Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

If we're talking about the partaverse, not including, say, gods, then, yes your argument is valid.  But all you've proven is that some stuff had causes.  Big whoop.  

Or, if we're talking about the allaverse, and we haven't equivocated (that is, if we were also talking about the allaverse in P2) then the argument is valid, but it "proves" that your god had a cause.

And, if "universe" refers to a partaverse in P2 but refers to the allaverse in the conclusion, then the argument is not valid.  

-

If we're just talking about the partaverse, I don't know why we're talking at all.  The intent of the first cause argument, as I understand it, is to establish the ultimate cause of everything.  

If we're talking about the allaverse, then your god (if it exists) is also caused, and that entirely defeats your claim to have established an uncaused cause.  

P1 said "whatever begins to exist has a cause". If P1 and P2 are true, then the conclusion is true.

Sticking that "begins" in there is arbitrary and self-serving.  If you believed in a god of blueness, you could substitute the word "blue," and the argument would be exactly as strong.

But I can stipulate to P1 so long as we aren't equivocating on the meaning of the word "universe."  I mention the possibility of equivocation because I believe a lot of people fielding your argument do equivocate on that point.  

I do not say that you equivocate.  I have no reason to believe you are equivocating.  Of course, if I were going to treat you the way you treat me, I would just assert that you are equivocating without any grounds.  

Thanks for clarifying (in a previous post) which definition of "universe" you are using.

We inductively reason what could be the cause of the universe (or its predecessors).
[/quote]

You specifically hedged. You defined "uninverse as all the space-time and physical matter that came into being 13 billion years ago."  We can only have a cause of the partaverse if there was time before that.  And, if there was time before that, then, reasoning inductively, there must have been space and matter too.  Nothing comes from nothing, after all.  In which case, why do we need your creator god?  

eternal-uncaused-did not begin to exist (avoids the infinite causal chain problem)
[/quote]

And yet it doesn't avoid the problem of a first cause, which you cope with by invoking a magic-throwing god.  I don't see how that counts as progress.  

If your god began, then, according to your theory, he needs a cause.  If he didn't begin, then the rest of the universe didn't begin either.  Either way, your argument fails.  

In my experience, the only way theists can claim their god didn't begin and everything else did is by surreptitiously two-stepping between conflicting definitions of "begin."  



[quote]

timeless (existed before time)
[/quote]

[quote]

non-physical (exists before all of physical matter existed)
[/quote][/quote][/quote]

No, you specifically hedged.  You said the partaverse consists of all of the spacetime that started 13 billion years ago.  You left open the possibility of other spacetime before that.   And you talk about "before" the big bang, which estops you from making the contradictory claim that no spacetime existed before the big bang.  

Unless you're embracing contradiction.  But, in that case, I don't see why you keep talking about inductive logic, which is based on avoiding contradiction.  



[quote]

has intent (decided to create something rather than not create something)
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

You made that up.  We don't know the circumstances of your fantasy realm.  We don't know whether intent would be required to cause creation, or to prevent creation, or anything else.  We don't even know whether intent is possible in this realm.  

WLC justifies intent by claiming his gods could have created the world sooner.  They made a choice to delay for eternity, and then they created.  That is, he embraces the infinite regress.  But you don't like infinite regress.  You say it is absurd.  So you have no need or justification for intent.  

But if you side with WLC, if you declare that infinite regress is possible in your fantasy realm after claiming that it is absurd in the real world, then what happens to your inductive reasoning?  Why can't we say that other things you think are absurd happen in your fantasy realm?  Why can't we say, for instance, that universes just pop into existence for no reason?  

If infinite regress is absurd, and if the absurdity of infinite regress happens in your realm, then why would other absurdities be logically excluded?  




[quote]

powerful enough to make something out of nothing
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

According to you, that doesn't happen.  Power, then, doesn't come into it.  

And, according to you, if it did happen, we'd be seeing it happen now.  Since (according to you, even if not according to quantum physicists) we don't see this happening, it follows that it never happened.  


I don't know what's happening to this post. I can't keep up with the editing; the post is getting worse and worse as I try to correct the mistakes. I apologize for the confusion.