Dr. Craig is a liar.

[LadyForCamus]

What prevents god from doing so?  What constrains god within those logical boundaries,  if god is so constrained?  Perhaps you could elaborate upon this force or power that surrounds and limits your god?  That, whatever it is, sounds considerably more interesting and informative than this middle-manning "god" business, to me.

I believe logic, mathematics, and abstract objects (like numbers) are not physical objects and are not a result of the physical universe.  I am not a Platonist and do not think that they are real things that exist necessarily. However, where did they come from? Would they exist in all possible worlds? On theism, it is not logical that these things exist separate from God's existence. So I believe they are properly based in the mind/nature of God, which would give them concrete meaning and applicability. 

Related to the question why God cannot do logically impossible things, God would not be able to do things contrary to his nature. Even further, constructing a sentence that has logical impossibilities like a round square or married bachelor are just a grouping of contradictory words and not really a thing to consider. In the same way, can God count to infinity and lift that rock are not really coherent questions.

Numbers are just models; tangible constructs thought up by human minds to describe the abstract concepts of mathematics. I don't understand why theists are always so baffled by the invention of numeric symbols. It's really not that different from how we use language, but I've never heard a theist using the existence of words as evidence for god.

[The Grand Nudger]

To some, -everything- is evidence of god.  Which is precisely why none of it is evidence, in their case, amusingly.

[LadyForCamus]

Or maybe it was the lizard people. Or a sentient macadamia nut. Or maybe the concept of indoor plumbing created the universe.

I don't think I will ever understand this comeback. The KCA is properly formed, logically sound, not question begging, not equivocating, and not contradictory. The premises of the KCA, if true, infer the cause of the universe (or its predecessor) to be uncaused, timeless, immaterial, personal, and at least powerful enough to bring a universe into being from nothing. This is all it does. It does not get us to the the God of the Christianity and says nothing about other attributes that God might have.

So, how do we get from that to your comeback?

But you can't demonstrate that the KCA's premises are true, can you? This is a problem for the argument.

And you still haven't adequately described with supporting evidence how something can exist timelessly, immaterially, not in any space, and without any temporal stream of consciousness, and yet perform an action as powerful as creating the universe. Or, perform any action at all for that matter. How does something exist in non-existence and "then" create existence? You have a lot to answer for here with these bald assertions, and the KCA is not an answer. [emoji53]

[LadyForCamus]

Minor correction, he would know only what it was possible for him to know.  To satisfy the condition of being limited to logical possibility there must at least be the conceptual acknowledgement that some knowledge would not be available to god.  Otherwise god has knowledge which exists, but is impossible for god to acquire -except- by this claimed omni-attribute.  "Omniscience" has been functionally transformed into the ability to do the impossible after all. Why supply the premise that god is limited to logical possibility when we will either deny that premise as it seems convenient - or reduce the terms to meaningless in an effort to make exception?

It's so good have you back, Rhythm. [emoji41]

[LadyForCamus]

You already have all your work still ahead of you before you try to make the leap toward the Christian god.

What does it mean for a conscious mind to exist timelessly? What does it mean to be immaterial? What does it mean to have power without the existence of time, space and energy? What is this "power"? What is creation if not a temporal activity? How does one create time without time with which to create time? What did this being exist within prior to existence? Assuming this entity does exist, what suggests that it's "personal"? What does personal even mean in this context? What implies that it must be a singular god that made the universe? How does a non-physical being act upon a physical world without taking on physical properties?

Those are questions off the top of my head, and there are many more I could present.

Okay, those are fair questions.

Let's start with why I said personal. God created the universe instead of not creating the universe (which seems to be the only two choices). The creation act seems to be a free act of the will rather than something determined by some prior condition.

The quote I posted a page or two ago might help with the timeless question:

One must maintain that "prior " to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all. There would be no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.

But such a changeless, undifferentiated state looks suspiciously like a state of timelessness! It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without creation is timeless and that He enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination. Given that time began to exist, the most plausible view of God's relationship to time is that He is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

If God is omniscient, he would know all truths simultaneously in his timeless state. An entity who knows all truths does not have to think about things, reason things out, etc. (and therefore mark time with mental events).  As the quote above says, that timeless state ended when the universe was created.  Time started at that point. God was extrinsically changed by his creation. The creative act was simultaneous with its effect.

:: Bold mine ::

How does God "know" anything without a mind? Without the ability to think? By what other mechanism does he process information? You seem to want God to perform like a sentient, conscious being without any of the necessary constituents of such a being. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; not without evidence.

P.S. "God-Magic" is a non-answer.

[SteveII]

When I said these things are part of God's mind/nature I meant it was an intrinsic property and not a created or invented concept. It seems to me that God's mind has to be ordered according to some principles.

Why does it seem that way to you, and what principles would those be?  What principles are capable of making demands or requirements on the mind of a god, of limiting it's ability, of determining it's structure or arrangement?  Generally, the faithful seem to feel that god makes all the "accordings" - but in your case, you seem to think that there is some fundamental level of organization which even a god can't escape or determine for itself.  Some item "x" for which god is not, itself, responsible but can be nothing other than in compliance with.

I think I am justified in thinking that if logic, math, and abstract objects are not dependent on the universe for their existence then they are based in the mind of God. Do they exist contingently or not? I see no reason to posit an arm's length relationship to these concepts (which seems more complicated) when it is plausible to think that God's mind is ordered logically. Regarding the bold, why would God want to escape or determine something different?

[LadyForCamus]

Why does it seem that way to you, and what principles would those be?  What principles are capable of making demands or requirements on the mind of a god, of limiting it's ability, of determining it's structure or arrangement?  Generally, the faithful seem to feel that god makes all the "accordings" - but in your case, you seem to think that there is some fundamental level of organization which even a god can't escape or determine for itself.  Some item "x" for which god is not, itself, responsible but can be nothing other than in compliance with.

I think I am justified in thinking that if logic, math, and abstract objects are not dependent on the universe for their existence then they are based in the mind of God. Do they exist contingently or not? I see no reason to posit an arm's length relationship to these concepts (which seems more complicated) when it is plausible to think that God's mind is ordered logically. Regarding the bold, why would God want to escape or determine something different?

Why on earth would you assume that mathematics and logical concepts do not depend upon the laws set forth by the existence of our universe?!

[SteveII]

If God is omniscient, he would know all truths simultaneously in his timeless state.

In a timeless state, he'd be functionally no different from a non-sentient timeless entity.

When you say "functionally" you are implying that there are activities going on. That would not happen in a timeless state. What other timeless non-sentient entity could there be?

[SteveII]

If God is omniscient, he would know all truths simultaneously in his timeless state.

Wouldn't that be an actual infinite?

No. There is no such thing as an actual infinite of anything--including truths.

[SteveII]

Minor correction, he would know only what it was possible for him to know.  To satisfy the condition of being limited to logical possibility there must at least be the conceptual acknowledgement that some knowledge would not be available to god.  Otherwise god has knowledge which exists, but is impossible for god to acquire -except- by this claimed omni-attribute.  "Omniscience" has been functionally transformed into the ability to do the impossible after all.  Why supply the premise that god is limited to logical possibility when we will either deny that premise as it seems convenient - or reduce the terms to meaningless in an effort to make exception?

Good point.