Either the universe began to exist a finite time ago (1), or it has existed eternally (2). There is simply no other option.

If it began to exist a finite time ago, then either something external to it caused it to come into existence (1.1) or it popped into being out of literally nothing (1.2).

If it has existed eternally then it either has an explanation for it's existence (2.1) or it exists without any explanation whatsoever (2.2).

We only have four basic options in terms of accounting for the Universe that we all live in- 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2.

As my final comment in this thread- I've read Dawkins, and I've read Craig. I've heard Craig in numerous debates against atheists, including the 3 on 3 debate against Dawkins in Mexico. Craig's various arguments do a fine job of exploring these 4 options and showing that the idea of God is a very plausible explanation for the universe, given our current knowledge.

For anyone reading this, check out some of Craig's stuff. Books like On Guard for basic level and Reasonable Faith 3rd Edition for intermediate difficulty.

For free stuff, at a technical level check out lastseminary.com (http://www.lastseminary.com/cosmological-argument/) or here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_existence_of_God)

And for more basic and easy to understand:

(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=popular_articles_Existence_and_Nature_of_God).

I personally don't completely agree with Craig's overall approach, I would recommend, C Stephen Evans's Natural Signs and The Knowledge of God as the best book on the subject of God's Existence. However, everyone should read some of Craig. Find out if he really is as much of a "snake oil salesman" as the internet atheists would have you think- you might be surprised.

Thanks for the counter, Pericles. Nicely put.

One thing though, regarding your following (and nicely put indeed):

"By bundling all the gazillions of physical and chemical possibilities together into a single phrase, you attempt to make the contest a one-on-one, mano-a-mano shootout between "sheer chance" in the red corner, and "God" in the blue."

Is this not in fact the crux of the matter?

I take your point that in time it is indeed possible that science will identify and isolate that elusive spark of life, and may even be able to "create" it artificially; but then again it may continue to elude, or it may even be found that various forms of the spark exist, perhaps even multitudes. I have a feeling though that it is going to be exceedingly difficult to create. OK, that's only a feeling, and that's tough chad for me, and might even be proven wrong tomorrow. Even so, identifying and even copying the known is one thing, but inventing it from scratch is another, and thus a degree of doubt will continue to exist, at least for some.

I personally think that the existence or the creation of life is an even more amazing phenomenon than the creation of the universe, but again that is only my viewpoint. The whole thing is astounding in any event, as is our discussing it over the ether.

I tried the "miracles" question in a previous post, and got no nibbles, so thought I'd try the life angle. There will always be questions, and sometimes, answers.

Ain't God amazing, giving us all these marvellous questions and possibilities to chew over and attempt to unravel? We must be blessed, don't you think? One way or another.

Can't pretend I'd even heard of or read Craig before this thread – and after studying (not just reading) Craig's "Creation, Providence, and Miracle" linked to by Poirot – I was ambivalent about spending nearly 2 1/2 hours listening to Craig debate Millican.

It was considerably more engaging than I expected (thanks for bringing it to our attention, Trav). For mine, Craig lost on logic, science, maths and theology; but could be allowed his personal intuition argument.

His errors in science are mostly around the misconstruction and misapplication of Time.

Perversely, even after the rebuttal demonstrating how Craig was wrong in his analysis of infinity and zero, he repeated his initial claims.

Theologically, I found no argument presented by Craig explaining why (assuming the existence of God) his conclusion is this is Yahweh, Jesus, the biblical trinity, et cetera. Arguments centred on the resurrection seemed mere assertion.

Most telling for me though, given his academic credentials, is that Craig invalidates his application of logic by continually assuming as a conclusion what is under contention.

If he is doing this unconsciously, then charges of being a snake-oil salesman probably won't apply. If he is or has been made conscious of this logical error and continues his argumentation unchanged, then he is a salesman, but not necessarily of snake-oil.

It could be boring because they would agree on the existence of God question – but all the other aspects would be really interesting… Has Craig ever debated any equivalently qualified Jewish and/or Muslim theological philosophers?

If you say so Saltpetre.

>>Is this not in fact the crux of the matter?<<

But personally, I prefer this observation of yours, to be a closer expression of the crucial:

>>...thus a degree of doubt will continue to exist, at least for some<<

And long may that doubt continue to drive us.

It explains why science spends so much energy on new equations, new experiments, and pushing the boundaries of our knowledge just that little bit further. Would it not be true to say that those who have convinced themselves that it was God who put all this into motion, must by definition be doubt-free. Otherwise, what might they be searching for?

>>I personally think that the existence or the creation of life is an even more amazing phenomenon than the creation of the universe<<

To my way of thinking, they are inseparable. Without the living to observe it, the universe might as well not exist. Similarly with time. Without the universe, time cannot exist. Which is quite interesting when you think about it in Biblical terms - as far as Genesis is concerned, time already existed when God created the universe. Hence the six days. But if time already existed... you see the problem?

While the conclusions we may eventually be able to come to as human beings on the physical nature of our universe, we will be unlikely ever to work out "why", before our tiny sun - in our infinitesimally small corner of a universe crammed with more billions of suns than you can count in a lifetime - burns out. As it will.

Which once again leads to the question that seems to have slipped through to the 'keeper.

If there are, as many scientists have come to believe, forms of life on other worlds apart from our own, why do they not get a mention in the Bible?

Attention ALL atheists,

Q, do you want capitalism withOUT a heart?

A, continue promoting atheism, trying to destroy christianity.

Q, do you want capitalism WITH a heart?

A, STOP promoting atheism, promote PROTESTANT/proletariat christianity instead.

Complete nonsense, Formersnag.

The implication of your claim is that you only have a heart, because
you fear burning in hell forever or hope for a ticket to heaven.
Hardly a morally sound way to live.

Fact is that empathy is grounded in our biology, more in some then
others. I don't save the ladybirds from drowning in the dogs water,
because of threats, but because I happen to feel empathy for their
plight and if I can do something about it, why not?

If the little old lady needs help across the road, why not help if
I can? For its far more pleasant to live in communities where
we all get along.

If the only reason to do good is because of threats or hope of
a heaven ticket, then I propose that my morality is far advanced
over yours.