William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[FatAndFaithless]

1. No idea
2. No idea


You don't get to slot in 'a god' just because we don't know the answer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right, I know someone who just "doesn't like to talk about it". It's pretty clear that this means they know it's gibberish but want to cling onto it regardless. I guess they worry that if it gets analysed, they will lose it.

Gods, like laboratory frogs, rarely survive dissection.

[robvalue]

No one can possibly know.

So it was Yahweh.

[Crossless2.0]

Perhaps an experiment would be interesting. Let's just say for the sake of this experiment that the universe was caused AND an infinite regression of events is not possible. While you may not agree that these positions are true, these positions are at least defensible. Let's see where it goes.

1. What could have caused the universe?
2. and what attributes would this thing have to have?

I'll answer by invoking the international symbol of Christian apologetics:

[FatAndFaithless]

That's... a man getting ready to roll some dice and looking up to heaven in a prayer for good fortune, right?

[YGninja]

1: I wasn't quoting the Kalam, i was summarising the direction of Craigs argument. You are the one who quoted WLC as saying "things have a cause, and the only cause for all things is god,", which you know is absolutely wrong as you are aware of the actual argument yourself. You have knowingly misrepresented your opponent.

Again, it's mockery, not misrepresentation. Despite the additional premises, WLC's Kalam is really so ineffective that it deserves to be teased; like I said, I've gone through the actual argument so many times it's become repetitive, but I'll do it again for you. (1)

2: Its a deductive argument; the conclusion follows from the premises.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You object?

Yes, in that the premise merely asserts the existence of a second category (things that didn't begin to exist) without demonstrating it. (2)

The universe began to exist. You object?

Yes, in that it's just an assertion, and one that the current science isn't willing to make. We don't know whether the universe began to exist or not, beyond its expansion into its current state. This is why I find Kalam so laughable; it bumbles through a bunch of official sounding premises, when each one is nothing more than a codified "take my god seriously!" with no attempt at justification. That slick suit and ten dollar vocabulary might impress ol' Willie Craig's intended audience, but not me. (3)

The universe has a cause. You object?

Yes, given that it follows on from two unproven premises, and carries with it yet another assertion, which is that the cause of things that begin to exist need to be external from the thing itself, something that virtual particles put the lie to, and is again, simply fiat declaration. (4)

That cause exists outside of time, is incredibly powerful, there is good reason to believe it is intelligent, etc.. You object??

Yes, in that there's no reason to assume time began with the universe, in that "power" is so vaguely worded as to be useless, in that there is simply no justification in the argument or out of it for the notion that the cause is even conscious, let alone intelligent... and of course, all that is window dressing around the central problem, which is that all of the previous premises are unjustified in the extreme. (5)

It's an argument where every individual quadrant of it is wrong; tell me again why it's not deserving of mockery?

3/4: I know exactly what you are talking about, and again you are intentionally misrepresenting him. He says on the very page you provided:

"What I claim is that for the person who attends to it the witness of the Holy Spirit overwhelms the putative defeaters brought against the truths to which He bears witness."

Which amounts to: "I trust what i experience and witness first hand, before general consensus."

He also doesn't trust what he experiences when it conflicts with his religious beliefs; that "what if you went back in time and saw the resurrection was a lie?" hypothetical wasn't something I just pulled out of my ass, it's an actual thing Craig discusses in one of his books. The simple fact is that your objection doesn't cover everything Craig has said; he won't trust his own experiences where those experiences conflict with his interpretation of christianity. You have a problem with that, take it up with Craig.(6)

Of course, even your own objection also begs the question; this blanket claim that all evidence against christianity is "putative" is itself a presupposition that christianity is true in spite of whatever evidence there may be, no matter how strong it may seem, even if it's irrefutable, which is also part of the language Craig uses. You may harp on single words, but in essence even your objection is the same thing as what I was saying, just tarted up in second hand verbiage to try and disguise that fact. (7)

You're wrong coming and going.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Actually experiencing something should be considered extremely strong evidence, and is a defeater to lesser evidence grounded in majority opinion.

