Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Edwardo Piet]

What the fuck are you doing?

[Cyberman]

Again for the record, I am not an atheist because of "feelings, influence, or personal experiences" nor because I have "been assured by others this is the intelligent thing to do". And it's certainly not because of how ridiculous theist apologists make themselves look in public. My atheism stems from not finding the theistic position credible or convincing. All the other stuff simply happens to align with my position, often beautifully so. However, I am always open to be convinced. All I require is the same basic credible evidence that anyone would need in order to be convinced about the existence of a rock, or anything else. If all that you can offer me is the same kind of tapdancing that goes with any sales pitch, you'll have to forgive me for having better things to do with my time.

[SteveII]

Again for the record, I am not an atheist because of "feelings, influence, or personal experiences" nor because I  have "been assured by others this is the intelligent thing to do". And it's certainly not because of how ridiculous theist apologists make themselves look in public. My atheism stems from not finding the theistic position credible or convincing. All the other stuff simply happens to align with my position, often beautifully so. However, I am always open to be convinced. All I require is the same basic credible evidence that anyone would need in order to be convinced about the existence of a rock, or anything else. If all that you can offer me is the same kind of tapdancing that goes with any sales pitch, you'll have to forgive me for having better things to do with my time.

Fair enough. It is usually not a logical argument that makes someone believe in Christianity, it is most often the person of Jesus and the message of the NT. This thread is tired. Why don't you start another?

[Time Traveler]

You missed the qualifier in the sentence preceding the quote: "prior to the universe".

I've ever only been talking about the absurdity of your notion regarding a timeless God existing "prior to the universe." I don't care what you think he did or didn't do after he supposedly created everything for purposes of this discussion.

Your objection is that there was no time in order to change from this state into creating the universe. Why is it not possible, that God, after existing timelessly created the universe--which would be a mental event causally prior to the universe taking shape?

I've already addressed this in my thread on "Timelessness"...

So to exist “timelessly” prior to the creation of the universe based upon an A-theory of time, God would not have a past, nor a future, only an eternal, unchanging “now.” This begs the question of how an unchanging, timeless being can do anything? Some theists want to imagine that God first existed prior to creating the universe, then created the universe (including, ironically, time itself). This is having their cake and eating it too.

Try to follow: You can't have change in a completely timeless reality. Note the self-contradicting highlighted words in your question, "Why is it not possible, that God, after existing timelessly created the universe--which would be a mental event causally prior to the universe taking shape?" This leads to questions you clearly cannot answer, such as, How long was God timeless for prior to creating the universe?

Alternatively, why isn't it possible that God causing the event was simultaneous with the effect (since it was only efficient causation--not material causation)?

I'll again quote myself...

Others imagine God existing, considering, deciding, and creating the universe all at the same instant the universe came into being. But this implies God never existed prior to the universe, and thus if the universe had a beginning, so did God; or if God is eternal, so then the universe.

So, in this scenario, did God have a beginning? Or is the universe actually infinite and eternal? And the simple fact that you consider both of these possibilities in your overall question suggests you don't know which, if either, is correct for your own God!

In response to your general statement...

I realize I am not going to convince any of you that God exists.

If only God would do his own convincing and come out of hiding, he could clear all this right up.

What some are not getting is that these questions are not new. They have been answered extensively. There is no coherent argument you can raise that has not been addressed....

No one said these questions are new. Yes, apologists attempt to answer them "extensively" - but this doesn't prove their validity. However, I believe you are wrong... there is room for new arguments which have not been addressed. I believe I've come up with a few myself on this forum which I haven't encountered elsewhere. Clearly, your struggles to find ready-made answers leave you floundering with contradictory statements and "what ifs." Keep in mind, every argument that can be made for the Christian god can be made for any god or powerful supernatural universe creating being, including magic pixies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And whatever your particular faith, you can be assured that other apologists address and soundly refute many of your beliefs from other denominations or religions. That's why, given all the conjecture, speculation, and madness, humans should rely on objective, reliable evidence before being convinced of any supernatural claims.

