Is There Evidence For GodWilliam Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krau.docx

Is There Evidence For God?
William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, –
March 30, 2011
William Lane Craig debates Lawrence Krauss at North Carolina
State University on the evidence for God.
Transcribed by T. Kurt Jaros, Roger Wasson, and Charles
Huneycutt. Copyright William Lane Craig.
Introduction
Paul Newby (Moderator): Good evening! My name is Paul
Newby. I am an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme
Court. I am the moderator of tonight’s debate. Campus Crusade
for Christ and North Carolina State wishes to thank you for
attending this evening.
Tonight you will grapple with one of the greatest questions
facing mankind: the existence of God. You will hear from two
experts as they debate whether there is evidence to prove the
existence of God. We are fortunate enough to have two of the
best and brightest minds in the country participate, Dr.
Lawrence M. Krauss and Dr. William Lane Craig.
Dr. Krauss will be arguing that there is insufficient evidence to
prove the existence of God. Dr. Krauss is a professor of physics
at Arizona State University. He received his undergraduate
degree in both mathematics and physics at Carlton University
and his PhD in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He’s the author of numerous books, including a
national best seller The Physics of Star Trek. Thank you, Dr.

Krauss, for joining us this evening!
The other guest this evening is Dr. Craig, who will be arguing
there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God. Dr.
Craig is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology
in California. Dr. Craig received his B.A. in Communications at
Wheaton College, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of
Birmingham, England, and a Doctor of Theology from the
University of Munich. He’s author and editor of more than
thirty books. Let’s thank Dr. Craig for joining us this evening!
If you refer to your program, you will see the format of
tonight’s debate. Dr. Craig will speak first for a twenty-minute
introductory statement; Dr. Krauss will then have twenty
minutes for his statement. Each panelist will then have a
twelve-minute rebuttal, followed by an eight-minute counter-
rebuttal. Each will then end with a five-minute summary. I
encourage you to listen closely to the arguments presented, take
notes, if necessary, because at the conclusion of the formal
debate, you will serve as jurors. You will be asked to cast your
vote on whether there is sufficient evidence of the existence of
God. After the votes have been cast, I will then open the floor
for thirty minutes of questions for our panelists.
Before we begin, I’d like to emphasize the etiquette that is
expected during this debate. I anticipate that you will have
strong reactions to some of the points presented tonight.
However, out of respect for our panelists and other audience
members, I ask that you refrain from any outbursts of support or
disapproval during this debate. Like members of a jury, you
have one vital role this evening, to carefully listen to and
evaluate the arguments presented. And like members of a jury,
you are not to respond audibly to the arguments that are made. I
also ask that you please, at this time, silence your cell phones.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let us begin! As I said before,

the question before us this evening is whether there is sufficient
evidence for the existence of God. Dr. Craig, the floor is yours!
William Lane Craig – Opening Speech
Good evening! I’m delighted and honored to have the
opportunity this evening to discuss with you the question, “Is
There Evidence for God?” And I’m privileged to be doing this
with such an eminent scientist as Dr. Krauss. I hope that the
debate tonight will be both enlightening as well as entertaining.
Now at one level it seems to me indisputable that there’s
evidence for God. To say that there’s evidence for some
hypothesis is just to say that that hypothesis is more probable
given certain facts than it would have been without them. That
is to say, there is evidence for some hypothesis H if the
probability of H is greater on the evidence and background
information than on the background information alone. That is
to say,
Pr (H | E & B) > Pr (H | B).
H = hypothesis
E = evidence
B = background information
Now, in the case of God, if we let G stand for the hypothesis
that God exists, it seems to me indisputable that God’s
existence is more probable given certain facts—like the origin
of the universe, the complex order of the universe, the existence
of objective moral values, and so forth—than it would have
been without them. That is,
Pr (G | E & B) > Pr (G | B).

G = God exists
E = existence of contingent beings, origin of the universe, fine-
tuning of the universe, etc.
B = background information
And I suspect that even most atheists would agree with that
statement.
So the question “Is There Evidence for God?” isn’t really very
debatable. Rather the really interesting question is whether
God’s existence is more probable than not. That is, is
Pr (G | E & B) > 0.5 ?
Now I’ll leave it up to you to assess that probability. My
purpose in tonight’s debate is more modest: to share with you
five pieces of evidence each of which makes God’s existence
more probable than it would have been without it. Each of them
is therefore evidence for God. Together they provide powerful,
cumulative evidence for theism.
1. The existence of contingent beings.
The deepest question of philosophy is, “Why do contingent
beings exist at all?” By a contingent being I mean a being which
exists but which might not have existed. Examples? Mountains,
planets, galaxies, you, and me. Such things might not have
existed. By contrast, a necessary being is a being which exists
by a necessity of its own nature. Its non-existence is impossible.
Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers and other
abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just
exist necessarily.
Now experience teaches that everything that exists has an

explanation of its existence: either in its own nature, if it exists
necessarily, or in an external cause, if it exists contingently. So
what about the universe, where by “the universe” I mean all of
spacetime reality, not just our observable portion of it? What is
the explanation of its existence? Well, since the universe is
contingent in its existence, the explanation of the universe must
be found in an external cause which exists beyond time and
space by a necessity of its own nature.
Now what could that be? There are only two kinds of things that
could fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers,
or God. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. The
number 7, for example, has no effect upon anything. Therefore,
it follows that the most plausible explanation of the universe is
God. Hence, the existence of contingent beings makes God’s
existence more probable than it would have been without them.
Although I’ve presented this reasoning inductively, we can also
put it in the form of a deductive argument:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
(either in its own nature or in an external cause).
2. The universe exists.
3. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that
explanation is God.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God.
Thus, the explanation for the existence of contingent beings is
to be found in God.
2. The origin of the universe.
My first argument is consistent with the assumption that the
universe is beginningless, or eternal in the past. But is it?

There are good reasons, both philosophically and scientifically,
to doubt that the universe is beginningless. Philosophically, the
idea of an eternal past seems absurd. Just think about it! If the
universe never had a beginning, that means that the series of
past events goes back to infinity, that the number of events in
the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians
recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of
things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity
minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory
answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind,
not something that exists in reality. But that entails that since
past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past
events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can’t
go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.
This philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by
remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now
have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in
the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003
Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to
prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding
throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must
have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so
powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description
of the very early universe. Because we can’t yet provide a
physical description of the first split-second of the universe,
this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. But
the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any
physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that
the quantum vacuum state out of which our universe may have
evolved—which some scientific popularizations have
misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot
be eternal in the past but must have had a beginning. Even if
our universe is just a tiny part of a much grander “multiverse”
composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the

multiverse itself must have a beginning.
Speculative theories, such as Pre-Big Bang Inflationary
scenarios, have been crafted to try to avoid this absolute
beginning. But none of these theories has succeeded in restoring
an eternal past. At most they just push the beginning back a
step. But then the question inevitable arises: Why did the
universe come into being? What brought the vacuum state into
existence?
Well, unless you’re willing to say the universe just popped into
being uncaused out of absolute non-being, there must be a
transcendent cause beyond space and time which created the
universe. Clearly, then, God’s existence is more probable given
the beginning of the universe than it would have been without
it.
We can also formulate this reasoning in the form of a deductive
argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
From which it follows logically that
Therefore, the universe has a cause
Again, as we have seen, the best candidate for such a
transcendent cause is God.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
In recent decades scientists have been stunned by the discovery
that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for
the existence of intelligent agents with a precision and delicacy
that literally defy human comprehension. This fine-tuning is of
two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are given mathematical

expression, you find appearing in them certain constants, like
the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined
by the laws of nature. Second, in addition to these constants
there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as
initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for
example, the amount of entropy in the very early universe.
Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an
extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were
these constants or quantities to be altered by even a hair’s
breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life
would not exist. We now know that life-prohibiting universes
are incomprehensibly more probable than any life-permitting
universe.
Now there are three possible explanations of this extraordinary
fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design.
Now it can’t be due to physical necessity because, as I’ve said,
the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of
nature.
So maybe the fine-tuning is due to chance. After all, highly
improbable events happen every day! But what serves to
distinguish purely chance events from design is not simply high
improbability but also the presence of an independently given
pattern to which the event conforms. For example, in the movie
Contact scientists are able to distinguish a signal from outer
space from random noise, not simply due to its improbability
but because of its conforming to the pattern of the prime
numbers. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent agents
exhibits just that combination of incomprehensible
improbability and an independently given pattern that are the
earmarks of design.
So, again, God’s existence is clearly more probable given the

