Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

So God can do things not in keeping with logic.

No. You seem not to understand what it means to say something is illogical. Logic has nothing to do with naturalism or science.

Logic has nothing to do with science?  That's crazy talk.  

Logic has to do with the form of the statement rather than its content. You are trying to say something like this:

1. Only natural things have natural causes
2. God is supernatural 
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things

That is a logically sound argument. However, that does not mean its conclusion is true. I would debate you on premise 1.

Do you mean "valid" rather than "sound"?  The conclusions of sound arguments are always true.

I don't see how you can even think it is valid.  I wonder if I can nudge it a little to get it close enough to being valid that it will be a recognizable fallacy.  Hmm.  

1. Only natural things have natural causes
2. God is supernatural 
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things

Hmm. 

Okay, I'm going to apologize in advance for if I get this wrong.  I hate to misrepresent people, but the attempt to translate what you're trying to say is an opportunity for you to correct me if I guess wrong.  I'm going to change P2.  

1. Only natural things have natural causes.
2. God is not a natural cause.
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things.

I feel like that's close to "affirming the consequent," a recognized fallacy.  But I'm not sure it's exactly right.  

Tell you what, let's keep those premises and see what conclusion we can legitimately derive.   

P1 says that natural things can have natural causes, and that unnatural things cannot have natural causes.  Therefore, an unnatural god may be able to cause natural things and unnatural things.  

Wait!  Did you misplace the "only"?  Is P1 supposed to be something like, "1. Natural things can only have natural causes.  In that case, your god could cause unnatural things, but he couldn't cause natural things.  This doesn't sound like something you'd say, so I'm going to set this possibility aside.  

Here are two versions of P1.  

1a. Only natural things have natural causes.
1b. Unnatural things do not have natural causes.  

Their meanings are identical.  So I'm going to substitute in the more easily  comprehended 1b, to see what we can derive:

1. Unnatural things do not have natural causes.
2. God is not a natural cause.

And our conclusion, then, is:  

3. Perhaps god is a cause of unnatural things. 

This is valid:

1. Only natural things have natural causes.
2. God is not a natural cause.
3. Perhaps god is a cause of unnatural things. 

But that conclusion is a far cry from your conclusion.  

3. Perhaps god causes unnatural things. 
is a far cry from
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things.

I have to reconsider the issue I set aside above, the misplaced "only."  Because you can never get from "1. Only natural things have natural causes," to, "Therefore God does not cause natural things."  But if that's really the conclusion you want, then "1. Natural things have only natural causes," can get you to that conclusion.  

But you said the argument was sound, even though, if I understand, you believe god created everything natural.  

Okay, I've got it.  You misplaced the "only," and  you mistakenly said "sound" when you meant "valid."  That makes everything work out.  

So I'm going to reproduce your post here, with amendments.  I normally hate "fixed it for you posts," but this one isn't me snidely misrepresenting you to make you say something you don't agree with.  I expect you will agree that this is a better phrasing of what you actually believe.  And I'm posting this so that you can either ratify it or correct me if I'm wrong:

---amended version of Steve II's post---

Logic has to do with the form of the statement rather than its content. You are trying to say something like this:

1. Natural things have only natural causes.
2. God is not natural.
3. Therefore, God does not cause natural things.

That is a logically valid argument. However, that does not mean its conclusion is true. I would debate you on premise 1.

---end of amended version of Steve II's post---

Okay, that makes sense now.  I'm sorry it took me so long to work out what you were trying to say.





















[/quote]