Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

Craig has no interest at all in demonstrating the first premise- in fact he, and I quote, "takes it as obvious," despite later going on to acknowledge that spacetime as we understand it began at the big bang- and similarly no interest in demonstrating the conclusion. Yet through some sleight of hand, Craig seeks to sweep the fact that he's only justified one third of his argument under the rug and simply moves on from "confirming" premise two, summarizing that Kalam must be true and provides a good basis for a "transcendent cause" for the universe. The fact that he's established no such thing merely passes him by.

This is one of the things I both respect and despise Craig for in equal measure; he's an absolute master at manipulating cognitive biases on stage to make his arguments seem more solid without ever actually defending them. What has he done in this case? He's presented an argument that, at best, leads to a cause of some kind, skipped justifying how that argument applies to his god in favor of justifying a small fraction of that argument and then, taking advantage of a cognitive trick known as a framing bias, he continues on a narrowed train of thought, framing his justification of premise two as justification of the whole.

In reality, the only thing Craig provided evidence for is one third of a vaguely tangential argument to his main claim, without even taking the effort to connect it to his position. It just looks like he's done more because he's good at glossing over the thin parts of his speeches and ending on the thicker bits. There's really nothing there for Carroll to refute. 

You don't think Craig has written on why he thinks Premise (1) is true? 

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Let’s look at each step of this argument.

Premiss 1

Notice that Ghazali does not need a premiss so strong as (1) in order for his argument to succeed. The first premiss can be more modestly stated.

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

This more modest version of the first premiss will enable us to avoid distractions about whether subatomic particles which are the result of quantum decay processes come into being without a cause. This alleged exception to (1) is irrelevant to (1'). For the universe comprises all contiguous spacetime reality. Therefore, for the whole universe to come into being without a cause is to come into being from nothing, which is absurd. In quantum decay events, the particles do not come into being from nothing. As Christopher Isham, Britain’s premier quantum cosmologist, cautions,

Care is needed when using the word ‘creation’ in a physical context. One familiar example is the creation of elementary particles in an accelerator. However, what occurs in this situation is the conversion of one type of matter into another, with the total amount of energy being preserved in the process.[2]

Thus, this alleged exception to (1) is not an exception to (1').

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

1. Something cannot come from nothing. 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...z46BzCRr97

[SteveII]

The mathematical meaning of the term "actual" in actual infinity is synonymous with definite, completed, extended or existential,[1] but not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist physically in nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity 

Are you saying that physicists believe there to be actual infinite quantities of anything (objects or events) in the physical world?

Yes.

This is typically where you would give an example...post a link, I would like to read it.

[Jehanne]

Yes.

This is typically where you would give an example...post a link, I would like to read it.

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-...ideo-49960

[SteveII]

This is typically where you would give an example...post a link, I would like to read it.

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-...ideo-49960

So, Carroll believes that 1) the universe does not necessarily exist and 2) he is willing to accept that the quantum mechanics are a brute fact--existing for infinity past. Note that he give no evidence for these beliefs. This is not a scientific theory it has become a philosophical statement. Another way of putting that is that we should use our observations and intuition about the causal principle up until it is inconvenient and then dismiss it without reason. 

Anyway, since nothing necessarily exists, this encounters the logical problem of past infinite events. So, to my point, what actual infinities do physicists think exists (actually based in science and not metaphysics)?

[SteveII]

Tell me what you think of this:

"As we have just seen, what the atheist typically asserts is:

A) If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

The universe just exists as a brute fact. It just exists inexplicably; it is just there, and that is all. This is what the atheist typically says in response to premise 1.

But this is logically equivalent to:

B) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation – that is (A). But that is logically equivalent to (B) – if the universe has an explanation, then atheism is not true. They are just the flip side of one another. They are logically equivalent statements.

So you cannot affirm (A) and deny (B). If you affirm (A) you also have to affirm (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2 – just compare them! Thus, in replying to premise 1, the atheist has implicitly admitted to premise 2. If the universe does have an explanation of its existence, then God exists."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z46IRu0oNB

[Pat Mustard]

Tell me what you think of this:

"As we have just seen, what the atheist typically asserts is:

A) If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

The universe just exists as a brute fact. It just exists inexplicably; it is just there, and that is all. This is what the atheist typically says in response to premise 1.

But this is logically equivalent to:

B) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation – that is (A). But that is logically equivalent to (B) – if the universe has an explanation, then atheism is not true. They are just the flip side of one another. They are logically equivalent statements.

