Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Simon Moon]

'Prime' steak, prime means the best type of steak. So, in 'prime' the pump, prime means to make the pump the best type of pump, right? Since once 'prime' has been given that one meaning, the best of, it can't have a different meaning or usage, just like 'nothing'.

Anyway...what is your point? That the universe popped into being out of nothing that meant something other than "not anything"? Where did that nothing come from? Or, do you want to switch back the definition so you can say "that makes no sense"?

Maybe it always existed, just like you claim for your god.

Here's a thought...

Existence always existed. That's it. End of...

[Boltzmann Brain]

Perhaps some content instead of "Dr. Craig is a liar"...

From the article: The Problem of Evil
William Lane Craig

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...z44yYtw9hL

He is true that problem of evil does not falsify existence of any non-omnibenevolent God but this doesn't any amount of reasoning in weakening this argument would prove God. There is no reason to believe that our planet is inhospitable to dragons and chimera but this doesn't mean we have to believe in their existence.
I would be glad to learn that Dr.Craig has an argument against omniscient paradox which stands out as nemesis to Christians' omniscient god.I know why he cherry-picked the argument of evil -Christians never say their god is omnibenevolent.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Existence always existed. That's it. End of...

So are you conceding that being-as-such transcends any particular being?

[Simon Moon]

Existence always existed. That's it. End of...

So are you conceding that being-as-such transcends any particular being?

Please elaborate...

[SteveII]

Anyway...what is your point? That the universe popped into being out of nothing that meant something other than "not anything"? Where did that nothing come from? Or, do you want to switch back the definition so you can say "that makes no sense"?

Maybe it always existed, just like you claim for your god.

Here's a thought...

Existence always existed. That's it. End of...

What actually always existed? Describe its properties so that it is at least logically possible to produce what we see now. 

You would have the problem of the infinitude of past series of events is illogical.

[SteveII]

zero, 1, or any number.

So...

Are you admitting that there are more than one possible thing in the set of things that did not begin to exist?

I was under the impression, considering the argument you are making, that your god is the only thing that did not begin to exist.

For the purpose of this argument, only one is needed to support the conclusion, then that is all we need consider. Occam's razor.

[Jehanne]

You should listen to Craig's debate with Professor Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the prestigious California Institute of Technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

Craig does not understand general relativity nor quantum cosmology nor has he ever published any paper in any physics journal.  I invite you to show me otherwise.  Craig is a rank less amateur, a pure spectator who pontificates on topics for which he has only a limited understanding.  I asked you in an earlier post to describe how any observer in a lab who is motionless with respect to a test charge in the lab would observe no magnetic field, and yet, another observer who was passing through the lab would observe a magnetic field.  How can it be that one observer would observe no magnetic field and another observer would observe a magnetic field?  Is a magnetic field both present and absent at the same time?

I have read the transcript. You made a  statement "Craig does not understand general relativity nor quantum cosmology nor has he ever published any paper in any physics journal." To prove your point, please highlight what specific point or topic you think he missed.

Craig has not published any papers in General Relativity or Quantum Gravity; he is not an authority on cosmology.  He is trapped in an Aristotelian mindset, as are, apparently, you.

[Jehanne]

You would have the problem of the infinitude of past series of events is illogical.

This is your Aristotelian mindset at work.  Read the paper whose link I posted, now two days old:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03580

Physicists do not reject "actual infinities".

[Neo-Scholastic]

So are you conceding that being-as-such transcends any particular being?

Please elaborate...

Do you accept the idea that being is a property that can be predicated to objects?

[Simon Moon]

So...

Are you admitting that there are more than one possible thing in the set of things that did not begin to exist?

I was under the impression, considering the argument you are making, that your god is the only thing that did not begin to exist.

For the purpose of this argument, only one is needed to support the conclusion, then that is all we need consider. Occam's razor.

If only one is needed, then what is the difference between it and the thing that caused the universe to begin to exist?

Besides your god, what else do you believe did not begin to exist?