RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 14, 2016 at 9:10 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2016 at 10:24 am by Time Traveler.)
(May 13, 2016 at 11:06 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(May 13, 2016 at 3:57 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: You are correct, there is nothing incoherent about a "timeline," UNLESS you are idiotic enough to insist that one of those states on the timeline is... timeless!
EDIT: And it is equally ridiculous to assert that one of those elements on the timeline is actually prior to the beginning of the timeline itself.
It seems someone never received the memo that time is relative...
Not only did I get the memo, I am a firm advocate for the Theory of Relativity (both special and general). But Relativity doesn't help a theist who asserts 1) Time began when the universe was created, and 2) There was a timeless time on the universe's timeline before time began in which God existed. Additionally, the implications of Relativity support the B-theory of time, which I've addressed here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-42797.html. William Lane Craig and other proponents of a "timeless" deity derived from the KCA are not in favor of a Relativity based theory of time in which past, present, and future all co-exist equally.
As for photons, they exist within the universe. A photon is emitted when an electron at a high energy level converts to a lower energy level, or, in the early universe, when leptons and antileptons annihilated each other. The first photons appeared about 10 seconds after the Big Bang in what is known as the Photon Epoch, after quarks, hadrons, and leptons appeared. So if God is indeed "light," it would appear the universe preceded God and he was rather late to the party.
Also, if you could please explain the physics behind how a massless particle such as a photon - which predates the universe - can not only exist outside the universe, but create all the space, time, matter and energy within the universe, that would be helpful. You might even win a Nobel prize! And can you please define the photon's rest frame via a Lorentz transformation because, from what I've come to understand, it just isn't properly defined mathematically to describe massless particles, and thus leads to nonsensical, seemingly paradoxical results. In this case, you will have to find another method to mathematically prove your assertions regarding time and space from a photon's rest frame.
Finally, if "God is light," then we have no need for "God" because we already have a perfectly good definition of light, which we not surprisingly call... "light."
