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

Message 151As Dr. A showed (in Message 161), Dr. Craig also acted as if he had quoted directly.
Any ambiguity you try to claim exists in Dr. Craig's opening sentence is removed by his actions.

Ok - I'll spell it out... .I don't see any ambiguity in: It is Dr. Craig claiming that he is quoting Dawkins directly. .Only you see ambiguity in that sentence (Message 152): .But any ambiguity you try to claim exists in Dr. Craig's opening sentence is completely removed by his actions.
Dr. Craig acted as if he had quoted Dawkins directly.
(Some of these actions have been described by Dr. A in Message 161.)

(Bolding is mine) You seem to disagree with yourself.{abe} For the third time, I'll answer: Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

then you cannot also say You cannot both not know and know what his intentions are.
This is really very simple. For the fourth time, I'll answer:

To answer your 2nd post: Sentences are interpreted as a whole.
If you break them up or remove parts of them (as Dr. Craig did) they lose their intended meaning.So, to answer your question: Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Is your silence regarding the dishonesty described by Dr. A. (in Message 161) due to you not being able to defend it?

Oh - ok.
I appear to have mis-understood your request.
Thanks for clarifying. Here:

Here's my answer - again: Why should I remember something that is not true?"The ball is red."
Which part of that sentence identifies the ball as red?"The"? No.
"Red"? No.
"The ball"? Nope.
"ball is"? Still nope.
"The ball is red."? Yes! Oh no - I quoted the whole sentence.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

So...you couldn't answer the previous ball question, then?
Too difficult?Here's another for you to try:
"The ball is maroon."
How does the above sentence provide support for the claim that the ball is red?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Your question is nonsensical.
I was hoping that you would have discovered that while attempting to answer my 2nd 'ball' question.Edited by Panda, : typo

The reason that I think that his opening statement indicated that Dr. Craig was quoting directly is because that is what it says.
That is how English works.
You read individual words and you draw meaning from their combination and from their context.
The combination of words and the context in which they were used clearly indicated that Dr. Craig was quoting verbatim.

So, you want me to explain how to read and comprehend written English?Ok - if it's so easy: you try.Explain how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.
Show me how those words, used in that particular order and that specific context do not clearly indicate that Dr. Craig was quoting Dawkins directly.

Not that well, else you would realise I was not commenting on your comprehension of English, but on the impossibility of the task you were demanding of me. .Let's have a look at your explanation of how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim. The sentence does indicate that he intends to quote directly. It does include a lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly. It does have such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on.As I expected, you are unable to explain how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.
I also noticed that you avoided all mention of context.
I suspect that context is not your strong point, judging by your opening sentence and by your general avoidance of the subject. . That is a rather obvious argumentum ad populum.
*looks around and sees no-one supporting Black Cat*
Looks like you're on your own with the not direct quoting nonsense.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Here:

...or gods.