But I don’t blame him entirely. The title was too imprecise. The title itself fluctuated between: ”WHEN is there evidence for God?“ and ”Is there evidence for God?“, and then there was it’s misunderstood version of: ”Does God exist?”. When I see ”WHEN is there evidence for God?”, there are two possibile meanings:

1. «in the SUBJUNCTIVE mood» WERE God to exist, then WHAT WOULD constitute Evidence for Him (or possibly: for this, namely His Existence).

2. «in DIRECT speech» In our reality as we in fact can access, what DOES constitute Evidence for God bzw. God’s Existence.

Within these (in particular 2, but also for 1), there are further two possible Intentions by the word Evidence:

a. Evidence that pushes the Affirmation (of God or His Existence) forward.
b. Evidence that compels the Affirmation to be accepted.

Sigh. I really wish they had made both the meaning of the Debate Topic, and the Intention and the Purpose at the start very clear.

Anyway, some observations.

Dr. Craig:
very clear on his intentions. Gave some arguments a weak treatment (namely the Nonexistence of infinite Amounts). Failed to take the opportunity to discuss Cause and Effect which seemed to be an Issue in this Debate (namely discussing the coming into being from nothingness): being a masterful Philosopher, he could have expounded on Aristotle’s work. He could have also really expounded on distinctions (as he in his written work and on other occasions does), e.g. distinguishing structural/phenomenological understanding and a framework within with to do this — so as to really put out the fire of Krauss’ confused (I mean this in the technical sense of the word ‚confuse‘) attack on logical+systematic Inconsistencies in Reasoning and phenomenological Paradoxes. Craig would have been excellent at doing something like this. Anway, aside from these “Neglects”, so to speak, I found his overall Debate of a very high standard and very focussed.

