Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Jehanne]

The Universe would just BE.  Read the first paragraph from the article:




In this sense, the Universe is its own cause because even though it is finite, it had no beginning.  Therefore, the Universe is a "necessary entity" with no need for its explanation; even though it is finite, it has always existed.

Your summation make no sense. Our universe is either infinite or finite. 

So, when you didn't get the right answer from Carroll, you moved to Hawkings (with whom Carroll does not agree).

Hawkings uses "imaginary time" in his equations to avoid a singularity. "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities." Brief History of Time, pp. 138-39. 

I could not find an explanation of this strategy, so it appears that the only reason to use this "trick" is to stop the time component of space-time before you get back to the singularity and then declares because there was no time, you can't discuss what was before his "time boundary". That still does nothing to answer the question of where did this prior state come from? And what happened that time started up? 

If you are claiming that this theory (that many cosmologists disagree with) somehow removes the need for an explanation because causality no longer applies before the imaginary time-induced boundary, it is up to you to defend why despite 100% of our observations indicate its truth and science would not exist without it that you are justified to dismiss it when it is inconvenient.

The "explanation" that "God did it, and oh, by the way, god is a 'necessary being' who needs no explanation for his/her/its existence" is, for me at least, no explanation.  I'll go with Hawking over Craig, a communications major from Wheaton College who went on to study biblical history in graduate school.  Professor Hawking is getting old, but he is sticking by his ideas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcTASYcP14

[Jehanne]

There is a fourth absurdity with a timeless god, and that is that god's very existence couldn't have preceded the decision, action, and creation of the universe. Thus, if the universe had a beginning, so did god. If god is eternal, so then the universe. And given that we have evidence of the universe, but zero evidence for god, Occam's razor slices the unnecessary deity out like an unwanted tumor.

Jehanne, Do you see the irony that you are objecting to God based on logic and metaphysics that you want to deny exist when convenient to you?

If timelessness is not an essential, but rather a contingent characteristic of God, God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal. 

Regarding claiming that God can be timeless so why can't the universe be, there is at least one big difference: The universe consist of physical "stuff" that is expanding. It cannot be past eternal.  see here, where Vilenkin concludes, “there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” God does not consist of stuff that is in a state of expansion and therefore had a beginning. 

So, what do you have? You really have evidence of the universe having a beginning which is evidence of a transcendent cause.

You and Craig love to quote cosmologists when they agree with you, but you also love to "cherry-pick" from their ideas.  I already posted this link from Vilenkin:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01819

Vacuum bubbles may nucleate and expand during the inflationary epoch in the early universe. After inflation ends, the bubbles quickly dissipate their kinetic energy; they come to rest with respect to the Hubble flow and eventually form black holes. The fate of the bubble itself depends on the resulting black hole mass. If the mass is smaller than a certain critical value, the bubble collapses to a singularity. Otherwise, the bubble interior inflates, forming a baby universe, which is connected to the exterior FRW region by a wormhole. A similar black hole formation mechanism operates for spherical domain walls nucleating during inflation. As an illustrative example, we studied the black hole mass spectrum in the domain wall scenario, assuming that domain walls interact with matter only gravitationally. Our results indicate that, depending on the model parameters, black holes produced in this scenario can have significant astrophysical effects and can even serve as dark matter or as seeds for supermassive black holes. The mechanism of black hole formation described in this paper is very generic and has important implications for the global structure of the universe. Baby universes inside super-critical black holes inflate eternally and nucleate bubbles of all vacua allowed by the underlying particle physics. The resulting multiverse has a very non-trivial spacetime structure, with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes. If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse.

[Jehanne]

Yeah, I don't know how Steve can claim that god is "timeless" and yet claim that it is absurd to make the same claim about the Universe, that is, it is also "timeless".  For if god is "timeless", then, clearly, there must have been a "time" when god decided to create the Universe (hence, time), but Steve would have us believe that god's decision to create the Universe was simultaneous with god's acting to create the Universe which was simultaneous with the Universe's actual creation.  So, three events all happened at the same time -- deciding, doing and result, and that is absurd!

It seems to me, that here you are both arguing that the universe could be timeless, and that there cannot be something which is timeless.  Could you clarify please?

I see plenty of evidence for the Universe; I see no evidence for a god or god(s); let "God" heal a 1,000 adult amputees of his/her/its own choosing, and then come back to this forum, and we'll talk about me converting to theism.  Until then, completely naturalistic explanations exist for the Universe's origins.

[robvalue]

Yabut you can't prove there isn't magic!? Is that what we're saying? Finding possible gaps to shoe-horn fantasy in to?

I find it shocking every single day to see adults partaking in this.

[GUBU]

From what I can gather Steve's argument (roadrunner doesn't go so far to actually forward an arguments, he just snipes at other posters) is essentially that the universe must have by its nature certain conditions, first that there was a period where it didn't exist (but where time did), second that it was created, third that it was created according to a conscious plan (as all things need these three things), thus god.