fine-tuning of the universe than it would have been without it.
We can also formulate this reasoning into a simple deductive
argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical
necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.
From which it follows logically:
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe implies the existence of a
Designer of the cosmos.
4. Objective moral values and duties in the world.
By objective moral values I mean moral values which are valid
and binding whether anyone believes in them or not. Many
theists and atheists agree that if God does not exist, then moral
values are not objective in this sense. For example, Michael
Ruse, an agnostic philosopher of science, asserts,
morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and
feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of
claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. . . .
Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any
deeper meaning is illusory.1
On a naturalistic view moral values are just the byproduct of
biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troupe of
baboons exhibit co-operative and even self-sacrificial behavior
because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous
in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousins homo
sapiens exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result

of socio-biological pressures there has evolved among homo
sapiens a sort of “herd morality” which functions well in the
perpetuation of our species. But on the atheistic view there
doesn’t seem to be anything about this that makes this morality
objectively binding and true.
But the problem is that objective moral values and duties
plausibly do exist. In moral experience we apprehend a realm of
moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us.
There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral
values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions
like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren’t just socially
unacceptable behavior—they’re moral abominations. Some
things, at least, are really wrong. Michael Ruse himself admits,
“The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little
children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.”2 Some
things, at least, are really wrong.
But in that case, the probability of God’s existence is 1.0! We
can formulate this reasoning as follows:
1. If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would
not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
From which it follows logically and inescapably that
3. Therefore, God exists.
5. The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
The historical person Jesus of Nazareth was a remarkable
individual. Historians have reached something of a consensus
that the historical Jesus came on the scene with an
unprecedented sense of divine authority, the authority to stand
and speak in God’s place. He claimed that in himself the

Kingdom of God had come, and as visible demonstrations of
this fact he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and
exorcisms. But the supreme confirmation of his claim was his
resurrection from the dead. If Jesus really did rise from the
dead, then it would seem that we have a divine miracle on our
hands and, thus, evidence for the existence of God.
Now most people probably think that the resurrection of Jesus is
something you just believe by faith or not. But there are
actually three facts recognized by the majority of New
Testament historians today, which I believe are best explained
by Jesus’ resurrection.
Fact #1: On the Sunday after his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was
found empty by a group of his women followers. According to
Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist, “By far most scholars
hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the
empty tomb.”3
Fact #2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups
saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the
prominent New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann, “It may be
taken as historically certain that . . . the disciples had
experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them
as the Risen Christ.”4 These appearances were witnessed not
only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even
enemies.
Fact #3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the
resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the
contrary. Jews had no belief in a defeated and dying Messiah,
and Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising
from the dead to glory and immortality before the end of the
world. Nevertheless, the original disciples came to believe so
strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were
willing to die for the truth of that belief. N. T. Wright, an
eminent New Testament scholar, concludes, “That is why, as a

historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless
Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”5
Naturalistic attempts to explain away these three great facts—
like the disciples stole the body or Jesus wasn’t really dead—
have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship.
The simple fact is that there just is no plausible, naturalistic
explanation of these facts. Therefore, it seems to me, the
Christian is amply justified in believing that the best
explanation of the evidence is that Jesus rose from the dead and
was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.
Thus, we have a good inductive argument for the existence of
God based on the resurrection of Jesus:
1. There are three established facts about Jesus: his empty tomb,
his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’
belief in his resurrection.
2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best
explanation of these facts.
3. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” entails that
God exists.
4. Therefore, God exists.
In summary, then, we’ve looked at five lines of evidence, each
of which makes God’s existence more probable than it would
have been without them. God’s existence is obviously more
probable given these facts than it would have been in their
absence. They therefore constitute evidence for God. Indeed, I
think that their cumulative force makes God’s existence very
much more probable. But that is an assessment that each one of
us will have to make for himself.
Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Craig! Dr. Krauss. . . .

Lawrence Krauss – Opening Speech
Thank you, Dr. Craig! First, I want to thank Mark Stevens and
the Campus Crusade for Christ, who have been remarkably
hospitable and gracious to me during the short time that I’ve
been here. And I really appreciate everything they’ve done.
Dr. Craig is a professional debater; I’m not. I don’t like
debates, actually. I find them combative and not a good way to
actually elucidate information and knowledge. But I agreed to
come, anyway. Some people have said I’m brave, some people I
know are feeling I’m foolhardy, but actually I want to
compliment Dr. Craig for his bravery tonight because unlike the
other debates I’ve seen him talk in which have to do with the
existence of God—which this debate, by the way, doesn’t have
to do with—I’m not here to disprove the existence of God in
any way, I think that’s kind of a futile and useless activity,
something I wouldn’t waste my time on. This is a debate “Is
there Evidence for God?” And that, therefore, makes it quite
different in spirit. It’s not a debate about philosophy, which is
Dr. Craig’s area of expertise, and I would not come to a debate
to talk about semiotics or transubstantiation because I recognize
that I would not be probably competent to talk about that. But
Dr. Craig came here to talk about evidence, which is, I take to
be empirical and scientific. And Dr. Craig is not a scientist, as
he has demonstrated several times in the last few minutes. The
important thing about this debate, also, is that onus is on Dr.
Craig to demonstrate evidence for God. The onus is not on me
to disprove anything. The onus is on Dr. Craig to demonstrate
evidence, and then I guess I’m here to talk about whether I view
that as evidence. And that’s very different, I think, in spirit than
in the other debates that Dr. Craig has been involved in. And I
congratulate him for his bravery to do that, or maybe
foolhardiness, we’ll see.
Now extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In

fact, I will get to the fact that Dr. Craig’s claim for what
evidence is is not at all what we use in science nowadays. It
doesn’t relate at all to what we use in science. But one could
imagine—I mean there’s no more extraordinary claim, I think,
than the fact that there is a divine, infinitely powerful
intelligence that exists, that creates the universe, and then
largely disappears, except maybe in a few places making itself
manifest to Bronze Age peasants before YouTube or anything
else could record the evidence.
Not only that, I should point out that it is a far cry from
claiming that there may be cosmological arguments for the
existence of a divine intelligence. There’s no logical connection
between that and the God that Dr. Craig just talked about, who
shows great interest in the personal affairs of human beings
roughly a millions of years after they were evolved—in fact, a
personal God that Dr. Craig happens to believe in but not a
personal God that other people have to believe in. There’s no
logical connection between a divine intelligence that might
create the universe and Christ. There’s nothing at all.
Now, it would be easy to have evidence for God. If the stars
rearrange themselves tonight and I looked up tonight—well not
here, but in a place where you could see the stars, in Arizona,
say,—and I looked up tonight and I saw the stars rearrange
themselves say, “I am here.” Gee, that’s pretty interesting
evidence! And, in fact, when we talk about evidence, the only
evidence you can have for God is really miraculous evidence
because the existence of God implies something that is
supernatural, something beyond that which can be explained by
physical theory. So if you’re going to have evidence for God, it
has to be miraculous evidence. Now I’m also not a huge fan of
philosophy, but I thought I would quote a philosopher in
deference to Dr. Craig, and that’s David Hume, who defined a
miracle to be the following: “No testimony is sufficient to
establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that

its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it
endeavors to establish.” So if you’re claiming you have
evidence for a miracle, the fact that that evidence is false has to
be even stranger than the evidence itself. And, of course, that
doesn’t apply to anything Dr. Craig has talked about, as I’ll try
and describe.
Therefore, in fact, the kind of evidence that Dr. Craig would
need to show is incredibly high. He has to jump a huge hurdle.
The criterion that we should use to judge his evidence for this
extraordinary claim, this miraculous claim, I repeat, this
miraculous claim, you have to ask yourself, “Is the possibility
that that claim is false more miraculous than the claim itself?”
And I think if you are serious about that logic, you’ll find that
in every case that he’s mentioned, it is not the case.
Now the other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic.
And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical.
At least it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great
things about science. It’s taught us that the universe is the way
it is whether we like it or not. And much of what Dr. Craig has
talked about and will talk about again tonight is the fact that he
doesn’t like certain ideas. He doesn’t like the idea of infinity,
he doesn’t like the idea of beginning, he doesn’t like the idea of
chance. And in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t
like a universe in which morality is defined as allowing rape;
doesn’t make sense to him. But the point is, if we continue to
rely on our understanding of the universe on Aristotelian logic,
on classical logic, by what we think is sensible, we would still
be living in a world where heavier objects, we think, fall faster
than light objects, because they’re heavier, as Aristotle use to
think, instead of doing the experiment to check it out.
We cannot rely on what we perceive to be sensible; we have to
rely on what the universe tells us is sensible. What we have to
do is force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality,

