Get naked and go look in the mirror for about 5 minutes . Usually works for me . <| sep |> He ' s talking about the expensive Oakley ' s . I guess they ' re known for their durability ? <| sep |> Oh man , too real for me . I had to spend a few minutes troubleshooting why my wife ' s grandma ' s laptop , ' had the desktop icons all disappear and you can ' t click on em '. She put her nontouchscreen device into Tablet Mode in the Windows 10 settings . <| sep |> No , no , no , no , no . You keep trying to force me to defend a positive claim that God or the supernatural do not exist . I ' ve made it very clear that this is not my position . So you do not know nor claim that God or the supernatural do not exist nor , by extension , that nature is all that exists . Thus any objection that you have to any sort of theism that is based upon any of the above must be either justified or it can be dismissed . For example if you say , science sats X thus theism is false you must justify naturalism since science assumes naturalism only natural answers are to be accepted as valid . What I ' m saying here is that the KCA , when followed to its conclusion , does not necessitate the existence of the Christian God , or anything supernatural for that matter . If it ' s premises 1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause and 2 The universe began to exist are true then it ' s conclusion the universe has a cause follows necessarily . And since the universe can ' t cause itself , its cause , his metaphysical necessity , must be beyond the spacetime universe . It must be spaceless , timeless , immaterial , uncaused , and unimaginably powerful . And this is what I mean by God . Nor does the Christian it ' s not impossible make it true . I didn ' t say that it ' s not impossible , I said that it is the necessary conclusion of a logical argument . If it ' s not possible for there to be nothing , then he must conclude that something necessarily exists . Since we already have something , why the need to invoke a god ? What is that something ? The universe ? We know it doesn ' t exist eternally in the past . We know it cannot cause itself . Thus what must exist is the cause of the universe . If you ' re going to make me listen to Craig ' s nailsonchalkboard voice without summing his arguments up , you can ' t complain when I respond in kind . That was Alexander Vilenkin nailsonchalkboard voice not Craig ' s . I summed up the BGV theorem in the same sentence as the link in simple terms says that if you have a Hubble expansion that has an average greater than zero and the universe does , then the universe pretty much has a beginning . You don ' t believe the existence of the universe was preceded by nothing ? Creatio ex nihilo ? No . If one believes that God created the universe our of nothing then they believe that at least God preceded the universe . Christian believe in creatio ex nihilo in that God didn ' t use any preexisting matter to create the universe . We can ' t get a sample of philosophical nothing to test whether it is able to produce anything . Is science the only path to knowledge ? Note if you answer this by any way other then science , then you ' ve refuted yourself . WLC ' s logical argument is that something cannot come from nothing and now you are asking a nonsensical question . Craigs philosophical nothing means nonexistence so you are asking for a piece of something that doesn ' t exist in order to prove whether it exists or not . The burden of proof is on Craig to prove that it can , since he ' s the one positing what it can and cannot produce . It is a logical argument , if literally nothing exists why would anyone think something would simply pop into existence ? Didn ' t you state earlier that you didn ' t believe nothing could exist anyway ? Since God exists then there could never be a time when nothing existed . There is zero evidence that philosophical nothing existed prior to the universe . And that ' s the point of the KCA something cannot come from nothing . And since the universe began to exist there must be something to have caused it to be . And since there cannot be a series of infinite regress , there must be a metaphysical necessity . To say we don ' t know isn ' t to say that it can ' t be God , but it ' s not an argument that it must be God , either . I don ' t think anyone is saying we don ' t know therefore it must be God . I understand your refusal to watch an hourlong video , but it covers a lot of the material we ' re sure to go through in the next several exchanges if we don ' t move on to another argument . It ' s more than can be summed up in just a few sentences . You said the guy made his point in the first 10 minutes . I did my due diligence and watched the first 10 mins . And if you cannot sum up what his point is don ' t expect me to do that for you . He tries , but all he does is show that it seems intuitively true . He doesn ' t actually prove it . What do you mean by prove it ? He provided a logical argument who conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true . And to try to refute that the universe began to exist or that the law of case and effect isn ' t logically valid seems to go against science and reason . In order to avoid circular reasoning , the universe cannot be included in his list of things encompassed by everything . Huh ? How is the supernatural the conclusion of the argument ? The conclusion is that a metaphysical necessity with attributes such as being spaceless , timeless , immaterial , uncaused , and unimaginably powerful must be the cause of the universe . You said previously that you do not know nor claim that God or the supernatural do not exist . So I ' m not sure what your objection is . The Copenhagen interpretation isn ' t even the most popular interpretation in the scientific community right now . It ' s been edged by the many worlds interpretation , which incorporates actual infinities . Popularity doesn ' t equate to correctness . but again , let ' s not pretend we ' re able to discuss quantum physics . Then don ' t try to use it to defend your position . This is why he amends the first premise thusly All effects within the universe observed at Newtonian scales are the outcome of a prior physical cause . And your point is ? It doesn ' t have to be true . It only has to exist as a plausible alternate explanation to yours , God did it , to defeat your argument . First the argument isn ' t God did it that ' s a strawman fallacy on your part . Second doe it to be a plausible alternate explanation you have to put forth an argument for it . until you do it can be dismissed as an unsupported claim . Then why aren ' t you an atheist ? It ' s not controversial that the universe had some kind of beginning . The fact remains that we simply don ' t know what lies beyond the beginning , whether it be a god , aliens , pixies , string theory , an infinite regression , nothing at all , a quantum vacuum , or anything else . We don ' t know . What are the arguments for 1 aliens , 2 pixies , 3 string theory , 4 an infinite regression , 5 nothing at all , 6 a quantum vacuum , or 7 anything else . So why do you favor God as an explanation ? Because it is the best explanation for the existence of the universe and the existence of the information and instructions in DNA . I ' ll await your arguments for any of the seven things you cite above to see how reasonable they are .