Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

Sorry, I have tried to reply to this post 3 times and it keeps eating my response.

My point is that Carroll believes that the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) does not exist necessarily (could have failed to exist) and that it has existed from infinity with no explanation--a "brute fact" as he also put it. He does not believe in God so that is not an explanatory option for him. Other atheists might have a slightly different idea about universe generators, endless expansion/contraction, etc. but that does not escape the problem of eventually you have to say something always existed (brute fact) even in the face of the absurdity of a past infinite.  A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.

If you believe A) to be true then you also believe B) If the universe (or its predecessor) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true because it is the logical equivalent. You cannot affirm A) and deny B) --they rise and fall together.

My point is that Carroll believes
 
Oh.  I thought you said that all atheists do believe (or should believe?) that the universe is without explanation.  That would be an absurd claim, patently false. 
 
 
that the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor)
 
If the universe is everything that exists, including time, then it can't have a predecessor. 
 
 
does not exist necessarily (could have failed to exist) and that it has existed from infinity with no explanation--a "brute fact" as he also put it.
 
Like your god?
 
 
He does not believe in God so that is not an explanatory option for him.
 
I don't think gods are ever explanatory.
 
 
Other atheists might have a slightly different idea about universe generators, endless expansion/contraction, etc. but that does not escape the problem of eventually you have to say something always existed (brute fact) 
 
So many ways to approach that.  Let me just ask, how is it different with gods? 
 
 
even in the face of the absurdity of a past infinite.  
 
I don't see how an unbegun infinite past is any more absurd than a begun finite past.  Both present conceptual difficulties greater than I can cope with. 
 
I can't say, "X must be true because Y is weird," when X and Y seem to be equally weird.  If Y's weirdness made X true, then X's weirdness would also make Y true, which would result in contradiction.  So I think the rational response is to say we don't  know. 
 
I wandered onto campus one day to check out this no-infinities assertion that Christians make.  I found three physics professors, and put the question to them:  Do infinities exist in real life?   None of them opined that infinities do not exist.
 
 
A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.


If your claim is that this is the claim of this Carroll person, I'll have to take your word for it.  But if your claim is that this claim is logically entailed by atheism, then I'd like to see you make your case.
 
 
 

If you believe A) to be true then you also believe B) If the universe (or its predecessor) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true because it is the logical equivalent. You cannot affirm A) and deny B) --they rise and fall together.
 
I don't want to nitpick.  I can say it this way:
 
The premise, "If there are no gods, then the universe has no explanation," logically entails the conclusion, "If the universe has an explanation, then there is at least one god." 
 
I agree that that premise entails that conclusion. 



---
off Topic
---

Can anybody tell me how to break up a quote?  On other discussion boards, I just paste in

[/quote]





[quote]

and then I can write in the gap.