rather than the other way around. And the universe just simply
isn’t sensible. I think I have an example. I have two quotes from
Richard Feynman because I just wrote a book about him which I
hope you all buy. But this is really important. This is one of the
reasons I’m a scientist, is that crazy ideas end up not being
crazy. If you see something that seems impossible, but it
happens, the onus is on you to understand why and to force your
thinking to conform to that. And it’s been one of the great
pleasures of doing 20th and 21st century physics that we’ve
been able to do that in many areas from quantum mechanics to
relativity. And this idea that something which is completely
paradoxical at first, if analyzed to completion in all its details
and in all experimental situations, may in fact be paradoxical is
of profound . . . may in fact not be paradoxical, I should say, is
of profound importance.
We can’t just say, “We don’t like something, and, therefore,
God exists,” which is essentially, as far as I can tell, behind
every single one of Dr. Craig’s statements that he made tonight.
And we’ll have a chance, I hope, to go over some. But let me
give you an example. See, I kind of figure I’m not going to
change many minds, so I’m an educator, and I figured I’d teach
you a little quantum mechanics. O.K.? Because it gives you a
sense of how strange and crazy the world is. There’s a famous
experiment that’s been performed; If I have a wall with two slits
and I have bullets that I shoot through a gun—and I hope no one
here has one!—and I just shoot it randomly through those two
slits, then the bullet will go in one place or it will go in another
place. So what you will expect to see in the slits is either a lot
of holes there and a lot of holes there and nothing else. If you
shoot a wave through two slits—and some of you may have been
subjected to this in physics classes—you’ll find something very
different. The wave, in fact, will go through both slits, interfere
with itself, and create what is called an interference pattern. If
you have ever seen two waves come together in the ocean, you
see these beautiful patterns of ripples that are just spectacular to

see. It’s one of the great joys of physics to see them. But the
amazing thing is that when we shoot electrons, particles, at two
slits, what pattern do we see? We see exactly the same pattern
we would see with waves. Now that’s crazy, because electrons
are particles. So say, well, “Maybe they’re waves?” But no,
let’s see. I don’t believe they’re waves, so what I’m going to do
is put a light right here at the slits, and I’m going to check
where each electron goes through because I want—because right
now . . . in order to create this pattern, the only way you could
create that pattern, is if the electron went through both slits at
the same time. That’s insane. It’s like infinity. O.K.? So that’s
insane. So I put a light there, and I shine it. What happens? I
see each electron goes through only one slit or the other. Ah-ha!
I’ve proved that it doesn’t go through both, but when I look at
the pattern, the pattern’s different. If I shine the light and look
at the electron, I just see those two lines that I talked about
earlier (right here and here). If I don’t shine the light on the
electron, the pattern is different. If I don’t shine the light on the
electron, we now know the electron goes through both slits at
the same time. It does something classically impossible. And
when we saw that, we didn’t say, “You know what, God exists!”
What we said was, “Well, maybe the laws of nature are stranger
than we thought. And maybe we ought to figure out how things
behave so we can explain and predict things.” And the universe
is stranger than you think, in almost every way.
In fact, I cannot resist this, because Dr. Craig mentioned it. . . .
[Unbuttons shirt to reveal his t-shirt that reads “2 + 2 = 5 for
extremely large values of 2”] It’s worth a thousand words, so
it’s O.K. O.K. “2 + 2 = 5,” my t-shirt says, “for extremely large
values of 2.” Now that’s extremely important because, in fact,
classical logic such as 2 + 2 = 4, it can’t equal 5, is wrong.
Mathematicians and physicists know that for extremely large
values of numbers, you have to change the rules. And in fact. . .
.

Let’s go to some of the things Dr. Craig talked about. In fact,
the existence of infinity, which he talked about which is self-
contradictory, is not self-contradictory at all. Mathematicians
know precisely how to deal with infinity; so do physicists. We
rely on infinities. In fact, there’s a field of mathematics called
“Complex Variables” which is the basis of much of modern
physics, from electro-magnetism to quantum mechanics and
beyond, where in fact we learn to deal with infinity; without the
infinities we couldn’t do the physics. We know how to sum
infinite series because we can do complex analysis.
Mathematicians have taught us how. It’s strange and very
unappetizing, and in fact you can sum things that look
ridiculous. For example, if you sum the series, “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +
5 + 6…” to infinity, what’s the answer? “-1/12.” You don’t like
it? Too bad! The mathematics is consistent if we assign that.
The world is the way it is whether we like it or not.
So let’s talk about the five pieces of evidence that Dr. Craig
talked about. The existence of contingent beings. Beings that
didn’t have to exist. Well, accidents happen all the time! Many
things happen that are just accidental. We assign significance.
We are hard-wired to want to believe. That’s very important.
We all want to believe in a host of things. We all have to
convince ourselves of ten impossible things before breakfast in
order to get up in the morning (that “we like school” or “we
love the person in the bed next to us” or something). It’s what
we need as human beings to exist. We want to believe, we need
to believe. But accidents sometimes happen. You can, for
example, have a million dreams over a million nights, but let’s
pretend it’s not a million, let’s just say it’s a thousand nights;
that are nonsensical. One night you dream that your friend is
going to break their arm. The next day your friend breaks their
leg. Ah-ha! Something significant! But of course, you forget all
the times your dreams were nonsensical. Again Richard
Feynman used to go to people and say, “You won’t believe what
just happened to me; you just won’t believe it!” They’ll say,

“What?” He’ll say, “Absolutely nothing.” O.K., because most of
the time when things happen, they’re not significant, but we
ascribe significance to them. Contingent things happen all the
time without necessarily having a cause, but even if they do
have a cause, if we don’t understand the cause, it doesn’t mean
that God exists. It seemed to me that Dr. Craig’s first example
is a characteristic example of “God in the gaps.” “We don’t
know all the processes which led to existence of human beings,
therefore God exists.” Well, that’s just an awful excuse for God
because that God of the gaps argument risks God disappearing
when we discover the cause, and we’ll discover the cause is
simply physical.
We now know, in fact, getting to his origin of the universe and
also whether the universe is contingent or not, the universe, Dr.
Craig argued, that we know the universe isn’t contingent, it had
to exist. How does he know that? I don’t know that. How do we
know that? We don’t know the answer. It’s fine not to know the
answer. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing the answer. In
fact, not knowing the answer is exciting because it means
there’s a lot to learn. To argue that from some basic principle,
we know the universe had to exist is myopic in the extreme or
perhaps, in my opinion, intellectually lazy. Instead of saying,
“Let’s see, let’s go out and try and spend our lives trying to
understand what processes might have caused it to exist and
whether it might not have existed and whether there may be
many universes, I will just make the assumption because I like
it.” Well, “God of the gaps” is not good evidence for God. It’s
not also good evidence for sound thinking.
The origin of the universe: Again, coming back to Dr. Craig’s
argument that it can’t be eternal. Well, we do know, in fact, Dr.
Craig said, there’s good evidence for a Big Bang. Well, there’s
more than good evidence for a Big Bang, we know a Big Bang
happened. The Big Bang is a fact. It happened 13.72 billion
years ago, and the fact that we can say so to four decimal places

is one of the most remarkable feats of modern science that we
should all herald and exalt as an example of how remarkable it
is to be a human being that can think. The fact that we now,
here sitting in the middle of no place, around a random star in
the middle of a random galaxy, in the middle of a universe of
400 billion galaxies, in which the galaxies and the stars are
largely irrelevant. And the human beings and the aliens that live
on those stars are largely irrelevant. We have now learned that
the mass of the universe—less than 1% of the universe is made
up of everything we can see. All the stars, all the galaxies, all
the planets, everything is a bit of cosmic pollution in a universe
made up of dark matter and dark energy, things which are
invisible but we know exist because we can measure them,
because we can falsify them (that’s the other aspect of
evidence). Evidence must be falsifiable. I could argue that Dr.
Craig has three legs. I’ll see if he has three legs right here. Oh!
But whenever he stands and you look at him he only has two,
one disappears. O.K.? Now that’s not falsifiable evidence. I
could argue that we didn’t exist less than five seconds ago. How
can you prove me wrong? I could argue that God created the
universe four and a half seconds ago with all of us sitting here
believing we heard Dr. Craig. There’s no way I could disprove
that, and there’s no way I would want to try and disprove it
because it’s not falsifiable. It’s not, in the scientific sense, it’s
not evidence.
Now, actually Dr. Craig, when he talked about Alan Guth, was,
of course, wrong. The actual first person to talk about the fact
that the universe had to begin at a finite time in a singularity is
Stephen Hawking, who made some singularity theorems with
Roger Penrose. But the interesting thing is Stephen Hawking
has also argued, as, in fact, we now know, given quantum
gravity, that universes can spontaneously appear. In fact, one of
the things about quantum mechanics is, nothing—not only can
nothing become something, nothing always becomes something.
Nothing is unstable. Nothing will always produce something in