So you cannot affirm (A) and deny (B). If you affirm (A) you also have to affirm (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2 – just compare them! Thus, in replying to premise 1, the atheist has implicitly admitted to premise 2. If the universe does have an explanation of its existence, then God exists."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z46IRu0oNB

It's pure unadulterated bullshit. First of all, atheists don't say there is no explanation for the universe's existence, most atheists follow the general consensus in science vis a vis the universe which is "we don't know how or why, or if their is any purpose, behind the universe's existence. But we may find out". Your premise a) would be like me saying that because some priests and ministers have molested children then SteveII condones the molestation of all children, and is obviously false.

Because a) is false, b) is an invalid conclusion.

[Angrboda]

Tell me what you think of this:

"As we have just seen, what the atheist typically asserts is:

A) If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

The universe just exists as a brute fact. It just exists inexplicably; it is just there, and that is all. This is what the atheist typically says in response to premise 1.

But this is logically equivalent to:

B) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation – that is (A). But that is logically equivalent to (B) – if the universe has an explanation, then atheism is not true. They are just the flip side of one another. They are logically equivalent statements.

So you cannot affirm (A) and deny (B). If you affirm (A) you also have to affirm (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2 – just compare them! Thus, in replying to premise 1, the atheist has implicitly admitted to premise 2. If the universe does have an explanation of its existence, then God exists."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z46IRu0oNB

This is a straw man argument. The typical atheist does not assert that the universe has no explanation, in the absolute sense. They merely assert that if the universe has an explanation, the explanation is unknown.

[SteveII]

Tell me what you think of this:

"As we have just seen, what the atheist typically asserts is:

A) If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

The universe just exists as a brute fact. It just exists inexplicably; it is just there, and that is all. This is what the atheist typically says in response to premise 1.

But this is logically equivalent to:

B) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation – that is (A). But that is logically equivalent to (B) – if the universe has an explanation, then atheism is not true. They are just the flip side of one another. They are logically equivalent statements.

So you cannot affirm (A) and deny (B). If you affirm (A) you also have to affirm (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2 – just compare them! Thus, in replying to premise 1, the atheist has implicitly admitted to premise 2. If the universe does have an explanation of its existence, then God exists."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z46IRu0oNB

This is a straw man argument.  The typical atheist does not assert that the universe has no explanation, in the absolute sense.   They merely assert that if the universe has an explanation, the explanation is unknown.

The video posted by Jehanne clearly has Carroll claiming that whatever brought the universe about (quantum vacuum and it's associated laws) are brute facts that always existed from infinity. That is clearly a statement that the universe has no explanation.

[SteveII]

Tell me what you think of this:

"As we have just seen, what the atheist typically asserts is:

A) If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

The universe just exists as a brute fact. It just exists inexplicably; it is just there, and that is all. This is what the atheist typically says in response to premise 1.

But this is logically equivalent to:

B) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation – that is (A). But that is logically equivalent to (B) – if the universe has an explanation, then atheism is not true. They are just the flip side of one another. They are logically equivalent statements.

So you cannot affirm (A) and deny (B). If you affirm (A) you also have to affirm (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2 – just compare them! Thus, in replying to premise 1, the atheist has implicitly admitted to premise 2. If the universe does have an explanation of its existence, then God exists."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z46IRu0oNB

It's pure unadulterated bullshit. First of all, atheists don't say there is no explanation for the universe's existence, most atheists follow the general consensus in science vis a vis the universe which is "we don't know how or why, or if their is any purpose, behind the universe's existence. But we may find out". Your premise a) would be like me saying that because some priests and ministers have molested children then SteveII condones the molestation of all children, and is obviously false.

Because a) is false, b) is an invalid conclusion.

None of what you said matters to asking the question whether the universe (or its predecessors) existed necessarily or contingently. Carroll seems to think neither--that the universe (or the quantum vacuum and its associated laws) always existed unexplained.

So, how is Carroll's view not: A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.?

And that being logically equivalent to B) If the universe (or its predecessors) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

[Jehanne]

This is a straw man argument.  The typical atheist does not assert that the universe has no explanation, in the absolute sense.   They merely assert that if the universe has an explanation, the explanation is unknown.

The video posted by Jehanne clearly has Carroll claiming that whatever brought the universe about (quantum vacuum and it's associated laws) are brute facts that always existed from infinity. That is clearly a statement that the universe has no explanation.

Did god cause 2+2 = 4 to be a true statement?  If not, why is god a "necessary being" who has always existed?  If so, could god have caused 2+2 = 5 or any other number for that matter?  Now, if god is a "necessary being", what can't the Cosmos be a "necessary entity"?