Dr. Craig is a liar.

[LadyForCamus]

But you can't demonstrate that the KCA's premises are true, can you?  This is a problem for the argument.  

And you still haven't adequately described with supporting evidence how something can exist timelessly, immaterially, not in any space, and without any temporal stream of consciousness, and yet perform an action as powerful as creating the universe.  Or, perform any action at all for that matter.  How does something exist in non-existence and "then" create existence?  You have a lot to answer for here with these bald assertions, and the KCA is not an answer.  [emoji53]

In both cases, you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. 

inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which specific line of reasoning are you objecting to in the KCA? Did you read the presentation of the whole argument (link again below). I can't defend if I do not know specifically what your complaint is. Please read and be specific if you are serious about this. 

 http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...l-argument

I will read it and give you a more detailed response.  But, I still want you to address this:


"And you still haven't adequately described with supporting evidence how something can exist timelessly, immaterially, not in any space, and without any temporal stream of consciousness, and yet perform an action as powerful as creating the universe.  Or, perform any action at all for that matter.  How does something exist in non-existence and "then" create existence?  You have a lot to answer for here with these bald assertions."