quantum mechanics. And if you apply quantum mechanics to
gravity, you can show that it’s possible that space and time
themselves can come into existence when nothing existed
before. So that’s not a problem. Now, in fact, what Guth has
argued, is in fact, a theory that he postulated to explain the
data, not because he wanted to answer some metaphysical
question about whether God existed or not—a theorem that he
made to explain the data called “inflation” actually predicts,
essentially, an infinite number of universes in an eternal
multiverse that exists for all time and for all space. It’s eternal;
it didn’t have a beginning. We don’t know if it had a cause, but
it doesn’t matter because our universe could spontaneously
appear out of that multiverse, so the idea of the first cause is
not relevant.
I’ll go to Jesus of Nazareth later and fine-tuning, where, in fact,
Dr. Craig is completely wrong. The universe is not fine-tuned
for life. No scientist says the universe is fine-tuned for human
life; that is an incorrect statement.
Let me just go last, to his morality argument. We don’t know if
there is objective morality. There may or may not be. That’s an
interesting question, but whether there is or is not doesn’t imply
God. For example, we talked about rape. If God sets objective
morality, if God decided that raping two-year old girls was
O.K., would it be O.K.? Most of you, I think, would say, “No.”
Why would it not be O.K.? Because it’s not moral, but if it’s
not moral, then God didn’t have the choice. It’s not God that
chose what’s moral. And, therefore, if morality is based on
what’s rational, then why not get rid of the middle man and get
rid of God?
Thank you!
Moderator: Thank you Dr. Krauss! Dr. Craig, it’s time for your
12-minute rebuttal.

William Lane Craig – First Rebuttal
You’ll recall that in my opening speech, I said that there’s
evidence for God’s existence just in case the probability of
God’s existence is higher given the five facts that I’ve
mentioned than it would have been without them. This is the
standard definition of “is evidence for” used in probability
theory. And I’m astonished to hear Dr. Krauss attacking logic
and Bayesian probability theory as the basis for his argument.
That is simply unsound. You cannot deny logic without
assuming logic in order to deny it. It’s a self-defeating
situation. Now, of course, quantum mechanics is surprising,
shocking, paradoxical; but it’s not illogical. It’s not as though
contradictions are true. So in affirming and going with the rules
of logic and with probability theory, I am right in line with
rational thought. And if the price of atheism is irrationality,
then I’ll leave him to it.
Now he says, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. David Hume’s argument against miracles is sound.”
Here, what you need to understand is that that claim is
demonstrably false. It is not true. Hume didn’t understand the
probability calculus. It wasn’t yet developed in his day. His
argument neglects the crucial probability that we would have
the evidence which we do if the miracle in question had not
occurred. And that factor can completely balance out any
intrinsic improbability that you think might occur in a miracle.
In any case, why think that a miracle like the resurrection is
intrinsically improbable? I think what’s improbable is that Jesus
rose naturally from the dead. But, of course, that’s not the
hypothesis. The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the
dead. And you can’t show that that’s intrinsically improbable
unless you’re prepared to argue that the existence of God is
improbable. And Dr. Krauss isn’t doing that tonight. That’s not
the debate topic, as he explained. The topic tonight is, “Is there

evidence for God?,” and so we’re not assessing the prior
probabilities of whether or not God’s existence is intrinsically
probable or not. And so I think the approach that I’m taking
tonight is right in line with probability theory and does show
that, given the facts that I’ve laid out, God’s existence is more
probable than it would have been without them.
He says, “But there could be better evidence. God could
rearrange the stars in the sky.” You know, if the stars did that,
that would be vastly more probable than the fine-tuning of the
initial conditions of the universe that I discussed! And,
therefore, if that would be good evidence for the existence of
God, so is the fine-tuning that I’ve discussed already.
He says, “But 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4!” “2+2=4”
follows from the axioms of Peano arithmetic, which are
necessary truths. I cannot believe that he would deny logically
necessary, mathematical truths in order to avoid theism.
So let’s talk first of the existence of contingent beings. Here I
explained that contingent beings are more probable given God’s
existence than on atheism. Dr. Krauss will have to say that the
existence of contingent beings is just as probable on atheism as
it is on theism. But that seems incorrect because atheism has no
explanation for the existence of contingent beings.
Dr. Krauss says, “Well, accidents just happen. Your friend
might break a leg after having a dream!” But notice that there
are explanations for accidents. That’s why when something goes
wrong, for example, in a space shuttle launch, we look for the
cause of what made the accident occur.
He says, “Well, is the universe contingent? Perhaps the universe
doesn’t exist necessarily.” My argument was that the universe
doesn’t exist necessarily, that it’s contingent in its being.
Scientists regularly discuss other models of the universe that

are logically possible, universes governed by different laws of
nature. And clearly the universe is not ultimate in the sense of
being self-explanatory. And you can’t say that it’s contingent
and yet ultimate-without-explanation because that would be
arbitrary and unjustified. It commits what’s been called the
Taxi-Cab Fallacy, which is thinking you can dismiss the need
for explanation when you arrive at your desired destination.
And it’s simply arbitrary to apply the explanatory principle
everywhere else in life but then deny it when you get to the
existence of the universe itself.
What about the origin of the universe? Here he says that the
universe doesn’t need to begin to exist because we know in
mathematics how to deal with infinities, for example, how to
sum infinities. Well, of course, in mathematics you can do that!
Mathematics has certain conventions and rules that you use to
prevent contradictions from occurring. For example, in
transfinite arithmetic the inverse operations of subtraction and
division are prohibited because they lead to contradictions. But
while you can slap the hand of the mathematician who tries to
break the rules, if you’ve got, say, an infinite number of
baseball cards, you can’t stop someone from giving away part of
the cards. And so you will have contradictions when you
translate it into reality. It may be possible on paper, in the
realm of mathematics, but it’s not possible in the realm of
reality.
And lest you think that this is not reasoning that impresses
contemporary scientists, like me quote from George Ellis, a
great cosmologist, when he asks, “Can there be an infinite set of
really existing universes?” He says “We suggest that, on the
basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is
No.”6 And therefore they reject a realized past infinity in time.
Now what about the Big Bang confirmation? Dr. Krauss appeals
to Stephen Hawking’s model. Hawking’s model involves an

absolute beginning of the universe! It has the beginning of the
universe, though it does not have a beginning point of infinite
density.
He says, “But it can come into being out of nothingness because
nothing is unstable.” This is the grossly misleading use of
“nothingness” for describing the quantum vacuum, which is
empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a rich, physical
reality described by physical laws and having a physical
structure. If a religious person were to so seriously misrepresent
a scientific theory as this, he would be accused of deliberate
distortion and abuse of science, and, I think, rightly so! What
the quantum vacuum is is a roiling sea of energy. It is not
nothing. As Dr. Krauss himself has said, “By ‘nothing,’ I don’t
mean nothing. . . . Nothing isn’t nothing anymore in physics.”7
Empty space is not empty. “Nothing is really a bubbling,
boiling brew of virtual particles.”8
And my point is that that quantum vacuum state cannot be
eternal in the past. That was the implication of the Borde-Guth-
Vilenkin Theorem. Listen to what Vilenkin writes. He says,
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men,
and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable
man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer
hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. They have
to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.9
And given the absolute beginning of the universe, the beginning
of the quantum vacuum, God’s existence is obviously more
probable than it would have been without it.
As to the fine-tuning of the universe, all Dr. Krauss said was
that the universe is not fine-tuned for human life. I agree
completely. It is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent,
embodied, interactive agents, but not necessarily human beings.
And the chances of that happening are so infinitesimal that it’s
far more probable to think that this is the result of design.

What about objective moral values and duties in the world?
Here he doesn’t deny that objective moral values and duties
would not exist without God. Indeed, on Dr. Krauss’s view you
do not have objective moral duties because you don’t have free
will. He says in his lecture, “I don’t . . . think we have free
will.”10 But then moral duties are impossible because it’s an
ethical maxim that ought implies can. If you cannot avoid an
action, then you’re not morally responsible for it. And so there
cannot be objective moral duties in a deterministic universe.
But I submit to you that that is just utterly implausible. And
here I’ll appeal to Sam Harris in his recent book The Moral
Landscape. Harris says that if there is “only one person in the
world [who] held down a struggling, screaming little girl, cut
off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, . . .
the only question would be how severely [he] should be
punished.”11 It would not be a question that he had done
something horribly, objectively wrong. And yet on Dr. Krauss’s
view, you cannot affirm that because everything is working
according to the clockwork universe. Ought implies can, and
you can’t do other than what you do.
As for moral values, Dr. Krauss says, “Reality is that which,
when you stop believing in it, is still there.”12 Well, that
occasions the question: “Are moral values real? Are they still
there if no one believes them?” Not on Dr. Krauss’s scientism
and determinism! And the irony is that science depends upon
these moral values. Dr. Krauss has said in his lecture, “The
ethos of sciences includes honesty, open-mindedness, creativity,
anti-authoritarianism, full-disclosure—the basis of what. . . is a
moral society.”13 But the problem is, these are all illusions on
his view, so that science is ultimately predicated upon an
illusion—which, I submit, is implausible. So given the existence
of objective moral values and duties, I think it is more probable
that God exists.

