SPOILER ALERTS

Here's what I have to say about the movie after seeing it.

Pros: Camera work and lighting was well done throughout most of the movie, even surprisingly so compared to other recent movies I enjoy. The intended character of Professor Radison was overacted to some degree but mostly well played by the actor, and Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) wasn't half bad either.

Cons: Every other actor was complete horse****. The characters were all written like they were insane. Professor Radison is one of those atheists who really believes in God but hates him because his mother died of cancer. Dean Cane plays a heartless maniac, and the reporter girl, after finding out she has cancer, goes from being angrily liberal to open-minded about God to close-minded about not being a Christian by the end of the movie. Josh gets the professor to admit in front of the whole class that he hates God, and then goes "How do you hate someone who doesn't exist?" Professor Radison gets hit by a car and dies, but not before converting back to Christianity. In short, the characters are horrendously written. Josh Wheaton was the kind-hearted Christian surrounded by evil atheists, they juggled too many random *** storylines, and this was pure preaching to the crowd.

As far as the arguments go, were they the worst things I'd ever heard in defense of Christianity? Not really, they could've been a lot worse. They were mostly copied out of John Lenox's playbook, where they literally only used atheist arguments that John Lenox had responded to, sometimes incorrectly. A list of Josh Wheaton's arguments from what I remember:

1. The Big Bang proves the Bible because Genesis says "God said Let there be light" and that sounds like it could fit the Big Bang.
2. Kalam Cosmological argument, met with little resistance except "Who created the creator" to which he quoted out of John Lenox's playbook "We don't believe in a created creator, problem solved!"
3. Some variance of Paschal's Wager, but it at least didn't presume that you can change your beliefs on a whim to fool God.
4. Where does absolute morality come from without God (really, an atheist philosophy professor can't answer a softball question on secular morality)?
5. Why do you hate God?

It was entertaining because of how bad it was, but this is not the type of movie that will challenge atheists to think differently about their beliefs. If anything, I'd say it was hard not to become close-mindedly atheistic after watching the movie. Will rational believers think the arguments were presented well? Maybe, but if they've thought about the issue at all the movie isn't bringing anything new. My guess is that the movie's intended purpose was to rally the Christian base and make them willing to feel comfortable enough to ignore atheistic criticisms. I'm not, by the way, accusing Christians of actually responding to the movie this way, but the movie gave me the impression that this was its intended goal: preventing the base from shrinking more than it already has. In other words, the idea that people are going to turn away from religion because they don't understand their point of view (my turning away from Christianity was the result of understanding the Christian perspective better).

Anyway, that's my two cents. It was mediocre and kind of funny, but mostly unimpressive and written by people who think the only reason their college kids are coming home atheist is because they were bullied by their philosophy professor.