Just explain your hypothesis in detail, (or quote a source that does that) and explain why is that hypothesis better if you already did, then I am sorry I missed your post, why is it so hard to copy-paste something that you already wrote?
You didn't do the search I recommended, or you would have found it. What you don't understand, Leroy, is that I expect you to do your part, and you show no interest. I showed you how to review a post while answering it to be thorough about its claims and questions, but you apparently never saw it. I also showed you how to do your own searches and you didn't acknowledge seeing it when it went by nor try to make it work for you, and then you want me to repeat myself. Why bother? Do you remember Einstein's definition of insanity? I don't know how to reach you, and I've given up trying.
I´ve seen WLC claiming that X or Y thing would falsify Christianity………… so you are obviously misrepresenting him.
these are WLC words
"the discovery of Jesus’ remains would, of course, give good reason to think Christianity to be false"
No, if Craig said that he can moved by evidence, then he is contradicting himself and should not be believed. He's already told us that no evidence can do that. Nothing would make him believe that if a body were found, it was Jesus of the Gospels. He told you so.
You've heard the creationists who claim that nobody has ever seen life come from nonlife, implying that it would be evidence for naturalism if we could do that and they would accept it as that. If they believe that, then they don't know themselves very well. This is what people who don't use evidence say to those who do to make themselves appear more reasonable and tethered to reality, but we already know that there is nothing that would change their minds.
That's what locked in means. That's what faith absent critical thinking skills leaves one with. There is no way back for them. If you show them a pathway from nonlife to life, they won't accept it as evidence against intelligent design after all. It suddenly become evidence that intelligence is needed.
BTW what would convince you that naturalism is false? And please do not answer something vague like “evidence” I want to know exactly what type of discovery or observation would convince you that naturalism is false.
That's your job. You like to talk about shifting the burden of proof, but that's what you're doing. You want to know what would disprove your claim. You have no evidence to support supernaturalism but scripture, which is evidence of nothing except that somebody wrote those words down.
If you can't identify a finding that falsifies naturalism, you have no basis to conclude that it is incomplete.
Atheist and skeptics make the fatal mistake of assuming that if they don't understand something then its not logical, rational or possible!
You flatter yourself thinking that your beliefs are rejected because they weren't understood.
And to call something a mistake, there needs to be a cost to making it. Applying the tenets of critical thought has produced dividends. The mistake would have been to do less. You called skepticism easy. Yet critical thinking is an acquired skill found in a minority and usually coming after a university education, whereas believing by faith is where we start from in childhood.