What about Jesus’ resurrection? Here all he said was, “How do
you connect the existence of God to Christ?” Well, you do it in
the following way: Christ claimed to be the absolute revelation
of the God of Israel. He claimed that in himself the Kingdom of
God had come. If God raised him from the dead, then this is a
miraculous event which ratifies and vindicates the radical
claims that Jesus made about himself. And, therefore, it follows
that the God revealed by Jesus exists.
So it seems to me that Dr. Krauss has got to deny the empty
tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the belief
in Jesus’ resurrection because, given those facts, God’s
existence is obviously more probable than without them. And
yet that would put him in conflict with the majority of New
Testament historians today on a subject which, I think, he
would admit he knows very little. So given the facts accepted
by the majority of historians, it seems to me that it is much
more probable that God exists and that God raised Jesus from
the dead than otherwise.
In summary, then, it seems to me that when you look at this
evidence, clearly God’s existence is more probable, given these
facts, than it would have been without them. And that’s all that
needs to be established in order to show that there is evidence
for the existence of God.
Lawrence Krauss – First Rebuttal
O.K., we don’t understand the beginning of the universe. We
don’t understand if the universe had a cause. That is a
fascinating possibility. By the way, [points to PowerPoint slide]
there’s the picture of the vacuum that Dr. Craig so adequately
described that I talked about. It’s not the nothing that I’m going

to talk about in a second; it’s one version of nothing. That’s
empty space [points to PowerPoint slide]; that’s what it looks
like according to the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity.
Empty space is indeed a boiling, bubbling brew of particles. In
fact, you have mass because of it. And each of these things up
here is—with some random probability—completely contingent.
You can’t predict, you can’t say that this particle appears and
disappears at that place for an instant for a reason. There’s no
reason you can predict it, there’s no insistent cause. It’s a
probability. It may happen; it may not. It’s just the way the
world works.
But the beginning is fascinating. Now you have two choices:
you could say it’s a fascinating thing and we should investigate
it, we should try and understand it, we should try and ask the
question, “Is there a cause and if there is a cause, what is it?”
That’s what science has done. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize-
winning physicist says, “Science doesn’t make it impossible to
believe in God,” which is absolutely true. He says, “However, it
makes it possible to not believe in God.” Because before God,
everything’s a miracle. Before God, earthquakes were a miracle.
But what you could say is, “Well, I don’t understand
earthquakes. Maybe I’ll try and understand them, so that I can
predict an earthquake, so I can save people’s lives in Japan the
next time there might be one.” So what I can do is say--if I
don’t understand something--I can say, “It’s God! I give up,
that’s it! God’s will!” Or I can say, “Let me try and understand
it.”
So the lack, I repeat, the lack of understanding of something is
not evidence for God. It’s evidence of a lack of understanding.
And what we should do, if we’re scientists, or anyone, is try and
say, “Let’s try and understand it before we go the intellectually
lazy route of saying, ‘I don’t understand it, so let me assign it
to an entity that I can’t understand, a divine entity beyond my
comprehension.’” If I did that—If we did that we wouldn’t be in

this room today, we wouldn’t be seeing these images because
none of modern science would have happened. Instead we try
and understand how things work, and the way science works is
if there is a physical effect, we look for a physical cause. And
so far, there’s not a single place in the history of science where
we’ve been, we’ve gotten to a point where we can’t explain
something and we know for certain there’s no explanation.
Every time something was—every explanation that’s remarkable
is remarkable for that fact: it explains something we didn’t
think we’d ever understand. That’s the beauty of science.
Now the interesting thing is that—let me go to discuss
“nothing.” I was going to say that Dr. Craig’s an expert on it,
but I won’t. But in a sense he is, because he’s studied what I’ve
said. I’ve talked about the fact that empty space is not empty.
Nothing is not nothing. But that’s not—the point is that that’s
one version of nothing. One version is—of yet again, defies
conventional wisdom, that defies conventional logic—that a
century ago if we’d been having this debate, Dr. Craig would
say, “Something can never come from nothing. Nothing can
ever arise from empty space. Empty space is empty and the only
way you can get something out of empty space is if God creates
it.” Well, he could have said that, and that would have agreed
with what we understood at the time, but it’s not true. Now we
know, “Poof!” out of empty space, you all arose! Out of empty
space, all of you arose. Quantum fluctuations in the earliest of
the universe produce mass density fluctuations which produce
galaxies, stars, people. So, it’s amazing. It’s fantastic and we
should just—I love talking about it! I’d rather talk about that
than what I’m about to talk about.
But that’s not the only kind of nothing. The kind of nothing that
I talked about that Steven Hawking mentioned is a more
extreme version of nothing—still not, maybe you might argue,
complete nothing, but in quantum gravity—and it’s a theory we
don’t yet fully understand, but if we apply quantum mechanics

to gravity, and gravity is a theory of space and time—, then
quantum mechanics tells us that space and time themselves, not
the space in which these things are appearing, but space itself
spontaneously appears. There was no space, there was no time.
And a region of space and time spontaneously appears. It’s very
different than the quantum fluctuations that are happening in
empty space in which Dr. Craig talked about. I agree: that’s not
complete nothing. It’s a version of nothing, in itself. It’s so
remarkable we should be amazed by it. But quantum gravity
says that space and time can come out of nothing, so that where
there’s no space, no time.
Now, Dr. Craig, I could let him wait and rebut this and then
rebut it again in the next one, but I’ll give him a break. You
might say Dr. Craig would say, I think, and I bet he would be
writing this note because I’d be if I were him, but that’s not
nothing either. Because nothing—at least there are laws. At
least there are laws. So the laws were there that of which empty
space arose. So space—indeed, there was nothing in the
conventional sense that there was no space, no time, no
universe. It’s perfectly plausible that a universe can be created
where there was no space before. In fact, again, in quantum
gravity, it’s not only plausible; it’s required! It’s required that
you cannot have that event not happen somewhere. But the laws
are there.
Well, it turns out, the interesting thing about some of the work
that Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin (good friends of mine) have
been working on and I discuss with them all the time, you will
notice if you read their paper, unlike Dr. Craig, that you will
not see the word “God” mentioned anywhere in their paper.
Because although they talk about a theorem of an absolute
beginning; they do not in any way say that this proves the
existence of God or this is evidence for God. In fact, you won’t
find it anywhere! But what you will find is an interesting
discussion that this suggests that, in fact, that there are required

to be many universes. Maybe even an infinite number of
universes! In fact, in eternal inflation, there must be an infinite
number of universes, and whether we like it or not, that
multiverse may be eternal and infinite. And even if we don’t
like it, and even if Dr. Craig doesn’t like to think we can work
with it, it may be the case. It’s not up to us to decide. O.K.?
And the interesting thing about that infinite set of universes is
each of them has a different set of laws. The laws are random.
There aren’t prescribed laws of nature in such a view. The laws
of nature are complete accidental. And in such a picture, we
arise here not by any fine-tuning anymore (and I don’t know if
Dr. Craig accepts the facts of evolution; I believe he probably
does, but he can let us know), but this miraculous fine-tuning
that he’s talking about is nothing other than a kind of cosmic
natural selection. We find ourselves living in a universe in
which we can live. It’s nothing more profound than that. We
don’t find ourselves living in a universe in which we couldn’t
live. It’s like, as Andre Linde, who also works with Alan Guth
and Vilenkin on these topics, has said, if you were an intelligent
fish, you might ask the question, “Why is the universe made of
water?” The answer would be because if it wasn’t made of
water, you wouldn’t be around to ask the question. And so, in
such a universe, it’s no more miraculous that we exist than that
bees can tell the colors of flowers, that animals seem so well-
designed to their environment. That illusion of design that
occurs in nature and biology is a process of natural selection.
We understand it now. We understand how physical processes
can produce things that look like they are incredibly fine-tuned.
We understand that you don’t need supernatural imposition to
make what appears to be fine-tuning. But, in fact—
Well, let me just say that philosophy and “nothing”—when we
talk what nothing is—to go back, it’s something I think it’s
important—I want to go back to what I was going to say before.
That nothing—Philosophy has taught us something about

