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

It's pure unadulterated bullshit. First of all, atheists don't say there is no explanation for the universe's existence, most atheists follow the general consensus in science vis a vis the universe which is "we don't know how or why, or if their is any purpose, behind the universe's existence. But we may find out". Your premise a) would be like me saying that because some priests and ministers have molested children then SteveII condones the molestation of all children, and is obviously false.

Because a) is false, b) is an invalid conclusion.

None of what you said matters to asking the question whether the universe (or its predecessors) existed necessarily or contingently. Carroll seems to think neither--that the universe (or the quantum vacuum and its associated laws) always existed unexplained.

So, how is Carroll's view not: A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.?

And that being logically equivalent to B) If the universe (or its predecessors) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.