This is the second debate that William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss had in Australia this past August. This debate topic was about why there is something rather than nothing. Craig used the cosmological argument from contingency to make his case, which I think is a slightly better version of the kalam cosmological argument. They didn't really go into detail over the argument during the discussion, but one thing the contingency argument presupposes is the principle of sufficient reason, which Craig cannot logically prove. He just assumes it. And unfortunately, since Krauss is not a philosopher (and is an outspoken hater of philosophy), he doesn't call Craig out on this. Overall, I think Krauss did a pretty decent job handling the inanity of Craig and his arguments but his ignorance to philosophy and religion weaken him in areas where he could have attacked Craig a lot harder. He at least deserves props just for being able to deal with him for 3 debates in a row.
A few highlights include 29:50 when Craig accuses Krauss of equivocating when it comes to the word "nothing." But Krauss says in his opener that he's using "nothing" to describe the quantum vacuum of empty space that was thought for many years to be absent of anything, and which we now know is actually filled with some 70 percent of the universe in the form of dark energy. A good philosophical argument can be made that it's actually impossible that absolute nothing ever existed, another point Krauss doesn't make because of his ignorance to philosophy. I make that argument here.
At 1:24:30 Lawrence says to Craig that book reviews can be nonsense, like movie reviews, and he is obviously referring to David Albert's critical review of his book A Universe From Nothing, that Craig used in his opening speech. And Craig nods in affirmation.
At 1:25:20 the moderator asks Craig, "How did God decide to create the world if there was no time to make any decisions?" to which Craig replies is an "interesting question." He goes on to expound, "Deciding, isn't necessarily a temporal activity. One can have an intention that isn't the result of a previous state of indecision. So I would say that God exists timelessly with the intention that a physical world exist. And then there's an exercise of this causal power, um, that brings the universe into existence. But we shouldn't think of God as existing, twiddling his thumbs, from eternity and then "deciding" to make a universe. That's not only incompatible with his timelessness, it's incompatible with his omniscience...So, I would say that God simply has a timeless, free intention of the will to do something, and then there's an exercise of causal power to bring the universe into being." In other words, god's intent to create our universe exists eternally and there was never a possibility of our universe not existing, since the intention of creating another universe, or no universe, would also have existed eternally. Krauss unfortunately doesn't bring up any objections to this idea, but I've critiqued it here and here.
At 1:27:45 Craig defines "faith" as believing what you have good reason to think is true.
At 1:28:30 Craig explains his emotional conversion to Christianity. "The idea that the God of the universe could love me, that worm down there on that speck of dust called planet earth just overwhelmed me." This goes to show you how religious belief is largely emotional, not logical. See further critique of this here and here.