“nothing.” What it’s taught us of is the definition of “nothing”
is that which philosophy has taught us about “nothing.” Because
what we learned to understand, when it comes to nothingness is
not what we think in our minds but what the world tells us. This
is one kind of nothing. The nothingness in Hawking’s theory is
another kind of nothing. And then nothingness in which there’s
no laws of nature, they’re random, they occur with different
laws everywhere and physics is an environmental accident, is
another kind of nothing; another kind of universe without cause,
multiverse without cause, without beginning, without end. We
don’t know what the right answer is. But we’re willing to look
at all the possibilities. But none of them require anything
supernatural.
Now, in fact, let me go back to the statement I made earlier
which was kind of ad hominem—and now I’m trying to explain
why Dr. Craig does not—why evidence, as he’s described it, is
not evidence in science. First of all, a probability greater than
50% is not evidence of anything. It’s evidence that there’s a
possibility that a construct might be right. There’s also a
possibility that it might be wrong. For example, in my own field
of dark matter detection, one of the things I work in, there was a
recent discovery of several events. And the experiment
[unintelligible] that may be due to these dark matter particles,
two events, where we predict none. You find out the probability
of that being due to pure accident, is one part in ten: a 10%
probability of that being a mere accident, 90% probability of it
being, perhaps due to dark matter. The experiment, however,
did not claim evidence for dark matter because we don’t claim
90% evidence is good enough, especially for an extraordinary
claim. We require two, three, or four sigma or five sigma
effects. So when we have a 10% likelihood that something’s an
accident, it could be an accident. We never claim discovery
based on that.
Now the other thing that surprised me was Dr. Craig claimed to

talk about Bayesian statistics. The key aspect of probability,
Bayesian probability, as we use them in science, is that if your
conclusions change dramatically depending upon your prior,
then you haven’t proved anything. And all of his conclusions, of
course, are dramatically dependent upon his assumption that
God exists. If you just allow for the—the question you have to
ask in every one of his cases from the fact that we’re here and
we didn’t have to be here, the fact that the universe may or may
not have an origin, the fact that there’s fine-tuning (although I
will get in last minutes to the fact that there isn’t fine-tuning),
the fact that there may or may not be objective values, and the
fact that Jesus of Nazareth claimed he was God, you could ask
yourself, “Is it equally plausible that we’re here by physical
phenomena, that the universe had a beginning that was proved
by physics, that there’s fine-tuning that happened in the same
way as fine-tuning in biology happened, appears to happen, by
natural causes, that objective moral values may or may not exist
doesn’t prove anything, and that Jesus may have thought he was
God but wasn’t God?” Is that equally plausible?
Given that I have thirty seconds left, I think I will just say that
the fine-tuning argument, which I promise I’ll get to in the next
phase, is not fine-tuning at all. The laws of physics can change
dramatically. In fact, what Dr. Craig said is that the laws of
nature are fine-tuned for any intelligence is not true. We don’t
know what any intelligence could be like. What we do know is
that they allow us. So he got it exactly wrong. They allow
humans, but we don’t know if any other kind of intelligence
could exist. Since I’m told to stop, I will stop.
Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Krauss! Dr. Craig. . . .
William Lane Craig – Second Rebuttal
Well, I was gratified that in his last speech Dr. Krauss ceased to
attack probability theory and logic! Instead, what he says now is

that it’s not enough to prove that God’s existence is more
probable, given the evidence, than it is on the background
information alone; you’ve got to discuss the prior probabilities
as well. He’s absolutely correct, but as he said in his opening
speech, that’s not the subject of tonight’s debate. And that’s
why we’re not looking at, for example, “What is the evidence
against the existence of God?” We’re not asking Dr. Krauss to
give the evidence against God’s existence. We’re not talking
about the prior probability of God’s existence. We’re talking
about one aspect of the probability calculus, namely: is it the
case that God’s existence is more probable, given the evidence
and background information I mentioned, than just on the
background information alone? If it is, it follows that there’s
evidence for God. Now that doesn’t prove that God exists. But
that’s not the topic of the debate tonight, and I’ve never claimed
that it does. I’ve simply argued that there’s evidence that there
is a God. And I think that the evidence is clear.
What about the first point of evidence that the existence of
contingent beings is more probable on God’s existence than on
atheism? He didn’t deny the point. Remember, I explained, to
deny the explanatory principle of the universe is to commit the
Taxi-Cab Fallacy: it’s arbitrary and unjustified.
What about the origin of the universe? Here he accuses me of
using “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning. He says, “We should simply
say we don’t understand; we should continue to investigate
rather than appeal to God.” Now it’s very important that you
understand tonight that I am not using science to prove God.
I’m using science as evidence that the universe began to exist.
That is a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any
textbook on astronomy and astrophysics. Beyond that, I’m
making the extra-scientific, philosophical claim that God’s
existence is more probable given the beginning of the universe
than it would have been without it. So the question is, “Does the
scientific evidence support the beginning of the universe?”

Well, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem requires it. Vilenkin
says,
A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping
generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described
by Einstein’s equations. . . . The only assumption we made was
that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some
nonzero value. . . . This assumption should certainly be satisfied
in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal
inflation without a beginning is impossible.14
So we have both philosophical grounds as well as scientific
grounds for affirming the beginning of the universe.
Now Dr. Krauss says, “But the Hawking model from quantum
tunneling involves a different concept of ‘nothing.’” There’s no
classical time and space in the point from which the universe
originates, but it is still something, and Vilenkin, who also has
a quantum tunneling model, recognizes this. Vilenkin says the
initial state from which the universe evolves is not nothing: “I
understand that a universe of zero radius is not necessarily the
same thing as no universe at all.”15 There’s a three-geometry
that evolves through quantum tunneling into our space time; it’s
not nothing. James Sinclair, a cosmologist, says, “This approach
still does not solve the problem of creation. Rather it has moved
the question back one step to the initial, tiny, closed, and meta-
stable universe. This universe state can have existed for only a
finite time. Where did it come from?”16
Why is Dr. Krauss so insistent on denying that the scientific
evidence points to the beginning of the universe? That’s not a
supernatural conclusion; that doesn’t imply the existence of
God in and of itself. If we follow the scientific evidence where
it leads, all of the evidence that I’m aware of points to the fact
that the universe is not past eternal. If we have any evidence
that the universe is past eternal, I’d love to hear Dr. Krauss
present it. I’m not aware that there’s any evidence that suggests

that the universe is past eternal. As I said, the attempts to avoid
the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem all involve exotic,
implausible models which in the end fail to restore an eternal
past. They just push the beginning back a step. So we’ve got
good philosophical and scientific grounds for thinking the
universe began to exist. And since something can’t come out of
nothing—and here I mean non-being—, then there must be a
transcendent cause to bring the universe into existence, which I
think makes God’s existence more probable.
As for the fine-tuning, we keep getting promissory notices on
this but haven’t heard yet why the universe is not fine-tuned for
embodied agents. Postulating the existence of many worlds, as
Dr. Krauss would want to do, doesn’t do anything to explain
why we observe a universe structured for embodied, interactive
agents, unless you can show that the vast preponderance of
observable universes are so structured. And that can’t be shown.
For there are observable universes in which a single brain
fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum. Such
worlds are not fine-tuned for interactive agents like ourselves,
but they are observable. And so just appealing to many worlds
doesn’t do anything to explain why we observe a world fine-
tuned for embodied, interactive agents like ourselves.
And in any case, that really only kicks the problem up one step
because then you’ve got to ask about the fine-tuning of the
multiverse: “What determined its laws, that they should be so
special?” So we’ve yet to hear, I think, any good explanation of
the fine-tuning of the universe.
Just to give you a couple stats on this, the fine-tuning of the
low-entropy condition of the universe is one part out of 1010
(123)! The fine-tuning of gravity is around one part out of 1036.
The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant is around one part
out of 10120. Most scientists think that the universe is fine-
tuned for our existence. The real debate is, how do you explain

it: many worlds or a designer? I think I’ve just shown why the
many worlds hypothesis doesn’t solve the problem.
What about objective moral values and duties in the world? Dr.
Krauss says, “Well, what if God reset morality so that raping
little children was [right]?” That won’t work on my divine
command morality theory because I maintain that God has
certain properties like being compassionate, kind, just, fair, so
that his commandments are necessary expressions of his
essence, of his character. And therefore there is no possible
world in which God would command that rape would be good
and love would be bad. But in any case, on his view you can’t
say anything is bad because there are no objective moral duties
and values. And if you think that is implausible, then I think
you should agree with me that God exists.
Finally, as to the resurrection of Jesus, we’ve not heard any
grounds for denying what the majority of historians think about
the fate of the historical Jesus: the empty tomb, the post-mortem
appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. It seems to
me that those are better explained if God exists than if He
doesn’t.
So, in summary, it seems to me that while the evidence isn’t an
open-and-shut case, nevertheless God’s existence is more
probable given these five facts than it would have been without
them. And for the limited purposes of tonight’s debate, that’s
enough to prove that there is evidence for God.
Lawrence Krauss – Second Rebuttal
Dr. Craig is fixated on probabilities. I’m fixated on evidence.
They’re not the same. Evidence is falsifiable; evidence is
something I can test. I can argue about probabilities, especially