Steve, I truly hope that you can at least admit to yourself that you don't really know how your God could actually accomplish all you've insisted, and honestly question your own internal inconsistencies. Theists become atheists not because God abandons them, but because the absurdities of all those irrational data points you mention finally shatters their cognitive dissonance.

[Cyberman]

Fair enough. It is usually not a logical argument that makes someone believe in Christianity, it is most often the person of Jesus and the message of the NT.

Great - demonstrate the validity of that, give me something to chew on, and maybe we've got a discussion.

This thread is tired. Why don't you start another?

I have nothing else I want to say right now.

[Simon Moon]

I realize I am not going to convince any of you that God exists. What I am doing is pointing out that the typical objections for God existing are not very good ones and certainly don't rise to the point of "God is a ridiculous notion".

You actually could convince me.

All you have to do is provide me with: demonstrable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support your claim that a god exists.

It is beyond me how someone could accept something as being true, without the above criteria being met.

[robvalue]

I still don't get all this amazing effort to try and prove the existence of God. It's kind of like being obsessed with proving you really do have a wife, and you're not just pretending to have one. Even if you succeed... so what? People won't think you're crazy?

Is that what theists are doing here? Trying to convince us they're not crazy? That they're not just talking to themself? Maybe that's it.

I know some theists are here to genuinely engage us as people, and that's very different. The majority though just seem on a mission to justify their own position (hey that rhymed) as if the existence of atheists is some sort of affront to it.

I'm much more interested in why I should even care, and no one can seem to give me a good answer to that. I'm also surprised people aren't more concerned that this "God" needs their help in order to convince people it's actually real.

[Angrboda]

The following are general observations and not specifically aimed at one person.

I realize I am not going to convince any of you that God exists. What I am doing is pointing out that the typical objections for God existing are not very good ones and certainly don't rise to the point of "God is a ridiculous notion".

Just as some have pointed out, I don't believe in God because of the KCA or some other bit of natural theology. This is support for the direct revelation and personal revelation from God (the Bible and personal relationship respectively).

I think in a similar way, many (not all) atheist don't believe in God because of an argument or premise in some syllogism. They just reject the whole ball of wax, often based on feelings, influence, or personal experiences, and they have been assured by others this is the intelligent thing to do. They have been told that Christians don't have answers to x y and z, and therefore their belief is unfounded and ignorant. You can see from dozens and dozens of posts in this very thread that that seems to be the case.

What some are not getting is that these questions are not new. They have been answered extensively. There is no coherent argument you can raise that has not been addressed. In some cases, the answer to a particular question is not certain (ranging from possible to probable). That is to be expected. Christianity does not hang on a single data point. It is a very complex system blending revealed, natural, and systematic theology. It is a cumulative case with thousands of data points. You should not think that because you can trip up a Christian who is not prepared to defend all of the facets of that system, that that means anything other than that person is unprepared.

While, it is fun to discuss these questions and probe each other's abilities to articulate a point, the result will never be cut and dried--case closed. Belief in God is not irrational and the concept of God is not ridiculous no matter how many times (or ways) you are willing to type it.

What a crock. The old, there are arguments, I just don't have them with me dodge. This is nothing more than a strategic retreat, followed by hollow assertions.

[KevinM1]

I have to give credit where it's due. At the very least, Steve seems genuinely interested in improving his apologetics game. Yeah, it's mostly by regurgitating WLC, but that's still an improvement from where he was last year. The progress he's made in his presentation puts him above some of the other theists on here who are either completely reprehensible or interested more in petty one-upmanship than anything else.

I mean, I don't find anything he's written to be convincing, but at least he seems to be trying to put some real thought into it. I consider that refreshing compared to what we usually get.

[SteveII]

What a crock.  The old, there are arguments, I just don't have them with me dodge.  This is nothing more than a strategic retreat, followed by hollow assertions.

I'm sorry that's all you got from that. I will engage on any topic you want.