The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?

This wins my vote. Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?
A: There isn't.

Could you please link to the page where he says this, and not to a page where he mis-quote-mines Richard Dawkins.

Wow.
You can't even respond to a whole sentence.The Mis-Quote-Mining is the part that Dr. Craig claims is summarised by Richard Dawkins.
All of it.But this is off topic.Edited by Panda, : typo

I have The God Delusion in front of me.
Which part would you like me to show you?{abe}
The God DelusionIt also looks like Dr. Craig ripped most of the post from R.C. Metcalf.
So he is also a plagiarist.It makes you proud to be a christian, doesn't it.{abe} The part written by Richard Dawkins makes sense when it hasn't been quoted out of context.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

These are the answers to the questions: "Who are you?" and: "Have you changed?".Now try answering: "Why was there something rather than nothing?".

I am sure that you are unique in knowing what the fuck you are talking about.What is the second alphabet?
What are we backtracking along?
What A are you referring to?
What is barring the A?
What is barred from the A?
How is the A elusive?
What is the A eluding?
What is the forbidden apple metaphor?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I thought I made it clear with the questions I provided.
If you answer them, it will go a long way to ending my confusion.What is the second alphabet?
What are we backtracking along?
What A are you referring to?
What is barring the A?
What is barred from the A?
How is the A elusive?
What is the A eluding?
What is the forbidden apple metaphor?

Alphabet does not mean what you think it means.
What is your native language? I do not think you understand half of the words you use.
Talking to you is pointless - you do not speak English.

If you had actually clicked on Frako's link rather than going off the deep end, then you could have avoided looking quite so stupid.

I gave your post a rating of 5.
All of it made sense - most of it I agreed with.Please continue to produce such clear and cogent arguments.
(No sarcasm intended.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Doctor Craig was not summarising Dawkins.
Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly:

quote:

---

On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:

---

That was a lie. It distorted what Dawkins had written by claiming it was what Dawkins had written, while it was in fact not what Dawkins had written.
This should not be difficult to understand.
If you claim that someone said something that they didn't say - then that is mis-quoting. It is lying. No. It is because he included the words "On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes" - and then proceeds to make up what Dawkins had actually written.

You can't have it both ways.
Either the list is a direct quote from Dawkins' book or Dr. Craig is attacking a straw-man argument which he fabricated himself.{abe}

quote:

---

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements.

---

This shows the level of deceit.
Dr. Craig is criticising his own mis-quotes as if they are Dawkins' own words.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Is that all he did?
Really?
Let us compare and contrast, shall we?
Then we will see if all he did was replace 3 words... Seems that you might have been wrong about what Dr. Craig replaced.
Let's look at another... Wow! Dr. Craig has replaced and removed dozens of words.
How did you not know this?I am starting to think that you have no knowledge of what Dawkins actually wrote.
Or maybe you support mis-quoting people out of context?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I didn't claim that he did intend to quote Dawkins diectly.
In fact, I strongly suspect that he had every intention of mis-quoting Dawkins.
But, if he was going to argue against the summary then he should have quoted it directly. His summary of Dawkin's summary is not accurate. That can easily be seen from the quotes I provided. Correct.
But he is obligated to not mis-quote and not quote-mine.So, to summarise:
Dr. Craig has an ambiguous and misleading opening sentence.
He takes single sentences out of context.
He changes the wording of those sentences.
He argues against those sentences as if they are actually what Richard Dawkins had written.If he was being honest he would have simply posted the complete summary - there is no reason not to.
I think he is simply lying for god.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This is a statement about the intentions of Dr. Craig. You can see this from the use of the word 'intend'. This is a statement about what Dr. Craig actually did.-It is no surprise that you think that Dr. Craig's summary of Dawkin's list is accurate: your grasp of English is not good enough to know any better.I also notice that you have been unable to argue against Dr. A's detailed description of some of Dr. Craig's deceit (Message 161).Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.