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

[SteveII]

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

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. 

Why do you insert 'time' here? God can exists in a timeless/unchanging state. Eternal does not imply time, it is simply the absence of time. There is nothing incoherent about this. Now when God created something, he changed from a timeless/changeless state and is now exists in time because of the nature of having interaction with his creation. 

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. 

There is a prior-than relationship between the two states. God existed prior to creation with the potential for creation. "God creates" is not a timeless event. It is the demarcation between God existing timelessly and temporally. A cause simultaneous with its effect. 

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.

Let me know if my answer above does not address your problem with the argument. If you are interested, here is an address WLC gave on the topic. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...eternity1/

---

That's simply not true with inductive premises and demonstrably so. 

For example, say you have 2 premises that make it likely that x is the case. 

1. We can't remember a time when Mary did not go to the market on Wednesday (95%)
2. Mary is at the market. (actually, this is not an inductive premise, so there is not probability to assign. However you can assign 100% if you want). 
3. Therefore Today is Wednesday. (95%)

Now say we add premises to that. 

1. We can't remember a time when Mary did not go to the market on Wednesday (95%)
2. Mary is at the market.
3. The street cleaners usually run on Wednesday (80%)
4. The street cleaner just went around the corner 
5. The garbage is picked up on Tuesday evening (80%)
6. The garbage cans in the alley are empty
7. Therefore today is Wednesday. 

According to your reasoning, the probability of today being Wednesday is 95% x 80% x 80% = 61%. What do you think the probability is that it is Wednesday? 

Bayes Theorem is more applicable to this type of reasoning.

However, suppose we have the following:

1. I don't recall a time when Mary went to the market that wasn't a Wednesday. (95%)
2. I don't recall a Wednesday when the street cleaners didn't run (80%).
3. Mary went to the market. (100%).

This can now be used to conclude that the street cleaners are running with (.95*.8=) 76% confidence.

In your example, going from
1. Mary generally goes to the market on Wednesday (95%)
2. Mary went to the market.

you need the probability of the converse 1' above, which cannot be derived from the probability of 1 without additional information (how often Mary goes on other days, for example).

Fine, reword the first premise to whatever you want. My point is so obviously clear and it is equally so obvious clear you did not address it. We are NOT looking to make sure all the premises are true and what the probability that all the premises being true is. Read that again to make sure you understand it. We are looking for what the probability of the conclusion is. Number 7 is NOT 61%. If I added five more 80% likely reasons why it might be Wednesday, it will NOT DROP. It goes up!!!!

This is not a difficult concept and it truly amazes me that several of you think you have a point. You don't. 

If you want to understand the underlying mathematical reasons, you want to read up Bayes Theorem and especially Bayesian Inference.

---

Thanks, I'll look it over.   My experience has been that the nondeterminism of QM is sometimes confounded for being non-caused.

The following I think reflects my view from what I have seen. 
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/

Quntum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level.  It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.
Feser hypothesizes that perhaps Oerter understands the law of causality to refer to some sort of deterministic cause, and since quantum mechanics are supposedly indeterministic (a disputed interpretation), the law of causality could not apply.  Feser notes that “[t]he principle of causality doesn’t require that.  It requires only that a potency be actualized by something already actual; whether that something, whatever it is, actualizes potencies according some sort of pattern –deterministic or otherwise — is another matter altogether.”

The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle.  For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized.  If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,”[2] and that something is what we identify as the cause.

Very succinctly put. 

A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training. They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training. Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on. 

This QM and now radioactive decay not having a cause is just such nonsense.