pain and suffering from this world means squat compared to the time someone spends in heaven according to Craig. I might as well do everyone a favor and kill them all...

Except, of course, that Craig is not a consequentialist.

Well that's how he justifies Genocide. I am just using his argument....

Geez, guys. I knew there were going to be some stupid questions but I wasn't expecting this level of swill. Especially from you, RT. You'd think given your being extremely well-versed on the subject matter (philosophy of time, that is) that you'd have something not laughable to add.

Well, then you are laughing at Craig, because he was the one who said slaughtering babies was ok because they will have eternal life with the creator. You can't blame me for using his line of reasoning.... Of course, it was ok in the other situation only because God command it. I guess Craig could find some way to justify whatever God commands, no matter how horrific.

No, to no one's surprise, Craig has never said that "slaughtering babies" was ok. Rather, if I remember correctly, Craig takes the position that God had morally sufficient reasons for allowing (or commanding) the death of Canaanites. That's all. At any rate, WLC has written extensively on this and so I have no intention to ask him about this at all.

He said it was the morally correct thing for Israel to do, and that it was 'merciful' to those children.

Look, sorry for the unpleasantness, but allow me to get something off my chest:

I have no interest in the words of an ill-informed village atheist as yourself.