Tell that to the adherents of every other religion who experience their gods, or alien abductees who experience that. Experience is not strong evidence when it's contradicted by objective evidence elsewhere. And that's just discounting Craig's whole "I'll distrust my experience when it goes against christianity," bit. (8)

He goes on to say: "Now this is importantly different from speculating about what I would do in such circumstances as you describe. I have no idea what, given the weakness of my flesh, I actually would do; but I know what I should do. "

"If it were proven that morality were merely a socio-evolutionary tool, then theism would be false and there would then be no witness of the Holy Spirit, since God would not exist. For theism entails that objective moral values and duties exist. So if they didn't, theism would obviously be false. "

"Again, if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found."

Clearly there is a degree of flexibility, his witness to the holy spirit he feels is strong enough to override putative objections. But if it could be proven that something such as morality were socio evolutionary in origin, or Jesus bones were found, then he would have to give up the faith.

So he's either contradicting himself, or merely confident in the idea that he won't have to cover for his presuppositions in future. Speculative nothings about Jesus' bones mean little, when Craig is so proud of his "defeater-defeater" position.

But it is cute, how Craig thinks "I feel that I know the Holy Spirit, therefore they'll never find Jesus' bones," is a logical conclusion.

(1) Its a mockery and a misrepresentation. You cannot deny it is not a misrepresentation because you have a: Used quotation marks, implying the words are his own & b: Admitted that those are not his words which you quoted.

(2) You are not answering the question, just sidestepping. Does everything which begins to exist have a cause? Are you aware of anything which began to exist, which does not have a cause, or even any argument describing how something could begin to exist without a cause? If so, please enlighten us. As for what you feel is implied, that something can exist without a cause, do you have any argument against something which necessarily exists? Something must, surely, necessarily exist from which everything else came, otherwise you are implying an infinite regress exists, which you've given no supporting argument for.

(3) That the universe began to exist is the leading scientific opinion.

" It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)." - A.Vilenkin, perhaps the worlds most prominent cosmologist.

(4) Mostly covered in (3), however, the cause of something which begins to exist, cannot be the thing itself, because otherwise you are saying that it existed before it existed, and i don't think any more needs to be said on how absurd that idea is.

(5) The vast majority of scientists agree that time began at the birth of the universe. If you want to postulate some kind of universe within a universe or multiverse type theory, 1: You've got no evidence for such a thing, 2: You are killing occums razor, 3: You would only succeed in pushing the problem of the prime moving first cause back. The premises are justified, your objections aren't.

(6) I didn't see and still can't find your "what if you went back in time and saw the resurrection was a lie?" argument. Again you are sidestepping, countering the fact that it seems reasonable to believe something which you experience merely by changing the subject.

(7) Who claimed all evidence is putative? One more time, you are changing the subject. "tell that to all other religions...." isn't an argument, its a diversion. What is experienced can be rationally preferred to putative objections. Yes, this can be problematic, but thats beside the point. Craig is clear that with objective proof to the contrary of his experience, he would dismiss his experience before the proof.

(8) see (7)

[Esquilax]

1. What could have caused the universe?

The Genesis Frog.

2. and what attributes would this thing have to have?

Being an amphibian.

See how being forced to answer questions based on no evidence at all leads to every answer being as good as any other?

[Neo-Scholastic]

If universe is the sum of all existing things then I don't see how it means sense to an existing uncaused cause is not part of this. If the universe is spacetime I don't see how saying spacetime began to exist is intelligible.

As a panentheist (not pantheist) I agree that reality is of a whole. With respect to spacetime, that is not really at issue. The uncaused cause, prime mover, etc. is logically prior to subsequent causes.

[robvalue]

Do you not see what desperate measures you are employing to try and force out an answer that cannot possibly be reached logically?

It's absolutely fine to say we don't know. Making up a phoney answer doesn't improve the situation.

[dyresand]

Do you not see what desperate measures you are employing to try and force out an answer that cannot possibly be reached logically?

Yeah... i mean why fit a square peg into a round hole. I mean god of the gaps are getting smaller and well science and our advancements are growing why throw a god in there to see if it would fit and logically speaking no it would not work. (i need to work on my spelling)