Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

First, It was LadyForCamus that objected that WLC did not respond to the scientific objections. I was wondering what they were. Second, the way this works is you listen to the premise and the support of the premise and offer defeaters (either undercutting or opposing). 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) [i]is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

Then please provide us with strong evidence for the truth of these premises.  We're waiting...


Bold below is mine:

The first premise was presented in the link as:

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Let me give three reasons in support of premiss (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. SCIENTIFICALLY UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION.  You haven't even defined "nothing" yet To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...z48RDdCeQH

And, I see the rest of this is just regurgitated WLC.  *face palm*

No, Steve...this is the real world we live in here.  We don't live inside of a logical argument.  If you can't demonstrate with good, tangible evidence that your premises are likely to be true; that they are an accurate representation of the ACTUAL universe we live in, then they are utterly meaningless.

Why is that scientifically unsupported?  Nothing has a definition. Not anything. Can you name something that comes from nothing? Before you throw out quantum particles as an example, that is not an example of something coming from nothing. 

It sounds like WLC because its his link/article that I posted.