Dr Craig is a liar?

Yup.

But at least he's not a lair.

What! I was about to post the exact same thing

(April 14, 2016 at 1:51 pm)LostLocke Wrote: I was only arguing about the use of the word 'nothing'. It was others who were talking about a 'universe from nothing'.

Where does gold come from?

(April 14, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 11:09 am)SteveII Wrote: I have read the transcript. You made a  statement "Craig does not understand general relativity nor quantum cosmology nor has he ever published any paper in any physics journal." To prove your point, please highlight what specific point or topic you think he missed.

Craig has not published any papers in General Relativity or Quantum Gravity; he is not an authority on cosmology.  He is trapped in an Aristotelian mindset, as are, apparently, you.

So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

Whining and stomping your feet that he is not a cosmologist does nothing for your conclusion. Have you bothered to look at the bibliography? WLC has written extensively on this very subject in dozens of secular scholarly journals.  He knows more than you will ever know (which obviously is very little since you make this ridiculous claim over and over).

(April 14, 2016 at 6:57 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 4:54 pm)SteveII Wrote: You would have the problem of the infinitude of past series of events is illogical.

This is your Aristotelian mindset at work.  Read the paper whose link I posted, now two days old:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03580

Physicists do not reject "actual infinities".

A couple of things. The multiverse hypothesis does not avoid a beginning. The multiverse is inflationary and must have a boundary at some time in the past.

Don't confuse actual infinity with potential infinity. You can always add  1 more and you never get to infinity.

(April 14, 2016 at 11:08 pm)Evie Wrote: Dr Craig is a liar?

Yup.

But at least he's not a lair.

Except no one showed he was remotely lying about anything. Oh, wait. It's okay to make and then accept statements like that if as long as we aim them at the hated WLC.

(April 14, 2016 at 2:08 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 4:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: zero, 1, or any number.

So...

Are you admitting that there are more than one possible thing in the set of things that did not begin to exist?

I was under the impression, considering the argument you are making, that your god is the only thing that did not begin to exist.

I am doing no such thing. I believe there is only one God but that does not follow from this argument (you asked about how many things can be in a set of uncaused things).

(April 15, 2016 at 6:26 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 6:57 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This is your Aristotelian mindset at work.  Read the paper whose link I posted, now two days old:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03580

Physicists do not reject "actual infinities".

A couple of things. The multiverse hypothesis does not avoid a beginning. The multiverse is inflationary and must have a boundary at some time in the past.

Don't confuse actual infinity with potential infinity. You can always add  1 more and you never get to infinity.

This is NOT the viewpoint of modern physicists and/or cosmologists who hold to actual infinities being a physical possibility.  Both Craig and you are wrong on this point.  You can listen to Sean Carroll discuss actual infinities, both in space and in time, right here:

http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor...ll/profile

(April 15, 2016 at 6:09 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Craig has not published any papers in General Relativity or Quantum Gravity; he is not an authority on cosmology.  He is trapped in an Aristotelian mindset, as are, apparently, you.

So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

Whining and stomping your feet that he is not a cosmologist does nothing for your conclusion. Have you bothered to look at the bibliography? WLC has written extensively on this very subject in dozens of secular scholarly journals.  He knows more than you will ever know (which obviously is very little since you make this ridiculous claim over and over).

Look at his curriculum vitae -- Craig received a BA in Communications from Wheaton College and then went on to study Biblical theology and history in graduate school.  I don't think the man has taken a single physics class during his entire college education.

(April 15, 2016 at 6:42 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 6:09 am)SteveII Wrote: So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

Whining and stomping your feet that he is not a cosmologist does nothing for your conclusion. Have you bothered to look at the bibliography? WLC has written extensively on this very subject in dozens of secular scholarly journals.  He knows more than you will ever know (which obviously is very little since you make this ridiculous claim over and over).

Look at his curriculum vitae -- Craig received a BA in Communications from Wheaton College and then went on to study Biblical theology and history in graduate school.  I don't think the man has taken a single physics class during his entire college education.

Still stomping your feet? 

Craig has a BA, MA, PhD and D.Theo. His BA and MA were at religions schools. Both of his doctorates were at well-respected secular European institutions. A PhD is a doctorate of philosophy. He published several books and dozens of articles on the Kalam alone in peer reviewed secular journals. A big part of the Kalam is a thorough review of cosmological theories. 

Again, you are spouting nonsense. Cut and paste something that supports your case that he does not know the science or the math behind his premises.