Dr. Craig is a liar.

[The Grand Nudger]

So god changed it's state, it became something?

[SteveII]

None of this sounds remotely like the character Yahweh. You know, the one who walks around like a human, gets outwitted by a talking snake and loses track of the two humans he's supposed to be managing.

We have been discussing natural theology almost exclusively in this thread. That would be another topic.

[LadyForCamus]

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]

In both cases, you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. 

inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which specific line of reasoning are you objecting to in the KCA? Did you read the presentation of the whole argument (link again below). I can't defend if I do not know specifically what your complaint is. Please read and be specific if you are serious about this. 

 http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...l-argument

I will read it and give you a more detailed response.  But, I still want you to address this:


"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."

[SteveII]

The trouble with the KCA is that it doesn't -matter- whether the premises are true.

Why?

[The Grand Nudger]

-because it doesn't end in -therefore god exists-, which is the desired and advertised conclusion. It is not an argument in support of or evidence -for a god-. It's simply the preamble to a leap of faith.

[Mister Agenda]

Does that include creating something from nothing, and if not why not?

What are our choices? 
A) The universe sprang from nothing
B) The universe (or a predecessor) always existed necessarily 
C) God created the universe from nothing

B is difficult to defend because of the infinite regression absurdity. Between A and C, at least you have God as an efficient cause were as A has neither an efficient nor material cause.

Not to pick a nit, but wouldn't the universe always existing unnecessarily be an option? Like there didn't have to be a universe, but there is.

And God could have created the universe from himself, as Roadrunner pointed out.

Or the creator could have been any of a potentially infinite list of conceivable entities capable of causing the universe but not fitting the description of the Christian God or being in any way worthy of worship.

[SteveII]

So, say in another identical universe, there were no minds to contemplate such things. Would that mean that the concept of 8 objects does not exist? Does that mean that E=MC^2 still does not have a mathematical relationship? Does that mean that the idea of P then Q; P therefore Q would not have meaning? Words just represent concepts.

Well of course all those concepts would still exist, assuming this other universe is identical to ours.  I just don't see how it supports the God hypothesis.  The laws of our universe exist as they are.  I don't understand your point.

The point is, (perhaps with the exception of E=MC^2) these concepts to not require any particular universe to exist.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

Those things you said about the KCA? They are all unsupported assertions. 'Nuh uh' isn't an argument. And in the list of attributes you infer from it being true, 'personal' is notable for not following at all.

However, props for acknowledging it doesn't get you to your particular God, even if it WERE sound.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

So, say in another identical universe, there were no minds to contemplate such things. Would that mean that the concept of 8 objects does not exist? Does that mean that E=MC^2 still does not have a mathematical relationship? Does that mean that the idea of P then Q; P therefore Q would not have meaning? Words just represent concepts.

In a non-identical universe, any or all of those things could be different. He just said that math is a language to describe things. If the things change, the language would have to change, too. If the things stay the same, the same language can describe them.

Not seeing what you're trying to achieve here.

[Mister Agenda]

Well of course all those concepts would still exist, assuming this other universe is identical to ours.  I just don't see how it supports the God hypothesis.  The laws of our universe exist as they are.  I don't understand your point.

The point is, (perhaps with the exception of E=MC^2) these concepts to not require any particular universe to exist.

Then why did you postulate an identical universe in the first place? Wouldn't postulating a different universe have made your point much better?