However his argument falls apart, because when it comes to god none of these things necessary, he arbitrarily excludes god from the set of "all things" because it creates uncomfortable questions for him, viz "who maketh the maker?" and "is it gods all the way back?"

[SteveII]

Your summation make no sense. Our universe is either infinite or finite. 

So, when you didn't get the right answer from Carroll, you moved to Hawkings (with whom Carroll does not agree).

Hawkings uses "imaginary time" in his equations to avoid a singularity. "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities." Brief History of Time, pp. 138-39. 

I could not find an explanation of this strategy, so it appears that the only reason to use this "trick" is to stop the time component of space-time before you get back to the singularity and then declares because there was no time, you can't discuss what was before his "time boundary". That still does nothing to answer the question of where did this prior state come from? And what happened that time started up? 

If you are claiming that this theory (that many cosmologists disagree with) somehow removes the need for an explanation because causality no longer applies before the imaginary time-induced boundary, it is up to you to defend why despite 100% of our observations indicate its truth and science would not exist without it that you are justified to dismiss it when it is inconvenient.

The "explanation" that "God did it, and oh, by the way, god is a 'necessary being' who needs no explanation for his/her/its existence" is, for me at least, no explanation.  I'll go with Hawking over Craig, a communications major from Wheaton College who went on to study biblical history in graduate school.  Professor Hawking is getting old, but he is sticking by his ideas:

You just won't answer any questions will you? 

I kind of assumed you didn't need an explanation. You really don't want to think past "Dr. Craig is a liar" and his credentials.

[SteveII]

From what I can gather Steve's argument (roadrunner doesn't go so far to actually forward an arguments, he just snipes at other posters) is essentially that the universe must have by its nature certain conditions, first that there was a period where it didn't exist (but where time did), second that it was created, third that it was created according to a conscious plan (as all things need these three things), thus god.

However his argument falls apart, because when it comes to god none of these things necessary, he arbitrarily excludes god from the set of "all things" because it creates uncomfortable questions for him, viz "who maketh the maker?" and "is it gods all the way back?"

You forgot a necessary attribute in your list. Whatever caused the universe (or its predecessor) must have been uncaused to avoid a past infinite regression absurdity. 

That's why the Kalam Argument is phrased "Anything that began to exist must have a cause of it's existence".

[wiploc]

You forgot a necessary attribute in your list. Whatever caused the universe (or its predecessor) must have been uncaused to avoid a past infinite regression absurdity. 

That's why the Kalam Argument is phrased "Anything that began to exist must have a cause of it's existence".

- If things can happen without causes, then we have no need of a creator god.  "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." 

- Since you claim your creator god is eternal, you are not avoiding "a past infinite regression absurdity."

- There is no sense of "begin" for which your god didn't begin but the rest of the universe did.  Therefore--even according to your own logic--if the rest of the universe needs a cause, so does your god.

[Crossless2.0]

From what I can gather Steve's argument (roadrunner doesn't go so far to actually forward an arguments, he just snipes at other posters) is essentially that the universe must have by its nature certain conditions, first that there was a period where it didn't exist (but where time did), second that it was created, third that it was created according to a conscious plan (as all things need these three things), thus god.

However his argument falls apart, because when it comes to god none of these things necessary, he arbitrarily excludes god from the set of "all things" because it creates uncomfortable questions for him, viz "who maketh the maker?" and "is it gods all the way back?"

You forgot a necessary attribute in your list. Whatever caused the universe (or its predecessor) must have been uncaused to avoid a past infinite regression absurdity. 

That's why the Kalam Argument is phrased "Anything that began to exist must have a cause of it's existence".

Yes, 'things' (or ideas) that began to exist, such as the Canaanite El/Yahweh. Or are you willing to make the case that your pet god is the very same as the philosophical uncaused cause you are arguing for?

If not, why not? After all, this is the Christianity sub-forum. Connect the dots for us.

[GUBU]

From what I can gather Steve's argument (roadrunner doesn't go so far to actually forward an arguments, he just snipes at other posters) is essentially that the universe must have by its nature certain conditions, first that there was a period where it didn't exist (but where time did), second that it was created, third that it was created according to a conscious plan (as all things need these three things), thus god.

However his argument falls apart, because when it comes to god none of these things necessary, he arbitrarily excludes god from the set of "all things" because it creates uncomfortable questions for him, viz "who maketh the maker?" and "is it gods all the way back?"

You forgot a necessary attribute in your list. Whatever caused the universe (or its predecessor) must have been uncaused to avoid a past infinite regression absurdity. 

That's why the Kalam Argument is phrased "Anything that began to exist must have a cause of it's existence".

If everything has to have a cause, then the "cause" of the universe also has to have a cause to be counted within the set of everything. That is the giant hole at the centre of the Kalam bullshittery (which is frankly a restatement of Aquinas for idiots who think updating the language used in an argument will cause it to be seen as a new argument which hasn't previously been refuted).

Either god himself has a cause, or else he is no thing (i.e. he cannot exist by definition), using Kalam.

Idiot.