Dr. Krauss:
Was very unfocussed. Which, I guess I can’t blame him, since, being the enthused Physics Professor that he is, he is bound to go off on tangents; nevertheless these tangents (and lack of global-coherence and orderliness in his macro-argumentative Exposition) really damaged his Presentation. Many of us are like this too, so I shouldn’t launch an attack on him here. (At any rate, this post itself suffers from the same Problems!) So style aside, let me go to content.
* Krauss had a kernel of something good. Theist must not be lazy and use God-of-Gaps. Rather they (and every Explainer!, not just Theists) must provide a positive explanation of how it works. He also had something good, by saying the probabilistic Aspect is not satisfactory. Excellent stuff! I wish he had explained why. Though I think that the decision to brush this off, is not so easy, since there certainly is something worthy of consideration to the very-well-formulated criterion presented by Craig: that “Pr(G : E&B) > Pr(G : B) implies E constitutes (in the sense of a. above) Evidence for God”. Nevertheless, Krauss could here have explained in more detail that, although this is noteworthy, this still leaves us with a doubt, because we have merely empirically measured something. We haven’t used the EVIDENCE to provide a CAUSAL / PHENOMENOLOGICAL explanation to the WHY God exists. (But I think Craig did try to provide an explanation in the case of Resurrection… but not in Universe-Creation)
* Krauss says one can’t use Probabilities at any rate in the case of these Arguments for God. Well, I think it’s not so clear cut. Yeah I agree with him: something narks me when I hear Philosophers speaking of such and such a probability (since we think: how are they calculating these?? There’s no numbers!!). But that’s only prima facie, and anyone who continues this line of attack is really missing the substance — and I think there is something substantial to what one says when one talks probabilities — why? Because they aren’t claiming to be able to calculate fixed numbers, but rather are looking a the diagramme of Statements (partially) ordered by relevance and their probabilities. Perhaps Philosophers have made a mistake, by speaking of of this such an empirical aspect: but you have to excuse the Philsophers, since they merely use what is available to them in terms of Tools, and it is our fault as Mathematicians (I’m a Mathematician) that we present only this Tool. For the Philosopher REALLY is not discussing Probabilities, against which Krauss launches his invalid, but rather a metaphysical POTENTIALITY for occurrence. In terms of Phenomena, we CAN talk about the POTENTIAL increasing (it’s just easier to say Probability), by discussing via argument the “likeliness” (in terms of sufficient causal power) of events.
* As in the above discussion of Craig, Krauss confuses a breakdown of logical coherency with a break down of intuition about Phenomenon. Logic NEVER breaks, only our physical intuitions break and need reformulation — and no wonder, since the substantial Content of Physics (and also of Mathematics) is based on Axioms/Principles which we hypothesise to hold true of objects/the World, and thus, is subject to refutation. Whereas Logic is just how truth works. One can here argue: but Logicians are always at work on new Logics. Sure. Granted. But that misses the point. A Logical Calculus is a System established to assess the validity of ARGUMENTS. Whereas a phenomenological understanding (e.g. Physics) is a body of Knowledge to try to understand PHENOMENON/REALITY. In something like Physics, principles are declared/hypothesised. But reasoning is always conducted using Logic(+Mathematics). Natural Scientists (and people from other Fields) seem to consistently attack Philosphers, Logicians and Mathematicians in this respect: they consistently mistake Paradoxes in their Field for a Breakdown of Logic. No no no, my friends. Phenomenological Paradoxes merely mean, you have to reform your phenomenological Intuitions, NOT Logic, Reason and valid Argumentation. In these Theist-Atheist Debates, this attack is launched fallaciously to undermine Christians who are “too logical/rational” (but when is THAT ever a problem?!). It’s shameful really: the Atheist notices the argumentative style is really watertight, but because it is disagreeable, they try to change the grounds of good argumentation.
* Krauss contradicts himself in saying “[don't withdraw to Gaps and mystically fill these in with an explanation that fits your Ends]“, and then himself withdrawing to Gaps (lack of knowledge of the Origin of the Universe), and filling it in with the fantastical (albeit appealing – I have to say it appeals to me too!) hypothesis that there is simply more nature: a Multi-verse, which is perfectly-crafted to suit the ends of Naturalism. (Although I love the Multi-verse idea, and toy with it myself, I would be unjustified in appealing to it in so formal a discourse.)
* My final problem with Krauss in this Debate, was that he contradicts himself on the issue of Causality. He first says “[don't be lazy, look for explanations]“. Then applies double-standards and says “[oh, … there might not be an explanation for certain events/beings — they just happen to occur.]“. He is better off sticking to the first count (as a Natural Scientist). And here Craig should have piped up with Aristotle’s discussion of the concept of Accidence! — wherein Aristotle says that, yes, some things just happen to be, BUT that there is always a causal explanation for these Happenstances. If Krauss REALLY wanted to do away with Craig’s line of attack, he really should have presented a coherent model of multi-reality wherein every value for aspects, and every set of rules are possible. (Though, unfortunately, this would be tangential to addressing the topic of the Debate — for the point to to try to look in our commonly-accepted reality and see what constitutes evidence.). He sort of did this, but it was too sloppy. He simply STATED (like a blind hoping Faith) properties of a Multiverse, instead of ARGUING for these.

Finally, Dr. Krauss says something good in his talk: we should conform what we accept as true, to what the evidence says. Thus implore the ancient Greeks: we must follow evidence where it leads us, wherever that may be. I have to say, I have only found Prof. Arif Ahmed to adhere to this imperative from the Atheist side. He seriously considers the evidence for God/Resurrection. (Here I mean evidence in the sense of a. above, not of b., since the Evidence is something noteworthy, but itself might not be enough to convince.)

I disagree with the assertion that Arminians are “1 point Calvinists.” The key word in the previous comments is *consistent* Arminian. Arminius upheld Total Depravity in speech, but he did not in practice, nor have Arminians ever, for they reject the necessary implications of the doctrine. The insertion of prevenient grace to cover the problem of total depravity means that Arminianism, at the very most, affirms total depravity only in theory.

“Tiny Hands” is a song I wrote and recorded all in a single day after praying that God would give me a song to help save the lives of babies. You may download it for free here:http://reflectworship.com/2011/03/song-story-tiny-hands/

Thanks, Daniel