Posted: Apr 08, 2011 5:27 am
by Scar
The argument solely rests on Craig misrepresenting the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe (and consecutively, misrepresenting the cosmos as the universe). Without that, he wouldn't be able to identify a beginning for it and thus his argument would fall apart (as it does).

We have no clue when and more importantly if "everything" came into existence and we could just as well grant it to have been there forever, instead of god.

Actually, god is obviously part of the universe (="everything that exists") itself and thus, postulating an eternal god is granting the universe to be eternal. God is then simply the mechanism by which everything else got in the shape we know today. Evidently, though, things in the known part of the universe (the cosmos) seem to be able to sort themselves out by solely natural means perfectly fine. This is evidence against there being a need for some super complex intelligent entity managing them on some fundamental scale.

If we a) accept an eternal universe and b) accept that within the scope we can inquire into (the cosmos) unintelligent, simple, natural mechanism suffice governing it, then there is no reason to insert a god at any point further along the road.