Dr. Craig is a liar.

[GrandizerII]

SteveII still doesn't want to accept how his God hypothesis suffers from either "something from nothing" problem or "infinite regression of thoughts".

There is no infinite regression of thoughts. We have already discussed this many pages back.

So it's the other one then.

I can't keep up with every apologist's view of God's state "prior to" creation. So it's either this or that, neither which solves anything.

[Jehanne]

SteveII still doesn't want to accept how his God hypothesis suffers from either "something from nothing" problem or "infinite regression of thoughts".

There is no infinite regression of thoughts. We have already discussed this many pages back.

So, "god" does not think then?  If the set of natural numbers is an actual infinite set, does "god" have an infinite number of thoughts?  Or, is there a natural number so great that "god" can no longer think about it?

[GUBU]

Steve we are here because we satisfy the constraints imposed by the universe, not because god wants us to appreciate his handiwork (which, if it were so, would be decidedly half arsed). Your reasoning is backwards the universe doesn't exist for us, we exist because conditions allow us to.

As regards god revealing himself, you have not shown one iota of evidence to support this. If your god revealed himself through the bible it would a) accurately describe the universe an all its contents (not even close) and b) be the only holy book. You have no satisfactory to show your god exists, that is why you hate scientific method.

Steve, what abot this post? It needs a response, not because I posterd it, but because it kills your argument stone dead.

[robvalue]

People who make money from bullshit alternative medicines also hate the scientific method.

People who have nothing to hide welcome it.

[Angrboda]

---

It's easy to see why natural preconditions are relevant to any naturalistic explanation of the creation of the universe.  It's less clear why the pre-existence of a supernatural being leads to that creation without plenty of ad hoc assumptions.

---

Explanatory power is a measure of how well we understand the phenomena from the explanation.  Saying that a car "burns gas" to make it go does not have as much explanatory power as a detailed examination of the workings of a typical internal combustion engine.



The notion of "goddidit" doesn't provide any real detail on the how of it.  The process remains as much of a mystery after the explanation as before it.

---

Predictiveness is the ability of a hypothesis to generate novel predictions about the phenomena.  Einstein's relativity has generated numerous predictions which can be tested against the natural world.  The hypothesis of "Goddidit" doesn't really generate any predictions about what we should observe about either the material or non-material world.

Sorry for the delay. Busy couple of days. Your posts are among the most thoughtful so they are often the ones that take the longest to respond to with equal thought. 

Regarding scientific explanation, the lack of naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe is the problem. Of course a naturalistic explanation is preferred. I firmly believe in methodological naturalism. It is the argument that that no longer becomes possible when discussing an explanation of the universe. While a material and efficient cause is preferred, it seems we are stuck considering only an efficient cause.

We aren't stuck considering only an efficient cause. It's simply that a suitable material cause hasn't been proposed. That doesn't mean we are hopelessly prevented from investigating the potential of a material explanation to suffice.

When you say ad hoc assumptions, are you referring to why there cannot be an infinite regression of past events? If you want to deny that premise, you can do that, but it is not a defeater for what is held as a metaphysical truth.

No, when I say ad hoc assumptions I am referring to the properties and qualities of God which are pulled out of thin air solely in order to justify the hypothesis. Things like God being timeless and immaterial, and him having motives for creating the universe. These aren't pulled from nature and so as part of an explanation of the cause of nature they are ad hoc. I could just as easily postulate a different set of assumptions with no real reason to deny them. 

Regarding explanatory power, I think you are forgetting we are talking metaphysics and not lab experiments. The KCA is an inductive argument, and as such the premises are providing strong evidence for the conclusion in a probabilistic sense. In contrast, a deductive argument would be certain.  In addition, when discussing explanatory power, you are usually comparing two or more theories. When you compare God creating the universe to "I don't know", I would say that the God hypothesis is superior--especially since there are no logical errors in the argument.

