Dr. Craig is a liar.

[robvalue]

WLC should totally come here so we can debunk his bullshit and point out all the fallacies directly.

What you waiting for Bill?

[Pat Mustard]

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.

B
I'll put it plain and simple, you asserting that somebody said or implied X does not mean they said or implied X, especially when, like in your current case, you've absolutely no evidence to support this assertion.

As I said your premise is pure bullshit, because it posits a unified mind for all atheists which is false, and then when you try to row back and lyingly claim you were talking about one man, you still managed to put words in another person's mouth.

[SteveII]

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"?

Because if there is a God, it is a metaphysical necessity that he have the property of always existing. If he failed to have that property, he would not be God. 

The "cosmos" does not have that property. It logically could have failed to exist. This is exactly what Carroll said in the video that you posted.

[SteveII]

WLC should totally come here so we can debunk his bullshit and point out all the fallacies directly.

What you waiting for Bill?

Because he does not take you seriously.

Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z46N3xWehe

[Jehanne]

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"?

Because if there is a God, it is a metaphysical necessity that he have the property of always existing. If he failed to have that property, he would not be God. 

The "cosmos" does not have that property. It logically could have failed to exist. This is exactly what Carroll said in the video that you posted.

How do know this, that this, the cosmos does not have this property, one of a necessary existence?  Can you provide the "logical proof" that the existence of god is necessary?  If god exists, could god have made 2+2 = 5 a true statement?

[Jehanne]

WLC should totally come here so we can debunk his bullshit and point out all the fallacies directly.

What you waiting for Bill?

Because he does not take you seriously.

Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z46N3xWehe

Craig is a narcissist; look in Google scholar sometime.  Of the hundreds of thousands of distinguished scholars in the World, few today are citing Craig and/or his work, except, perhaps, in criticism of it.  Why should we look on Craig as being another Galileo, Newton, Darwin or Einstein?  The man is a Christian evangelist, who has a streak of dishonesty.  He has been hashing and rehashing the same debate material for the last 25 years; he has nothing new to say to the World other than "god did it".

[Cyberman]

Yeah, there's a reason he has the nickname "Two Citations".

[SteveII]

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.

B
I'll put it plain and simple, you asserting that somebody said or implied X does not mean they said or implied X, especially when, like in your current case, you've absolutely no evidence to support this assertion.

As I said your premise is pure bullshit, because it posits a unified mind for all atheists which is false, and then when you try to row back and lyingly claim you were talking about one man, you still managed to put words in another person's mouth.

I, in turn, will try to be clearer: 

1) Carroll does not believe in God.
2) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) always existed for infinity with no explanation (because he does not believe in God). 
3) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) could have failed to exist and he could conceive there there could have been nothing.

How did I mis-characterize his position: A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.? Are you saying he must have meant something else? 

Further, how is this a mis-characterization of other atheists? Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) has an explanation? What is it? Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) necessarily exists? On what basis? 

Finally, if you can't avoid A), and B) If the universe (or its predecessors) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true, is logically equivalent to A), then both statements are true.

[SteveII]

Because if there is a God, it is a metaphysical necessity that he have the property of always existing. If he failed to have that property, he would not be God. 

The "cosmos" does not have that property. It logically could have failed to exist. This is exactly what Carroll said in the video that you posted.

How do know this, that this, the cosmos does not have this property, one of a necessary existence?  Can you provide the "logical proof" that the existence of god is necessary?  If god exists, could god have made 2+2 = 5 a true statement?

You are confusing the property of necessarily existing with logically existing. That is not the point here. Again: if there is a God, it is a metaphysical necessity that he have the property of always existing. If he failed to have that property, he would not be God.

If you think the cosmos necessarily exists (could not have failed to exist), you make your case.

[SteveII]

Because he does not take you seriously.

Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z46N3xWehe

Craig is a narcissist; look in Google scholar sometime.  Of the hundreds of thousands of distinguished scholars in the World, few today are citing Craig and/or his work, except, perhaps, in criticism of it.  Why should we look on Craig as being another Galileo, Newton, Darwin or Einstein?  The man is a Christian evangelist, who has a streak of dishonesty.  He has been hashing and rehashing the same debate material for the last 25 years; he has nothing new to say to the World other than "god did it".

Ad hominim attacks. You show your ignorance of the topics being debated. Instead of trying to understanding the philosophy and logic, you seem to have gotten the idea from other uninformed atheists that what he writes about and defends has been debunked. Just saying it over and over and having others repeat it don't make it so. His mission of pointing out the errors of atheists and giving tools to Christians to defend their faith is far exceeding anything anyone else has done before the advent of the internet and youtube.