when I don’t have an underlying theory that probabilities don’t
mean a lot. When I don’t have a mathematical—in fact,
probabilities only make sense in the concept of a mathematical
construction. Otherwise they’re just shooting in the dark.
Of course, what Dr. Craig has argued is on the basis of the
evidence; the probability is greater than not that there is a God.
I don’t like to necessarily use probabilities, but I’ll use one
probability. I’ll take the members of the National Academy of
Sciences. Who are scientists who looked at the evidence, O.K.
90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences don’t
find any evidence for God. They don’t believe in God. They
were polled. Now does that mean there’s no God? It doesn’t
mean that at all! It means 90% of the best scientists in the
country who look at the evidence find no evidence for God.
That’s a probability. That’s a probability I can actually
quantify, not one that I invented in my head. So somehow, the
scientists involved who look at the evidence that Dr. Craig has
presented don’t see any evidence for God. 90% of them! O.K.?
Now not even 50%, if it was 51%, according to Dr. Craig,
[unintelligible] 90% don’t believe in God. Now . . . the claim. .
. . Alex Vilenkin has one model of creating a universe from
nothing, which we actually worked on around the same time.
It’s different than Steven Hawking’s. We don’t know which is
correct at this point because we don’t have a good theory of
quantum gravity. But they’re very different. In quantum gravity,
unlike what Dr. Craig has said—and you’ll have to trust me on
this because I actually know general relativity—is that there is
no three-space. It’s not that a three-space existed before
tunneling, there is no three-space. In the same sense that any of
those particles that I showed, in coming from empty space,
existed before quantum fluctuations produced them. They didn’t
exist, they exist for a short time, so short that you can’t measure
them, and then they ceased to exist. And that’s the way the
world works. In quantum gravity, there’s no pre-existing three-
space. It just is created, so that notion is not correct.

Whether or not the universe is past eternal or not, which is
again, something Dr. Craig is fixated on, is itself a very
fascinating question. In the theory, by the way, that he’s talking
about, one version of the theory, the universe is future-eternal.
So it is eternal; it had a beginning. There are other versions,
however, in which case it is not. It is past-eternal; it is eternal
over all times. But that question itself, I repeat, the beginning
of the universe is a fascinating thing. We know our observable
universe had a beginning. We know that. That’s not a
philosophical statement; it’s a scientific one. And I repeat that
evidence involves science and not philosophy. Philosophy
doesn’t define evidence for anything. It provides a logical
framework for understanding things, but the only thing that
determines evidence is reality, empirical reality, not
philosophy.
And you have to ask yourself the question each time, I repeat,
that Dr. Craig claims that this requires God, “Is there a
plausible, physical explanation?” And I’ve already shown you
that space can be created from nothing plausibly. It’s possible,
in a multiverse, that the laws of physics, the laws of nature
themselves are created spontaneously. They didn’t pre-exist.
It’s possible. You have to ask yourself, “Am I willing to say
that because all of these possibilities are interesting, but I don’t
understand them, there must be a God who’s compassionate,
kind,—what were the words you used?—compassionate, kind, a
bunch of other words to describe him or her?”
Well, let’s put it another way. First of all, that’s clearly not the
God of the Old Testament, who’s not compassionate, nor kind,
right? That’s obvious. So it’s a certain kind of God that you
choose to be compassionate and kind. But hold on, isn’t God—
doesn’t God define those things? If he’s required to be kind and
compassionate, then who required him to be kind and
compassionate? Who defined kind and compassionate? Get out

of the middle-man! Rationality defines kind and compassionate.
All of you, if you did not believe in God, and the people in here
who find the evidence for God lacking, are unlikely to go out
and kill someone or rape someone tonight because of that.
Rationality goes a long way to understanding morality.
Rationality, evolution, biology. Does it completely defined
morality? I don’t know. In fact, the institute that I run had a
wonderful workshop on the origin of morality, to try and look at
neurophysiologic basis, philosophical basis of morality; because
instead of deciding by fiat that the only origin of morality could
be God, we want to look at the question and ask.
I promised I’d get to fine-tuning, so let’s get to fine-tuning.
What Dr. Craig gets wrong is that the entropy of the universe is
not fine-tuned; it’s generated. We have a dynamical mechanism
to generate it. I’ve heard him say that matter, that these certain
quantities are not determined by the laws of physics. Well, most
of them are. The matter/anti-matter symmetry which he says is
fine-tuned for life—which isn’t by the way—is also. We have a
mechanism to determine it. We do know that there are quantities
whose values are very weird, like the value of energy of empty
space, which he said to be fine-tuned to be 10-120. Well, that’s
true. It’s fine-tuned. I was one of the first people to show that.
But it’s fine-tuned within the context of physical theory. Our
physical theories predict it should be 120 orders of magnitude
larger than it is. We don’t understand why it’s as small as it is.
But its smallness does not fine-tune for life. If it was zero,
which is what we thought it was, life would exist perfectly well.
And it’s much easier to understand why it’s zero from a
mathematical perspective, which is why all of us theoretical
physicists thought it was, until the universe told us it wasn’t.
All logic, all science, told us that the only sensible value for the
energy of empty space in which there is nothing, was nothing.
And life would exist perfectly well in such a universe. What did
we discover? It’s not nothing. We still don’t understand why.
It’s the biggest mystery in science. It means we don’t

understand most of the universe. What could be more exciting?
But what we have learned, by the way, is that the fact that it
isn’t nothing means we live in the worst of all possible
universes for life to develop in. A universe with energy and
empty space has life ending before any universe in which empty
space doesn’t have energy. So if this miraculous fine-tuning—
which I agree is remarkable and I wish [unintelligible]
understand—was created for life, then the person who created it
didn’t do a very good job; a rather incompetent intelligent
designer. The universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.
And all the evidence of the universe is that there’s no purpose,
no design, no meaning. Should that upset us? No, and I’ll
explain why in my concluding remarks.
Moderator: Thank you Dr. Krauss. We now enter the summary
segment, Dr. Craig. . . .
William Lane Craig – Closing Speech
In tonight’s debate I’ve tried to show you that God’s existence
is more probable given certain facts, than it would have been
without them. And that is, by definition, what it means to say
that there’s evidence for God’s existence.
First of all, we looked at the existence of contingent beings, and
I explained that given the existence of God, it is more probable
that contingent beings would exist than on atheism because on
atheism there is no explanation for the existence of contingent
beings. And to try and say that there need not be an explanation
for the existence of the universe is arbitrary and unjustified. It
commits the Taxi-Cab Fallacy. So I think the very existence of
contingent beings makes God’s existence more probable than it
otherwise would have been.
Secondly, what of the origin of the universe? I used both

philosophical arguments and scientific evidence to show that
the universe began to exist. Dr. Krauss dropped his objections
to the philosophical arguments. We saw that while the infinite is
a useful mathematical concept, when you try to translate it into
the real world, it results in self-contradictory situations and,
therefore, the past must be finite. And we saw, secondly, that
this is indeed what science has confirmed. The Borde-Guth-
Vilenkin Theorem shows that the quantum vacuum out of which
our material state has evolved cannot be eternal in the past but
must have had a beginning. The Hartle-Hawking model itself
that Dr. Krauss has appealed to involves an absolute beginning
of the universe.
He says, however, that this universe explains how it came into
existence from absolute non-being. And I contradicted that by
saying that the point from which the universe quantum tunnels
is not nothing on these models. Listen to what Hartle and
Hawking write in their scholarly article on this. They say,
The volume vanishes . . . at the north and south poles, even
though these are perfectly regular points of the four-geometry.
One, therefore, would not expect the wave function to vanish at
the vanishing three-volume.
In the case of the universe, we would interpret the fact that the
wave function can be finite and non-zero at the zero three-
geometry as allowing . . . topological fluctuations of the three-
geometry.17
So there they’re clearly not talking about something from
nothing. Indeed, I mean, think about it, folks: there is no
physics of non-being. That’s absurd! There’s only a physics of
things that exist, that are real. So it’s impossible for physics to
explain how being could arise from non-being. There is no
physics of non-being. And, therefore, given that the universe
did have an absolute beginning, I think it fairly cries out for the
existence of transcendent cause of the universe, which is most

