Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Jehanne]

Craig is a narcissist; look in Google scholar sometime.  Of the hundreds of thousands of distinguished scholars in the World, few today are citing Craig and/or his work, except, perhaps, in criticism of it.  Why should we look on Craig as being another Galileo, Newton, Darwin or Einstein?  The man is a Christian evangelist, who has a streak of dishonesty.  He has been hashing and rehashing the same debate material for the last 25 years; he has nothing new to say to the World other than "god did it".

Ad hominim attacks. You show your ignorance of the topics being debated. Instead of trying to understanding the philosophy and logic, you seem to have gotten the idea from other uninformed atheists that what he writes about and defends has been debunked. Just saying it over and over and having others repeat it don't make it so. His mission of pointing out the errors of atheists and giving tools to Christians to defend their faith is far exceeding anything anyone else has done before the advent of the internet and youtube.

Few, if any, cosmologists agree with him, even the believers among them.

[Jehanne]

How do know this, that this, the cosmos does not have this property, one of a necessary existence?  Can you provide the "logical proof" that the existence of god is necessary?  If god exists, could god have made 2+2 = 5 a true statement?

You are confusing the property of necessarily existing with logically existing. That is not the point here. Again: if there is a God, it is a metaphysical necessity that he have the property of always existing. If he failed to have that property, he would not be God.

If you think the cosmos necessarily exists (could not have failed to exist), you make your case.

Why not?  I don't believe in god; I don't think that god(s) exists.  I am not going to argue with you about the nonexistent attributes of nonexistent beings.  One could just as well embrace pantheism and simply say that the Cosmos is god.

[wiploc]

B
I'll put it plain and simple, you asserting that somebody said or implied X does not mean they said or implied X, especially when, like in your current case, you've absolutely no evidence to support this assertion.

As I said your premise is pure bullshit, because it posits a unified mind for all atheists which is false, and then when you try to row back and lyingly claim you were talking about one man, you still managed to put words in another person's mouth.

I, in turn, will try to be clearer: 

1) Carroll does not believe in God.
2) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) always existed for infinity with no explanation (because he does not believe in God). 
3) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) could have failed to exist and he could conceive there there could have been nothing.

How did I mis-characterize his position: A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.? Are you saying he must have meant something else? 

Further, how is this a mis-characterization of other atheists?

This atheist does not believe that the universe the universe always existed for infinity with no explanation.  Lots of atheists don't believe that.  In fact, I assume that almost all of us lack the belief you are trying to attribute to all of us. 

Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) has an explanation?

There are a lot of us, and we don't agree on much, so I'm happy to stipulate that some of us have that belief.  

What is it?

Sorry, I don't have it on me. 

There's a huge difference between believing that things have causes and knowing what those causes are. 

Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) necessarily exists? 

I've heard that claim, so, yes, some of us believe that. 

I've read one or two arguments for that position.  I didn't find them compelling.  But they were at least as good as the Christian arguments that gods exist necessarily.  

On what basis?

You know you're way off base here, right?  You claimed that if "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true."  That's not a defensible claim, and you aren't approaching a defense of it.  Asking why some of us believe something is not the same as proving that none of us should believe it.

[SteveII]

Ad hominim attacks. You show your ignorance of the topics being debated. Instead of trying to understanding the philosophy and logic, you seem to have gotten the idea from other uninformed atheists that what he writes about and defends has been debunked. Just saying it over and over and having others repeat it don't make it so. His mission of pointing out the errors of atheists and giving tools to Christians to defend their faith is far exceeding anything anyone else has done before the advent of the internet and youtube.

Few, if any, cosmologists agree with him, even the believers among them.

Two things. First, this is another in a series of assertion that you do not back up. Secondly, cosmologist don't agree with him about what? He is examining the metaphysical ramifications of their theories. Are you saying the the cosmologist disagree with him on the metaphysical conclusions? So what? They are not not philosophers and their opinions (because that is what they are) can be examined and found wanting (which is what Craig does).

[SteveII]

I, in turn, will try to be clearer: 

1) Carroll does not believe in God.
2) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) always existed for infinity with no explanation (because he does not believe in God). 
3) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) could have failed to exist and he could conceive there there could have been nothing.

How did I mis-characterize his position: A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.? Are you saying he must have meant something else? 

Further, how is this a mis-characterization of other atheists?

This atheist does not believe that the universe the universe always existed for infinity with no explanation.  Lots of atheists don't believe that.  In fact, I assume that almost all of us lack the belief you are trying to attribute to all of us. 

Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) has an explanation?

There are a lot of us, and we don't agree on much, so I'm happy to stipulate that some of us have that belief.  

What is it?

Sorry, I don't have it on me. 

There's a huge difference between believing that things have causes and knowing what those causes are. 

Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) necessarily exists? 

I've heard that claim, so, yes, some of us believe that. 

I've read one or two arguments for that position.  I didn't find them compelling.  But they were at least as good as the Christian arguments that gods exist necessarily.  

On what basis?

You know you're way off base here, right?  You claimed that if "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true."  That's not a defensible claim, and you aren't approaching a defense of it.  Asking why some of us believe something is not the same as proving that none of us should believe it.

[Jehanne]

Few, if any, cosmologists agree with him, even the believers among them.

Two things. First, this is another in a series of assertion that you do not back up. Secondly, cosmologist don't agree with him about what? He is examining the metaphysical ramifications of their theories. Are you saying the the cosmologist disagree with him on the metaphysical conclusions? So what? They are not not philosophers and their opinions (because that is what they are) can be examined and found wanting (which is what Craig does).

Craig earned his PhD in the Philosophy of Religion; let's just be clear about that.  Secondly, the majority to most real philosophers are atheistic, and so, they are not buying Craig's arguments.  Ditto for cosmologists.

Great scholars move their peers, such as Galileo and Darwin; Craig has moved no one, as far as I can tell.  He has simply "confirmed" evangelical Christians in their preexisting belief system.

[SteveII]

Two things. First, this is another in a series of assertion that you do not back up. Secondly, cosmologist don't agree with him about what? He is examining the metaphysical ramifications of their theories. Are you saying the the cosmologist disagree with him on the metaphysical conclusions? So what? They are not not philosophers and their opinions (because that is what they are) can be examined and found wanting (which is what Craig does).

Craig earned his PhD in the Philosophy of Religion; let's just be clear about that.  Secondly, the majority to most real philosophers are atheistic, and so, they are not buying Craig's arguments.  Ditto for cosmologists.

Great scholars move their peers, such as Galileo and Darwin; Craig has moved no one, as far as I can tell.  He has simply "confirmed" evangelical Christians in their preexisting belief system.

Your hatred of Craig is getting silly. You don't answer my questions. You just come up with more straw men and red herring fallacies (genetic fallacies, ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, appeal to motive, argumentum ad populum, and more). Stick with God is a monster", complaining about the Bible or that the NT was a conspiracy. Leave metaphysics and Craig alone--because you don't understand them.

[robvalue]

He's fat too.

[Crossless2.0]

He's fat too.

And his mother dresses him funny.

[Cyberman]

Don't forget he's got a horrible whiny voice. Goes straight through me like prunes.