I can imagine he would say that.

I'll try one more time: He didn't say "Proving that someone said "I am God"" He said "Proving that their God said those things" -> now do you see? If we prove that Our God said those things we must prove that He said them. I know you did, and thank you. Sorry for not acknowledging it directly. You gave a nice straightforward answer, which is refreshing and at least you're also engaging in a debate. I just wanted to see if pimpmonkey could do so too. Yep - except that's hardly quoting what was written. In fact, that's exactly the kind of 'summary' that I'm arguing against. You give the 'conclusion' without showing where you got it from. My point was about understanding the meaning from the text.
Not eating swine was probably sensible at the time - diseases can more easily spread from one carnivore/omnivore to another (I'm told, please correct me if I've misunderstood), and pigs are genetically closer to humans than cows. Considering the hot climate, pork can quickly go off. (Just my theory on why it was forbidden) Eating pork was later made 'clean' by Jesus in a vision to Peter.
The quote about tattoos, I believe, is the one dealing with marking your flesh to remember the dead, not tattoos in general. Again, an exact quote would be nice so I can look at the original text.

They would have known nothing about the genetics of well...anything at that time. So I highly doubt that was part of the problem.

Great - sounds logical enough for me. If those are indeed Craig's arguments, then they suggest a logical leap. Of course, I asked you to quote a specific argument from Craig, not Krauss' rebuttal of a general idea of his argument.
No, but God would have - hence telling them not to eat it ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Me8Y-HmRo

Automatically assuming there's a "beginning", thus "god" had to do it. Yet claiming he's not using god of the gaps.

I'd like to thank you for the last couple of posts - made interesting reading and helped settle something in me. And I agree with all that you said.
sadly youtube is blocked here in China (I can sometimes get it to work via a proxy, I'll give it a try later - off to work now).

It's true that gravity will not change behavior, but that is a philosophical truth rather than a scientific one. Science tells us about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, but it does not tell us about whether the future will be like the present. That's like asking if matter exists, are there any limits to the forms that matter can take? Of course it's possible for matter to take the form of a shark riding a unicorn, but contrary to memes, that doesn't invalidate anyone's argument. Logical necessity does not mean possible solution. If an argument has true premises and a valid form, then the conclusion follows through logical necessity. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument

The article explains the problems better than I can, but one problem he has is if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe. Science and faith have never been in conflict with each other. Many of the prominent scientists throughout history were theists who saw studying Creation as as something that confirmed their religious views rather than something that opposed them. The Bible takes God's existence as granted, so the faith it talks about has never been about believing whether or not God exists, but about trusting God. Trust is rational because it relies on using reason to interpret evidence. Science tells us much about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, but it tells us nothing about whether or not we should trust God. Faith always needs an explanation, otherwise there would be no reason why anyone had faith, so apologetics in this area are there to combat this recent illogical misconception of it.

Maxim 24. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a big gun.

He's blatantly misrepresenting Craig's arguments. For instance, in the video that he linked, Craig doesn't assume that the universe had a beginning, but gives scientific evidence for it.

"All I'm using scientific evidence for is empirical support for the second premise that the universe began to exist."

Then what does he fall back on assuming it's true? God.

Go ahead and quote where he assumes God exist.

Well he's a christian, so that's a safe assumption.

/facepalm

The sooner you stop assuming that Christians assume everything, the better.

Case in point, you need to stop making that assumption.