1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Craig says that “…if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything does not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Why do bicycles and Beethoven and root beer not pop into being from nothing?” (p. 186, Craig & Moreland, 2009).
But is it really all of that to deny that everything that begins to exist has a cause? Perhaps an objector could hold that nearly everything that begins to exist has a cause. Perhaps there is exactly one thing that began to exist, but without cause. Perhaps the universe as a whole is the counterexample.
Let me try to put this more formally. To deny (1) is to assert ~(1), or:
(It is not the case that) (everything that begins to exist has a cause.)
Which is equivalent to affirming that there is at least one thing that began to exist without a cause. However Craig seems to accuse everyone who holds ~(1) of holding:
(2) Everything that begins to exist could come into existence without a cause.
But ~(1) ≉ (2).
Unless Craig can cough up an argument for why accepting that there is at least one thing that begins to exist without a cause logically leads to the proposition that anything could come into being without cause, I think he commits a straw man fallacy here.
Naturally I agree with (1), but I am beginning to think the rhetoric he offers up in support of it might be in need of some reform.