Cap'n Pigeon,
How can physics have anything to say about something coming from nothing? But were not talking about physics here are we Hillside? no....we are talking about your darling Lawrence Krauss and his bowl of pedigree chum.
Yet again, physics says a lot about
possible answers - they're called conjectures or hypotheses. These conjectures and hypotheses may or may not turn out to be correct if and when the methods and tools of physics ever develop sufficiently to verify them. You're basically someone pre-Einstein saying, "Newtonian physics can't explain the very large and the very small, therefore elves".
Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer,
still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".
The necessary entity does not need or have any external explanation.
If you're relying on magic for your method,
any wild guess doesn't need
anything - it's all white noise.
Please provide then what it is in or about the universe which fulfils that criteria. Lane Craig at least has a magician in his scheme.
WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes?
As for plausible alternatives stop offering contingent entities which are contingent on themselves or anything in nature. Stop turdpolishing the shiteings of Krauss. Stop supporting the ''there may not be a necessary entity'' bollocks of Nearly Sane.
Just repeating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. You do realise that right?
So, just to be clear - do you have anything other than, "currently we don't have a scientific answer, therefore magic" to offer?
It's ok, you can say "no" if you like. We all know that's all you have in any case.
