Good morning, Dr. Craig. I hope your day has been going well. Dr. Craig, what would you answer to an objection like this in a debate?

Here the atheist responds after Dr. Craig's first speech.

Yes, your cumulative case works, but your God still lacks 100% omnipotence, 100% omniscience,

100% immutability, 100% acity, and maybe others attributes.

These properties are necessary for a perfect being, and even if your little G God existed,

that wouldn't show atheism is therefore implausible.

Because we have no grounds for saying it's probable that he has those lacking attributes,

you need to bring more arguments, and in fact, it might make atheism

plausible, for if this little God existed, then there wouldn't be a perfect being, since being

omnipotent requires that he created your God, but you showed that your God is uncreated

through the Calam, therefore throwing away the possibility of a true God.

Your resurrection argument also works, but now we have to be sure that Yahweh is perfect,

which is another subject. So the resurrection in and of itself faces the same problem

than the other's arguments. And I have no problem with accepting the existence of this God

as long as he's not perfect.

Thank you. Dorelle, Cote d'Ivoire.

There are numerous problems, Dorel, with this imagined atheist response to my theistic arguments.

First, we need not adopt for debate purposes a theologically highly refined conception of God,

but may simply work with a dictionary definition of the word. For example, the supreme being

worshipped as the creator or ultimate source of the universe.

This is the notion of God as understood in ordinary language and employed in most debates on the

subject.

...