William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Esquilax]

Yes, in that the premise merely asserts the existence of a second category (things that didn't begin to exist) without demonstrating it.

Esq. cannot grasp the idea that some things about reality are fundamental, as opposed to contingent. It's an absurdist and nihilistic position that he refuses to acknowledge.

And Chad can't grasp the idea that assertions require evidence to be justified. Basic epistemology eludes him, and yet he sees fit to condescendingly lord the fact that other people won't automatically join him in his fiat declarations over them, as though not leaping headfirst into his delusions is a weakness of intellect.