Ah, so he's either a fool or a blatant liar. Because the Big Bang proves no such thing, and i already demonstrated it. To reiterate for those too stupid to read:Channel72 wrote:For those unfamiliar with Craig's arguments, he specifically cites Big Bang theory as validating his premise that the Universe has a beginning. So Craig is not committing any form of special pleading when he says the Universe requires an external cause. All he's saying is that some things require an external cause, some things don't - and science proves the Universe is among the set of things which require an external cause.
The Big Bang is actually NOT the beginning of the universe. Beginning implies a linear passage of time, and due to being a massive singularity the universe before the Big Bang was not subjected to the passage of time. The Singularity from which the Big Bang originated did by definition not have a beginning, since it sat there for all eternity (not difficult if no time passes).
So here is your attack on your premise: You are blatantly wrong about the thing you are arguing about.
*As usually presented, including in this instance. Of course you can actually state premise 0 - that doesn't increase the arguments validity, but you're not a lying jackass if you do so.