My own comments (which are highlighted in bold) on Craig's first (God is the only explanation for why is there something rather than nothing) argument: (I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. 1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence. The "Principle of Sufficient Reason" which is traditional among philosophers and assumed by many like Leibniz. We would like to think that everything has an explanation, but we don't really know that. (It looks more like a heuristic principle to me.) It obviously turns problematic when we are talking about reality in its entirety. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being. This one looks exceedingly circular, assuming what Craig wants to demonstrate. Here's his justification of it from the Philosophy Now article: "The explanation of the universe can lie only in a transcendent reality beyond it -- beyond space and time --- the existence of which transcendent reality is metaphysically necessary (otherwise its existence would also need explaining). Now there is only one way I can think of to get a contingent entity like the universe from a necessarily existing cause, and that is if the cause is an agent who can freely choose to create the contingent reality. It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of the contingent universe is a transcendent personal being --- which is what everybody means by 'God'." That's very weak in my opinion, based on it being the only thing that Craig can think of (with some assumptions about metaphysical necessity and contingency tossed in). He's not an idiot and no doubt perceives the vulnerability of #2. So he does attempt what may or may not be a better argument for proposition #2 in other writings. Let's assume there is some timeless impersonal explanation for why the entire physical universe exists. (Something like the laws of physics perhaps.) If so, then that explanation for the universe would hold true timelessly and we might (so Craig seemingly thinks) end up with an everlasting universe. There wouldn't be any reason why the universe began with a 'big bang', 13.8 billion years ago. Craig seems to think that making the universe's cause personal and volitional would solve that problem (if it is a problem), since God could have intended (however timelessly) that the universe would start at a particular point. I still think that's pretty weak. But it might arguably highlight a difficulty faced by the Something from Nothing theorists like Lawrence Krauss who try to spin the entire universe out of the seemingly timeless equations of theoretical physics. If the laws of physics are satisfactory explanation for the appearance of a universe, why weren't they just as capable of doing it long before the 'big bang'? (Or for that matter, right now?) 3. The universe is a contingent thing. I'm very much inclined to agree, but once again, we really don't know. 4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being. These conclusions are only as strong as assumptions #1 and #2.