He doesn’t mention by name, of course, and may not have even had my argument in mind, but the sort of Bayesian considerations he raises support my Bayesian argument from scale, in two ways. First, he agrees with me about the “direction” the evidence points (against theism). Second, he agrees with me about the “magnitude” of that evidential support (very weak). (The words “direction” and “magnitude” are not Craig’s words, but were inspired by David Schum, who pointed out long ago that evidence has “vector-like” properties.)

To be fair to Craig, he claims that this naturalistic evidence is greatly outweighed by other theistic evidence. But, as is typical of so many people who make such claims, he merely claims that. What he does not do is present an argument for that.

Regardless, this is progress. Next we need to get Craig to finally admit that facts about evil / pain / suffering also count against theism.

See his post here.