Dr. Craig is a liar.

[RoadRunner79]

53 min.WTH. ... Your going to have to present the reasons why you think they are suspect.

Because modern quantum field theory, as Professor Carroll notes, describes physical events that happen without any cause whatsoever.  Likewise, just because our Universe has a finite age does not preclude an infinite age for the multiverse, a beginning-less Cosmos.  Craig is simply wrong when he says that the BGV theorem applies to a multiverse; no cosmologist is making such a claim.  Besides, with Hawking's no boundary proposal, a sufficient answer exists for the origin of our Universe, one of finite age but also one without a beginning.  We can simply be satisfied with the fact that our Universe just is, which means that it is its own explanation, and its own cause.  We need not invoke anything further to explain it; it explains itself.

So you are telling me, that a scientist; who's job it is to find out what causes things.  Is telling you that nothing is the cause.   How did he come to that conclusion or why do you believe this?   Does "nothing" as a cause have requirements or is their limits to "nothing's" causal sufficiency?

As to other theories, you are going to need to pick one, and give me more than maybe's and possibly, or else, I'm going to go with the evidence.

You are certainly free to believe in "god" but "god" makes no empirical, testable predictions of anything, and whether "god" has any additional "explanatory power" is a subjective conclusion.  For many (such as Us), invoking "god" just describes one mystery with an even greater mystery, and it is silly to say that "god" is a "necessary being" without also conceding that the Universe and physical law are, perhaps, just "brute facts" which need no explanation beyond the fact that 2+2 = 4.

If I didn't believe the multiple lines of evidence which say that the universe is 14B years old, then I would agree;  I would have to concede that it may be "necessary" from a scientific point of view.  And also, just to be clear... I'm not making an argument for God as a predictable, testable scientific solution.  The scientific evidence doesn't point necessarily to God as the cause.  It can however tell us with some logical inductions certain things about the cause if the universe had a beginning.  The cause must transcend the universe (cannot be part of the effect).  Since the beginning of the universe in a hot big bang model is the beginning of space, time, and matter; we may reasonably conclude that the cause is immaterial and outside of space time.  It's also plausible that the cause is personal, given that space time and matter are not in effect yet.  This requires intention or choice (personal) in order to enact the cause/effect.

My knowledge of God, comes from the scriptures.   These are largely historical in nature (written down over many generations) millennia ago.  Again, I agree with you, that God is not scientifically testable, as he is outside of the scope of science.  You may say that this is convenient, but it is, the way it is (and would be a category error to demand scientific evidence.)   Many assumptions of science are also outside of it's view as well, and not testable by scientific means.  Which is why the view of scientism commits suicide rather quickly.  Not all truth is discoverable or verified by science.  Now we can take the relatively recent evidence and conclusions from modern science and compare them to historical descriptions revealed to man in the Bible.   I find that they are identical enough to conclude that they are both pointing to the same cause.