When someone presents two alternatives as if they are the only options, and then demands we choose one or the other, he has committed a logical fallacy known as the "Fallacy of False Dilemma." As an example, consider a nonsensical challenge posed by 1MoreMuslim (an excellent source of logical fallacies):
David Wood believes God does not torture Babies.
We know Babies face torture everyday: by diseases, natural disasters, starvation...
So we have to conclude one of the two conclusions:
1/ David Wood's God has no control over what happens in our world.
2/ David's God doesn't exist in reality. he is only in his imagination.
Which one is it David?
Ironically, 1MoreMuslim posts this silly alternative in the comments section of a post about him deliberately distorting Craig's position. It's as if 1MM is saying, "Not only can I distort Craig's view, I can also throw logic out the window!"
To even begin a response, I have to point out that 1MM has committed an additional fallacy known as "equivocation," whereby a person changes the meaning of a word in the course of an argument. Normally, when we use the word "torture," we're referring to, say, restraining a person and deliberately inflicting intense pain in order to elicit a desired response (e.g. a confession). For instance, 1MoreMuslim's prophet Muhammad tortured a person name Kinana in order to find out where some money was hidden.
This is obviously the meaning of "torture" in "God does not torture babies." To say that God does not torture babies means that God doesn't hold babies down, inflicting intense pain in order to elicit a desired response.
But in the sentence "Babies face torture every day," the meaning of "torture" suddenly changes to simply "intense pain" (i.e. "babies face intense pain every day").
So according to 1MoreMuslim's dictionary, if a person experiences intense pain (from disease, hunger, etc.), the person has been "tortured." Strange definition. But let's grant 1MoreMuslim's equivocation and move on.
Here are the facts (stated without equivocation).
(1) David Wood does not believe God tortures babies.
(2) Babies endure intense suffering every day.
If 1MoreMuslim wants to defend his false dilemma, he'll first need to defend:
(3) Allowing someone to experience intense suffering is a form of torture.
I'm not sure how 1MoreMuslim could possibly defend (3), but any defense would have astounding implications. For instance, take any randomly selected starving person in the world. 1MoreMuslim probably has the ability to feed the starving person. But 1MoreMuslim doesn't feed the starving person. Hence, via (3), 1MoreMuslim has "tortured" the starving person. What an evil man 1MoreMuslim is! He's torturing millions of people around the world. 1MoreMuslim is worse than Hitler!
But perhaps 1MoreMuslim can attempt to corner God by modifying (3) to:
(4) Allowing someone to experience intense suffering without a morally sufficient reason is a form of torture.
Here 1MM could argue that, since human beings are limited in various ways, we have a morally sufficient reason for not preventing the suffering of babies. That is, someone like 1MoreMuslim is limited in resources (e.g. limited money, transportation, food, etc.), limited in intelligence (e.g. limited in his ability to solve problems), limited in knowledge (e.g. knowledge of people who are starving), and so on. Hence, we may be inclined to excuse someone like 1MoreMuslim and not accuse him of torturing babies when he doesn't feed them. God, however, isn't subject to such limitations, and so 1MM may claim that God has no excuse for not intervening.
Alas, even if we grant (4), 1MoreMuslim would then have to defend:
(5) God has no morally sufficient reason to allow babies to experience intense suffering.
But how could a creature of limited intelligence (such as 1MoreMuslim) ever be in a position to defend (5)? In order to know whether God has reasons for allowing babies to suffer, 1MM would need to have access to God's mind. Indeed, he would need to provide a convincing case for:
(6) If God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing babies to experience intense suffering, 1MoreMuslim will be aware of those reasons.
Now I challenge 1MoreMuslim to defend (6), for every philosopher in history who has tried to defend such premises has failed miserably. But 1MM needs to defend (6) if he wants us to consider his initial dilemma (i.e. either God has no control over our world, or God does not exist). Until then, we have to regard 1MM's argument as a silly attempt to deflect our attention away from the discussion we were already having.