plausibly identified as God, rather than some abstract object.
What about the fine-tuning of the universe? Here Dr. Krauss
attacked one example of fine-tuning, the low entropy condition,
and he says that this is explicable by a mechanism that
determines the fine-tuning. I beg to differ. Robin Collins, who
has occupied himself extensively with this, writes, “The
universe started in a very low entropy state. . . . It is
enormously improbable for the universe to have started in the
macro-state necessary for the existence of life. . . . The various
ways of avoiding this improbability are all highly
problematic.”18 And, in particular, he looks at Penrose’s
suggestion that the low entropy is the result of a special law and
says that Penrose’s proposal has not been accepted by the
majority of physicists today.
So, look, we’ve got this universe that in multiple ways is fine-
tuned for our existence. And that obviously, I think, makes the
existence of God more probable than it would have been without
them.
It is highly improbable that this fine-tuning is going to go away.
Ernan McMullin of the University of Notre Dame says, “It
seems safe to say that later theory, no matter how different, will
turn up approximately the same . . . numbers. And the numerous
constraints that have to be imposed upon these numbers . . . are
too specific and too numerous to evaporate entirely.”19 So fine-
tuning is a physical feature of the universe, and I think it’s
better explained by God.
Quickly then, what about moral values and duties? Here Dr.
Krauss said you can define “kind” and “compassionate”
independent of God. Of course, you can! That is a question of
moral semantics. Mine is a question concerning moral ontology,
that is to say, not the definition or meaning of terms but their
grounding in reality. Apart from God there is no foundation for

objective moral values and duties. Therefore, if you believe
they exist, then you should believe in God.
Finally, the resurrection of Jesus. He’s never denied those
historical facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth. And
that gives us good reason to believe that the best explanation of
these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he
claimed to be. And that entails that God exists.
Moderator: Thank you Dr. Craig! Dr. Krauss, your summary. . .
.
Lawrence Krauss – Closing Speech
The five points that Dr. Craig has made:
Contingent beings: Somehow he argues that natural phenomena
cannot explain things which didn’t have to exist, something I
find remarkable. Many things didn’t have to exist. You didn’t
have to exist here on earth. But we understand a series of steps
by which you were caused to exist naturally, including a large
comet that fell in the Yucatan and killed the dinosaurs, making
an evolutionary edge for mammals. None of that was required.
But more importantly, in fact, if you wish, contingent beings, in
fact, must exist in a universe, whether or not there’s a God.
Because if there are many universes, having different laws of
physics, there must exist one universe in which contingent
beings exist. And you can ask yourself, “In which universe will
those people ask the question?” They’ll ask the question in the
universe in which they exist. If there are many universes, there
must be a universe in which we exist. Our existence does not
prove anything, except that we exist. And, in fact, it’s required,
if that existence is at all possible. In fact, the laws of physics
tell us that which is not prohibited is required. That which is
not impossible must happen somewhere. That’s the other
amazing thing about the universe. The strangest things are

happening every second because those things which don’t
violate the laws of nature are required. And in many universes,
if there’s one universe in which life can exist, it will exist. And
then it will ask itself the question, “Why do I exist?”
The origin of the universe: First of all, let me point out there
are no contradictions within infinities that I know of. No
mathematical contradictions. I don’t like it physically, but it’s
possible. And if it’s true, I’ll have to learn to live with it. I’ll
just have to learn to live with it. I don’t know if it’s true; I’ll
find out. I do repeat, however, unfortunately Dr. Craig, when he
talked about the fact that the wave function is not zero at the
boundaries, is interesting, but the wave function is not a
physical quantity, it’s a mathematical quantity that determines
probabilities. So what it’s saying is the probability of creating a
universe is not zero. Great! That means, the probability that
something will come from nothing is not zero, without God, via
the very example that he used.
The fine-tuning: I wish I could clarify this for Dr. Craig. In
fact, Alan Guth—who he keeps invoking like a mantra—
developed a theory, which is the only theory that we have that
explains—I was going to show you the data—explains all the
data in cosmology. It’s a beautiful theory; it’s called inflation.
It’s a theory that arises naturally, given the laws of particle
physics. And it’s a theory where the entropy of the universe
increases by 1080 in a time frame of 10-35 seconds, naturally,
by known laws of physics. It is, in fact, the way we believe the
current edge of the universe developed because it is so beautiful
and it also explains what we see. There’s no problem creating
entropy. There’s also no problem creating space. There’s no
problem creating energy! You can have a universe with fine
energy get bigger and bigger and bigger because gravity has
something called “negative specific heat” and “negative
pressure.” It’s really weird, but it’s true (whether or not Dr.
Craig likes it or not). Those aspects that he finds peculiar about

our universe are in every way that I know of understandable by
known dynamical, physical processes. Moreover, the universe
we live in is not fine-tuned for life. No one knows that because
we do not know the different kinds of life that can exist.
As for morality, he assumes I assume there is no objective
morality. I’ve never said that. I don’t know where he gets that
idea. But what I do claim is that whether morality is objective
or not is a question for us to determine. An objective morality
does not require God because, in fact, for the reasons I said
earlier, God, if God exists, if there’s objective morality, then
God doesn’t have the freedom to determine the morality, decide
that it’s compassionate and kind. Well, some people think it’s
compassionate and kind to sexually molest and disfigure young
women. It’s compassionate and kind to ensure that they do not
enjoy sex. That’s compassionate and kind. Their God tells them
to do it. O.K.? I think you would agree that we just should get
rid of the middle man and decide what’s compassionate and
kind on the basis of common sense.
As for the resurrection, let me make clear right now, by far,
since all of the evidence, the historical evidence, is determined
by anecdotal eye-witness arguments made by eye-witnesses fifty
years after the fact, it is far more likely that the resurrection is
imagined than real, just as, I think Dr. Craig would argue, it’s
far more likely that Muhammad didn’t rise to heaven on a horse,
but someone said he did, and people believed it. And the fact
that people believe it, the fact that people are willing to die for
it now means nothing, any more than it does than the fact that
people are willing to fly planes into New York because they
believe someone rose on a horse to heaven, and I know Dr.
Craig doesn’t believe that because I’ve heard him. So none of
these arguments that he’s given give evidence for anything
except for a wonderful universe that we are trying to
understand.

Notes
1 Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in
The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-
269.
2 Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-
Wesley, 1982), p. 275.
3 Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um
Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49-
50.
4 Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John
Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press,
1995), p. 8.
5 N. T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity
Today (September 13, 1993), p. 26.
6 G. F. R. Ellis, et al., “Multiverses and Physical Cosmology,”
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305292 (28 August 2003), p. 14.
7 Lawrence Krauss, “A Universe from Nothing,” Atheist
Alliance International, 2009,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=71mv1S8PL1o.
8 Ibid.
9 Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill &
Wang, 2006), p. 176.
10 Lawrence Krauss, “The Great Debate,” Nov. 6, 2010,
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-
debate/lawrence-krauss-2.

11 Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can
Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), p. 46,
citing Donald Symons.
12 Krauss, “The Great Debate.”
13 Ibid.
14 Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, p. 175.
15 Alexander Vilenkin to James Sinclair, 26 October, 2006.
16 James Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in
TheBlackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. Wm. L.
Craig and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p.
176.
17 Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, “The Wave Function of
the Universe,” Physical Review D 28/12 (1983): 2966, 2962; cf.
Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum cosmology and eternal
inflation”, in The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology,
proceedings of the conference in honor of Stephen Hawking's
60th birthday (2002), preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-
qc/0204061.
18 Robin Collins, The Well-Tempered Universe (forthcoming).
19 Ernan McMullin, “Anthropic Explanation in Cosmology,”
paper presented at University of Notre Dame, 2003.
20 See discussion of this and other models in William Lane
Craig and James Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological
Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology,
ed. Wm. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,
2009), pp. 101-201; see further William Lane Craig and James
Sinclair, “On Non-Singular Spacetimes and the Beginning of the

Universe,” in Scientific Approaches to Classical Issues in
Philosophy of Religion, ed. Yujin Nagasawa (London:
Macmillan, forthcoming).
21 Quentin Smith, “The Concept of a Cause of the Universe,”
Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23 (1993) 1-24.
22 Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5.
23 John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument against
Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
24 For an entertaining popular level exposé of this hypothesis,
see Mark Foreman, “Challenging the ZEITGEIST Movie:
Parallelomania on Steroids,” in Come, Let Us Reason, ed. Paul
Copan and William Lane Craig (Nashville: Broadman and
Holman, 2012), pp. 169-185.
25 All five of these arguments are explored in considerable
depth in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed.
Wm. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,
2009). On the contingency argument see Alexander Pruss, “The
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument,” pp. 24-100; on the
beginning of the universe see William Lane Craig and James
Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” pp. 101-201; on
fine-tuning see Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument: An
Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” pp. 202-281;
on the moral argument see Mark D. Linville, “The Moral
Argument,” pp. 391-448; and on the resurrection of Jesus see
Timothy and Lydia McGrew, “The Argument from Miracles: A
Cumulative Case for the Resurrection,” pp. 593-662. As hard as
it may be for the uninitiated to believe, Dr. Krauss has scarcely
scratched the surface of these arguments.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-
debate-at-north-carolina-state-university#ixzz2pMiaSGvB

Is There Evidence For GodWilliam Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krau.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from priestmanmable

More from priestmanmable (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Is There Evidence For GodWilliam Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krau.docx