Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Angrboda]

Personal: Rather than me reword WLC explanation of Ghazali's explanation, here it is:

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...-argument/

Do you or Craig have any evidence that the creation event did not occur immediately upon the necessary prior conditions being fulfilled?  Some theologians posit that there is no separation between God being and God creating.

If someone says there is no separation from God being to God creating our universe, they are claiming that God has not done anything else. I don't think such a limit is justified or even probable.

I don't agree with your supposition here, but it doesn't matter anyway. Having had some time to think about Craig/Ghazali's argument, it's plain that it's a load of crap. By 'eternal' here, Craig/Ghazali are implying that God has existed for an endless or infinite amount of time. Thus the relevance of pointing out that the universe has existed a finite time. But that's not what it means to be timeless. This argument is nothing more than a bunch of confusion caused by an incoherent concept of God existing timelessly. If God exists timelessly, then there is no paradox between the universe being finite and the conditions for the creation of the universe existing because these things do not occur in time. God is and God creates. Those two events occur together in timeless existence, so Craig/Ghazali's argument about water freezing simply doesn't apply. What I find remarkable is that a philosopher who specializes in the theory of time could make such a boneheaded argument. Either Craig is demonstrating sheer incompetence or he is simply dishonestly making an argument of convenience here. Regardless, Craig/Ghazali's argument doesn't hold water, and so it can't be used as justification for the belief that the conclusion of the KCA is necessarily a 'personal' god.