Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Time Traveler]

Why do they think these things poof [into] existence without any cause?

Virtual particles have real, measurable and verifiable effects. They play a key role in understanding several elements of quantum mechanics, including subtle energy shifts within atoms and Hawking radiation around black holes. Here is a link to an article describing some of the effects...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...icles-rea/

You can also do a search for Virtual Particles, Hawking Radiation, and the Casimir effect to learn more. Many popular science books address these, including the one I just finished by Sean Carroll titled, From Eternity to Here.

[Angrboda]

What gets me is the idea that a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, spaceless being is somehow a less ludicrous supposition than an infinite past or something coming from nothing. You don't solve an absurdity by proposing an even greater absurdity. The chosen solution, this 'God', is more extreme than the alternatives.

[RoadRunner79]

We agree, as I've said, that people don't need to understand their beliefs in order to hold them.  

Kudos on that sophistry there.

You think that we can show that x causes y, that we can make a sufficient claim in that regard, -without- answering the question of why x causes y?  How would you propose that be done?
(might you be confusing correlation with causation?  You on;t have to show the "why" to make a sufficient claim of correlation)

Do you believe in physics? Can you explain why physics behaves the way that it does? To my knowledge, we do not yet have a grand unified theory of everything. Scientists still have jobs, and are still asking "why?". If your premise is correct, then can we believe anything, without first getting down to these most basic of questions and answering all of the "why's". In what do you think we can do this?

I can understand your caution of confusing correlation with causation (I think that we need to be wary of that).... And I do agree, that the more information and understanding that we have, the more confident we can that our conclusions are accurate. However I don't think that modernism (absolute certainty... which is impossible) or postmodernism (that we can't know anything) are the answer.

As for an example, I was just talking to a colleague, about a hydraulic press that he was troubleshooting. It is older relay logic machine, and the symptoms didn't make sense together. There where a number of problems in isolated areas of the logic, that where having problems. The motor was dropping out in continuous mode, relays where chattering in manual mode, and it would work when one of the slowdown options where selected, but not the others (which where isolated and turning on the same valve). My recommendation where to isolate the individual symptoms, consider that there could be multiple issues, and if you are not getting anywhere in one area, to move on to another. He came back today, and found a loose wire on one relay. He tightened the terminal, and all of the symptoms went away. There is one part that may be coincidence (although it seemed to be repeatable). For other parts, I may be able to provide a guess as to what was occurring. However I am fairly confident seeing how the machine is running now, and it previously was not, that the loose terminal was the cause, even if I don't understand why for everything.

[SteveII]

Infinite regression of past causes seems absurd to humans. If it were logically absurd, by definition, there would be an iron-clad proof of its logical absurdity.

Solving the seeming paradox of 'everything has to have a cause, but it's absurd for causes to regress infinitely' with 'except this one thing that doesn't have to have a cause' first of all just claims that the first statement is false and NOT everything has to have a cause. Given that, a causeless universe is instantly put on the table.

It seems absurd because it is. Hilbert's Hotel does a good job at illustrating that an infinite number of things cannot exist (an actual infinite). Causes are things. To deny the logic is a pretty high intellectual price to pay to preserve your objections.  I have yet to see any response why it isn't other than "...well, it seems that way but we really can't know so...you prove it". 

A very big difference between what you propose, that there is an infinite causal chain, and what I propose, that there existed a God before the universe is that one is logically absurd and one is not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Kudos on that sophistry there.

-okay?  Thx I guess.  

As for an example, I was just talking to a colleague,

-snipped for brevity-
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?  Sounds legit. 

Apparently we're not talking about reason anymore, just your level of confidence.

[RoadRunner79]

Kudos on that sophistry there.

-okay?  Thx I guess.  

As for an example, I was just talking to a colleague,

-snipped for brevity-
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?  Sounds legit. 

Apparently we're not talking about reason anymore, just your level of confidence.

   It's this type of reasoning, that really increases my belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet another example of how an increase in your belief has little to do with understanding, logic or reason. Does it go any other way than up, btw? Just curious.

[RoadRunner79]

Yet another example of how an increase in your belief has little to do with understanding, logic or reason.  Does it go any other way than up, btw?  Just curious.

I was being facetious,  I'm not going to base my beliefs on bad arguments from others.   Although it does help on an emotional level....   Anyways, in my example, time will tell; who is correct.  But inconsistencies in applying principles and reason, do make me not question your arguments as much.   It just makes me think that you don't have a clue what you are talking about, and don't have to apply it, in the real world.   I have to make a living on it however.

[SteveII]

What gets me is the idea that a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, spaceless being is somehow a less ludicrous supposition than an infinite past or something coming from nothing.  You don't solve an absurdity by proposing an even greater absurdity.  The chosen solution, this 'God', is more extreme than the alternatives.

That is a good point. However, no one is using the KCA alone to prove God's existence. There are additional reasons to think that God exists. 

Natural Theology:

• Cosmological Argument from Contingency
  
• Basis for Moral Absolutes
  
• Teleological Argument from Fine Tuning
  
• The Ontological Argument
  

Revealed Theology:

• The OT
  
• The NT
  
• Miracles
  

Individual's personal experience

While you may debate as to how much evidence each gives, they mostly stand or fall together so if someone wants to say there is no proof for God, you would have to dismantle all of them to support that statement. I am sure there are some people here who think they can do that, but what it really comes down to is that it takes an extremely high level of skepticism to deny all of them. At that level of skepticism, you have to start asking if it possible to believe in anything.

OR, is it more often the case that non-belief  is a result of an emotional response...perhaps because suffering exists or some related objection?

[Time Traveler]

---

Okay, after all this, your "Yes" to this question finally establishes that you believe 1) There was a period prior to the creation of the universe, and 2) God existed in a timeless, changeless state during this period.

Question: How long was this period prior to the creation of time in which God existed in a timeless, changeless state?

---

There was no time so measuring it would be nonsensical. Since I am positing a beginning to the universe and a change in God, use of the word prior just refers to the previous state.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "Previous"...

1 : existing or happening before the present time
2 : earlier in time or order
3 : immediately before in time or order

William Lane Craig has you are locked in a temporal hell. The word "previous" is synonymous with "prior." Every time you attempt to define God existing "timelessly" prior to/previous to (take your pick) creating the universe, you fail... by definition!

It is only because you cannot defend a past infinite regression that you must defend such obvious absurdities! But you are really only trading one paradox for another. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Question: Even if God had the "potential" for change, what internal mechanism could ever trigger a change in a timeless, changeless being that somehow existed prior to the creation of time?

God's decision to create was a timeless one in that there was no period of indecision preceding it. God could not have created the universe sooner. It simply is that God was timeless and changeless sans the universe and temporal and changing with the universe.

This does not remotely address the question as to what triggered the transition.

Decision, by definition, requires deliberation, consideration, and is the end result or conclusion of such deliberations. If there was no time in which God could have deliberated or contemplated prior to creation, then God did not "decide" to create the universe - he was literally incapable of doing anything else BUT creating the universe. Therefore, God's existence must be contingent on the creation of the universe. Furthermore, if there was no period of indecision, no point where options were weighed, contemplations reviewed, etc., then God cannot have made a choice other than to create the universe. A power incapable of choice is nothing more than an unconscious force, not an intelligent agent.