Logical arguments and logical explanations are two different things. You're conflating one with the other. The fact that there are metaphysical arguments which may point toward God being a necessary assumption does nothing to enhance the quality of that explanation in terms of explanatory power. If all you mean to say is, "It's magic, so it doesn't have to explain anything" then I think you've lost before you've started. Metaphysical concepts have to explain, too. And when they don't, it is regarded as a failure. Regardless, this is just an attempt to exclude God from the same consideration that other hypotheses have to face. And it fails.

Regarding predictiveness, there are at least a couple of things we should expect to see if God created the universe:
1) There would have been a reason for the effort. The fact that we are here would be a key reason. A possible world where God created a universe without any sentient beings to appreciate it would not make much sense. 

That's a prediction? That's a thoroughly ad hoc explanation of his motives. He might just as easily have created the universe because He enjoyed fusing helium, or for no reason at all. Your 'prediction' doesn't follow from the hypothesis in any logical way.

2) He would reveal himself in some way (which he did). It would not make sense for God to create the universe and then remain hidden.

This is speculation until you can demonstrate that it was 'He' who did the revealing, as opposed to a bunch of fallible humans making stuff up. You can't count a prediction as confirmed if you can't in fact confirm it. That's elementary.

I must say that if those are all the 'predictions' the God hypothesis makes, then my complaint that it is a poor explanation seems justified.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm fairly certain that the KCA is not a logically sound argument. Anyone with more experience in that arena care to weight in? I'll have to go take another look at it myself.

Steve, how does a being exist timelessly? And secondly, how can a being have a conscious, temporal thought while in a timeless state? Can you please be more specific in regards to your proposed mechanism? And, as always, don't forget to provide supporting evidence for your assumptions.

[LadyForCamus]

Those things are never a problem when you can use magic as an explanation.

Dude, if only I could have used that method of solving equations in high school, I might have passed my calculous class!



(The joke here is in the notion that I ever made it even CLOSE to calculous. [emoji53])

[SteveII]

Sorry for the delay. Busy couple of days. Your posts are among the most thoughtful so they are often the ones that take the longest to respond to with equal thought. 

Regarding scientific explanation, the lack of naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe is the problem. Of course a naturalistic explanation is preferred. I firmly believe in methodological naturalism. It is the argument that that no longer becomes possible when discussing an explanation of the universe. While a material and efficient cause is preferred, it seems we are stuck considering only an efficient cause.

We aren't stuck considering only an efficient cause.  It's simply that a suitable material cause hasn't been proposed.  That doesn't mean we are hopelessly prevented from investigating the potential of a material explanation to suffice.

When you say ad hoc assumptions, are you referring to why there cannot be an infinite regression of past events? If you want to deny that premise, you can do that, but it is not a defeater for what is held as a metaphysical truth.

No, when I say ad hoc assumptions I am referring to the properties and qualities of God which are pulled out of thin air solely in order to justify the hypothesis.  Things like God being timeless and immaterial, and him having motives for creating the universe.  These aren't pulled from nature and so as part of an explanation of the cause of nature they are ad hoc.  I could just as easily postulate a different set of assumptions with no real reason to deny them. 

Then you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. There was no nature to pull attributes of an uncaused cause from. I keep hearing this claim about we can postulate a different set of assumptions or attributes. Go ahead, postulate a different set of attributes that are only drawn from what metaphysical conclusion of the KCA: an uncaused cause.

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='Jörmungandr' pid='1270109' dateline='1462790587']

We aren't stuck considering only an efficient cause.  It's simply that a suitable material cause hasn't been proposed.  That doesn't mean we are hopelessly prevented from investigating the potential of a material explanation to suffice.


Then you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. [bold]There was no nature[/bold]to pull attributes of an uncaused cause from.I keep hearing this claim about we can postulate a different set of assumptions or attributes. Go ahead, postulate a different set of attributes that are only drawn from what metaphysical conclusion of the KCA: an uncaused cause.

:: bold mine::

What exactly does this mean? Do you have evidence to back up the bold assertion that there "was no nature?"

This is why theists tend to shy away from offering specifics on the form of their God. Once they start drawing in the darker lines of definition, the picture which emerges reveals its own absurdity.

[SteveII]

deleted--formatting mess.