Why Does God Allow Suffering and Evil?

Reasonable Faith App

Media App

Why Does God Allow Suffering and Evil?

July 2012 | On Guard Conference

July 28, 2012 • William Lane Craig

On July 27th & 28th, 2012, an On Guard Christian Apologetics conference was held in Tulsa, Oklahoma by the Reasonable Faith Tulsa chapter. The conference was named after Dr. William Lane Craig's new training manual in Christian apologetics entitled, On Guard (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/on-guard-book), and featured Dr. Craig, and other first rate Christian scholars. At the conference, Dr. Craig spoke on the Problem of Evil and Suffering, and engaged in a lengthy question and answer time with the audience.

God Over All: Divine Aseity & the Challenge of Platonism

January 9, 2019 • William Lane Craig, Peter van Inwagen, Greg Welty

January 9, 2019 Dr. William Lane Craig attended the American Philosophical Association in New York City where he presented a paper on his book God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism. Two critics of Dr. Craig’s book were present to respond: Peter van Inwagen of the University of Notre Dame and Greg Welty of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary ------ Event: Author Meets Critics Critics: Peter van inwagen (University of Notre Dame), Greg Welty (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) Chaired by: Severin Kitanov (Salem State University)

A Conversation with William Lane Craig

January 20, 2019 • William Lane Craig, Erik Thoennes

January 20, 2019 Dr. Craig was invited to sit down with Erik Thoennes of Grace Evangelical Free Church in La Mirada, California for a casual conversation. This candid interview is full of stories, insights, thoughts on communicating the gospel today, and an engaging Q&A session at the end.

In Defense of Penal Substitution

November 14, 2018 • William Lane Craig

On November 14, 2018, Dr. Craig was honored to give the Plenary Lecture of the Evangelical Philosophical Society conference in Denver, Colorado. In his lecture to a packed house, Dr. Craig gives a defense of penal substitutionary atonement by outlining its coherence, its justice, and its satisfactoriness.