William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[YGninja]

(1) Its a mockery and a misrepresentation. You cannot deny it is not a misrepresentation because you have a: Used quotation marks, implying the words are his own & b: Admitted that those are not his words which you quoted.

If I admitted that those were not his exact words literally the next post I made after being spoken to about it, I can hardly be accused of seriously attempting to misrepresent Craig's position, can I? A real attempt at misrepresentation requires that I seriously try to sell my quote as Craig's actual position, which I didn't even attempt to do.

After being spoken to about it? So you admitted it once someone sussed you, is that what you're saying? You know that the most read post in any threat will be the OP. What you are doing is feeding a myth atheists propagate about Christianity and Christians.

(2) You are not answering the question, just sidestepping.

You asked me if I objected to the premise that everything begins to exist has a cause, and I answered you, detailing what my objections were. What more do you want? If you want to ask additional questions then fine, but don't pretend I didn't answer exactly what you asked me at the time.

You avoided the point by making a counter claim that the premise implies such a thing as something which exists uncaused. This is what you object to, but not the premise itself, apparently, which you still havn't addressed.
As for your objection, it has no grounds because you've made no case for an infinite regression. If you hold that nothing can exist uncaused, you need to make that case. If you can't make a case for infinite regression, something must exist uncaused.

Does everything which begins to exist have a cause? Are you aware of anything which began to exist, which does not have a cause, or even any argument describing how something could begin to exist without a cause?

Are you aware of anything that began to exist at all? Everything that exists today is a reformatting of pre-existing materials; we've literally never seen ex nihilo beginning to exist, period.

Absolutely, I began to exist, you began to exist, a tree began to exist, any sound begins to exist, any feeling begins to exist, the vast majority of scientists believe the universe began to exist, and with it all matter and energy. You've not answered the question though, to describe why i should believe anything can begin to exist without a cause.

Speaking of sidestepping, though, you've apparently chosen to ignore my objection that Kalam's "begins to exist" language doesn't establish the existence of a category for things that didn't begin to exist, which is the main objection I had with the implication. Kalam is kind of a non-starter if you can't establish that other category; you might be tempted to say that a non-caused thing must exist to start the chain, but there's an alternative to that. I've often posited, as a hypothetical, a cyclical series of causes, each one a direct mirror of the one before it, where one leads to the other, which promptly reverses until it causes the first again... There's really no reason to take Kalam's false dichotomy as seriously as it wants us to.

I did, as above. Is your theory regarded by scientists are more likely than the universe having a beginning?

As for what you feel is implied, that something can exist without a cause, do you have any argument against something which necessarily exists? Something must, surely, necessarily exist from which everything else came, otherwise you are implying an infinite regress exists, which you've given no supporting argument for.

Are you often in the business of shifting the burden of proof to cover for your unjustified assertions? I'm not going to play that game, nor do I need to imply an infinite regress; I'm quite comfortable just admitting that neither of us know the answer to that question yet. Seeing that you haven't supported your claims does not entail I take up the exact opposite position.

We're dealing with likelihoods here, what is most reasonable. Its true that neither of us know, but we can discuss where the evidence leads - to a beginning of the universe and a necessarily existing prime mover.

(3) That the universe began to exist is the leading scientific opinion.

" It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)." - A.Vilenkin, perhaps the worlds most prominent cosmologist.

Have you read the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem? I have- and not coincidentally I'm also familiar with Vilenkin's correspondence with WLC, too- and there's a subtle distinction here that you're missing. Vilenkin's own work only establishes that our current expansionary models of the universe require a cosmic beginning, not all models everywhere, and that the beginning he's talking about is a beginning to expansion, not to the universe as a whole. In fact, Vilenkin's own paper concludes that at some point, our understanding of the universe breaks down, and we require new physics to discuss whatever else is beyond that point; this point is the beginning of universal expansion, but this is not the same thing as a beginning to the universe as a whole:

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.

You see? The "chief result" of the paper is that we need new physics to describe what happens at the edge of universal expansion, not that it means the universe had a beginning. Alan Guth, who co-wrote that paper, came out and said exactly that for Sean Carroll- another physicist- in his debate with Craig, and Vilenkin has also come on record as stating that an answer to whether his theorem states that the universe had a beginning, if one is willing to entertain the subtleties of the theorem, is no.

Moreover, Vilenkin also doesn't think that the universe had an external cause, as WLC attempts to address in his review of the very source you cited yourself. Vilenkin is a favorite of theist apologists, because his views are subtle, and can easily be misinterpreted to support one thing, when in fact they support the opposite, as a number of unambiguous quotes from the man attest to. Incidentally, Vilenkin also dismisses the idea that his views can be used to support the god conclusion, which is precisely what you and WLC are attempting to do, so...

