Call me an optimist, but I can’t help suspecting that William Lane Craig secretly knows that his arguments for God are deficient, and is just not admitting it to himself. As evidence, let me cite this little slip up from Chapter 7 of On Guard.
First, we’re not in a position to say that it’s improbable that God lacks good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world.
He’s trying to make the argument from ignorance, that humans have limited knowledge of time and space, and we don’t know all the circumstances, and yadda yadda, and therefore God might have a good reason for allowing suffering. But read it again: he’s not saying our human limitations prevent us from saying God is unlikely to have a good reason. He said we can’t call it improbable that God lacks a good reason. Or to cancel out the double negative, he actually wrote that we’re not in a position to say that God probably has a good reason for allowing suffering.
That’s the Christian argument he’s refuting. Christians try to deal with the problem of suffering by saying, “Oh well, God probably has a good reason for allowing this terrible thing to happen.” Craig is saying that we (i.e. Christians) are not in a position to make that claim, and the rest of his argument explains why. He means it as a refutation of atheistic arguments, but it’s just as valid against the standard Christian apologetic as well.
Sure, it’s a goof, and it might even be an editorial error rather than coming from Craig himself. But it is amusing, especially since it works so well against a common Christian rationalization.