Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

Tell me what you think of this:

"As we have just seen, what the atheist typically asserts is:

A) If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

The universe just exists as a brute fact. It just exists inexplicably; it is just there, and that is all. This is what the atheist typically says in response to premise 1.

But this is logically equivalent to:

B) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation – that is (A). But that is logically equivalent to (B) – if the universe has an explanation, then atheism is not true. They are just the flip side of one another. They are logically equivalent statements.

So you cannot affirm (A) and deny (B). If you affirm (A) you also have to affirm (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2 – just compare them! Thus, in replying to premise 1, the atheist has implicitly admitted to premise 2. If the universe does have an explanation of its existence, then God exists."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z46IRu0oNB

This is a straw man argument.  The typical atheist does not assert that the universe has no explanation, in the absolute sense.   They merely assert that if the universe has an explanation, the explanation is unknown.

The video posted by Jehanne clearly has Carroll claiming that whatever brought the universe about (quantum vacuum and it's associated laws) are brute facts that always existed from infinity. That is clearly a statement that the universe has no explanation.