1: My claim was that the most ascribed models of the universe posit a beginning, and you've just confirmed it. I am not saying the universe certainly began, or that there aren't other possibilities, but we're looking at weights of evidence here and deciding what is most reasonable.
2: The chief result of the paper is irrelevant, as it was established to a large extent prior to its publishing that the universe -probably- began to exist.
3: Guth didn't "say" anything, he held a board up, if i remember correctly, and Craig was unable to look for clarification because it was prerecorded.
4: "[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."
5: You say "Vilenkin dismisses the idea that his views can be used to support the God conclusion", but again you are misrepresenting, because the actual quote from your own source is:

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian"

"Does not give much of an advantage", is far from "does not support the God conclusion". It would be more accurate to infer from that source that Vilenkin does indeed believe the findings support the God conclusion, as he implies it gives them a slight advantage, it merely shouldn't be taken as proof, aka confirmation of God.

(4) Mostly covered in (3), however, the cause of something which begins to exist, cannot be the thing itself, because otherwise you are saying that it existed before it existed, and i don't think any more needs to be said on how absurd that idea is.

If that thing is the universe, and spacetime is a property that necessarily requires the universe to exist in, then there is no "before" for the universe to exist within prior to its own creation.

Excluding "before" then, you are saying "it created itself from itself" which is equally paradoxical.

(5) The vast majority of scientists agree that time began at the birth of the universe. If you want to postulate some kind of universe within a universe or multiverse type theory, 1: You've got no evidence for such a thing, 2: You are killing occums razor, 3: You would only succeed in pushing the problem of the prime moving first cause back. The premises are justified, your objections aren't.

So, first of all, Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, so which is it: is Vilenkin's expertise worth considering or not? In fact, your initial citation of his comes from a whole book where he does nothing but explore the evidence for a multiverse; your first and second claims are bunk.

Secondly, again, I'm not required to take any position at all, in order to tell you that what you're arguing lacks justification and is fallacious. In the absence of an alternative, your fiat assertions about Kalam do not become true by default; the truth is that neither of us has sufficient justification to make the declarative statements that you are.

Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, because he is a scientist. Science always assumes an infinite chain of cause and effect, although it has no grounds to do so. You've not presented any evidence for the multiverse, because there isn't any. Fine tuning is taken to be evidence of a multiverse, if you have apriori concluded that naturalism is all that exists, as scientsits working in their field have to do.

Secondly, your position is that i am wrong, but you've provided no good argument.

(6) I didn't see and still can't find your "what if you went back in time and saw the resurrection was a lie?" argument.

That's cool, I have it here: As it says here, Craig's answer can be found in two places, years apart, after being asked the same question by two distinct individuals.

WLC doesn't give this as an argument for Christian theism, it is used to assure Christians, the actual experience of something is such strong evidence in itself, it defeats other evidence. He is not actually claiming that if all the evidence says Christian theism is untrue, he would still be a Christian, because his experience is evidence, and in balance that evidence trumps purported evidence from other sources.

"The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. Only the ministerial use of reason can be allowed. ... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." (p. 36) Reasonable Faith, WLC.

You can't defend this kind of attitude. It is, pure and simple, a presupposition: "I'll believe in god no matter what you say!"

But its not just "i'll believe in God no matter what you say!", it is "I believe in God because of the evidence of the Holy Spirit within me, which trumps whatever you can tell me."

[quote] One more time, you are changing the subject. "tell that to all other religions...." isn't an argument, its a diversion. What is experienced can be rationally preferred to putative objections.

You think everything is a diversion, but it says more about your own ignorance than it does my argument, because you've missed the point every time you've dismissed what I'm saying as diversionary. Personal experience cannot be rationally preferred to actual evidence, because personal experience does not necessarily lead one to true conclusions, as my example of other religions shows. The practitioners of other religions claim personal experience with gods that Craig claims not to exist, meaning that we now have two sets of personal experience that are in direct conflict; they can't both be true, which means that in at least the majority of the cases, personal experience cannot be rationally preferred over evidence, as that personal experience is false, whereas the evidence is true.

I agree that experience isn't necessarily true, but neither is exterior evidence. Look at all of the fraudulent evidence for evolution which has been presented over the years, starting from Haeckel's drawings to Piltdown man and onwards. Inner experience trumps such 'evidence', and rightly so.
Your example doesn't have any point, yes, one experience must be wrong, but there are plenty of examples of contradictory scientific hypothesis, each with their own set of evidence, and one of those must be wrong too. You don't deny both sets of evidence merely because they are contradictory, likewise you cannot dismiss personal experience of all religions merely because not all of them can be true.