Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Time Traveler]

Yes, but what if they didn't believe? What if, instead... And they laughed him [Jesus] to scorn, knowing that she was dead. - Luke 8:53

They clearly didn't believe Jesus could heal the girl, and yet... magic!

I'm sure you have some special pleading as to why this case worked absent belief.

Did you not read the rest of it where it clearly states that he kicked them all out of the house?

Luke 8
53 And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.
54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.

Matthew 13
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

*emphasis mine*

OH! Now I get it! Jesus can do miracles in front of you if you believe, but he can only do miracles behind your back if you don't. That makes sense. Performance anxiety. It's clear now that unbelievers control Jesus's miracle powers. He is absolutely impotent around those who don't have faith. Unbelievers are to Jesus as kryptonite is to Superman.

What a weak, feckless god. (Although I hear he can curse the shit out of a fig tree! That's something, anyway.)

Still curious about the prayer vs. amputee or shotgun to the brain thing. But I guess even faithful guys like you don't believe in Jesus that much, rendering him feeble and incapable of curing such afflictions. Shame really. It would be nice to have a god who had the ability to perform miraculous good deeds regardless of what people imagined about him. Too bad that god isn't the one you worship - he'd be much better.

[Edwardo Piet]

I've never even heard of him lol

Me neither.

You should both count yourselves lucky: He is truly vomitworthy.

[ApeNotKillApe]

---

You already have all your work still ahead of you before you try to make the leap toward the Christian god.

What does it mean for a conscious mind to exist timelessly? What does it mean to be immaterial? What does it mean to have power without the existence of time, space and energy? What is this "power"? What is creation if not a temporal activity? How does one create time without time with which to create time? What did this being exist within prior to existence? Assuming this entity does exist, what suggests that it's "personal"? What does personal even mean in this context? What implies that it must be a singular god that made the universe? How does a non-physical being act upon a physical world without taking on physical properties?

Those are questions off the top of my head, and there are many more I could present.

---

Okay, those are fair questions.

Let's start with why I said personal. God created the universe instead of not creating the universe (which seems to be the only two choices). The creation act seems to be a free act of the will rather than something determined by some prior condition.

The quote I posted a page or two ago might help with the timeless question:

One must maintain that "prior " to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all. There would be no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.

But such a changeless, undifferentiated state looks suspiciously like a state of timelessness! It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without creation is timeless and that He enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination. Given that time began to exist, the most plausible view of God's relationship to time is that He is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

If God is omniscient, he would know all truths simultaneously in his timeless state. An entity who knows all truths does not have to think about things, reason things out, etc. (and therefore mark time with mental events).  As the quote above says, that timeless state ended when the universe was created.  Time started at that point. God was extrinsically changed by his creation. The creative act was simultaneous with its effect.

Address the questions.

[dom.donald]

I am just thankful I made it to the end of a 104 page thread.
SteveII was more engaging than Huggy is being now.
Please try harder Huggy.

You posted a link to the Placebo Effect in response to questions following your own post about faith healing. So in your mind they're obviously similar, or the same thing.

To clear something up for me Huggy: when you refer to the power of 'faith', are you referring to 'faith that a supernatural god will provide a cure", or 'belief that what you've been told is medication, will cure you by natural means'? You seem to be confusing the two things.

Thanks.

[SteveII]

It's funny how, from my entire post, this is the one section you choose to address. But okay.

Locomotives don't magically "start moving." The locomotive and freight car move because potential energy, perhaps from coal, is converted to mechanical energy. Pistons fire, the drive shaft turns wheels, friction between the wheel and track due mainly to gravity then create a force which cause the train as a unit to accelerate.

An artist too has a process in which they convert energy into action, which then is responsible for shaping matter into a form the artist defines as a "vase."

For each of these processes, if you look more closely, you see a causal chain of material events, one after another. If not for the combustion of coal, the pistons would not fire. If not for the pistons firing, the drive shaft would not move, etc. If not for the intent to mold clay, the artist would not begin. If not for directing their energy into action, the clay would not move, if not for declaring the clay "a vase," no vase would exist, etc. At no point is there a non-material cause. (If you want to argue the thoughts of the artist are non-material, I suggest you demonstrate this by shutting down their brain and seeing what gets produced then.)

"Do you imagine that God had to count down 3...2...1...create?" I don't imagine your God can do anything since things which don't exist have trouble creating anything. These are YOUR arguments, and I'm asking you to defend your ridiculous notion of a timeless, changeless deity doing anything. Yet almost every time I ask you a question, I get back William Lane Craig's ideas. When Craig is silent on a subject, you avoid answering. It's almost like you don't have any independent thoughts on this topic yourself (except the contradictory ones, which I've previously exposed).

But we'll do this again to see if you can answer direct questions...

Let's try two simple Yes/No questions based on our discussion, addressing the implications of each answer:

1) Did God exist timelessly and changelessly by himself, prior to the creation of the universe?
1a) If Yes, then by definition, something that is changeless cannot change, something that is timeless will never transition from one state to another; therefore, God could not have logically been the agent of change, and could not have transitioned from a (timeless + no universe) state to a (temporal + universe) state.
1b) If No, see question 2.

2) Was God's existence simultaneous with his creation of the universe?
2a) If Yes, and if the universe had a beginning as theists' assert, then God had a beginning at the exact same moment as the universe. If two things can begin to exist at the exact same moment, and we have empirical evidence for one (the universe) and absolutely no evidence for the other (God), then we can safely excise the latter as wholly superfluous.
2b) If No, then God must have preceded the universe, see question 1.

First, your answer to my thought experiments was simply...we can always find the material cause. The point was, there was no material cause at the point of creating the universe. So, what is your point then? There could be no efficient cause because there was no material cause? Why?

1) Answer: Yes. However, existing in a state of changelessness does not mean the potential for change is not there. You are confusing changeless with immutability (incapable of change). A timeless being must also be changeless (as we have been discussing). At the point of creation, a change occurred from existing timelessly and unchanging to temporal and changing (entering into an new relationship would be a change).

Okay, those are fair questions.

Let's start with why I said personal. God created the universe instead of not creating the universe (which seems to be the only two choices). The creation act seems to be a free act of the will rather than something determined by some prior condition.

The quote I posted a page or two ago might help with the timeless question:


If God is omniscient, he would know all truths simultaneously in his timeless state. An entity who knows all truths does not have to think about things, reason things out, etc. (and therefore mark time with mental events).  As the quote above says, that timeless state ended when the universe was created.  Time started at that point. God was extrinsically changed by his creation. The creative act was simultaneous with its effect.

Address the questions.

Sorry I did not address you directly. I did address these points with Time Traveler on page 76 (pasted above). I would be happy to continue, but please start a new thread. This one is tired.

[Huggy Bear]

I am just thankful I made it to the end of a 104 page thread.
SteveII was more engaging than Huggy is being now.
Please try harder Huggy.

You posted a link to the Placebo Effect in response to questions following your own post about faith healing. So in your mind they're obviously similar, or the same thing.

To clear something up for me Huggy: when you refer to the power of 'faith', are you referring to 'faith that a supernatural god will provide a cure", or 'belief that what you've been told is medication, will cure you by natural means'? You seem to be confusing the two things.

Thanks.

Faith is a very simple concept, you guys exercise faith on a daily basis without realizing it. the act of getting out of your chair or starting your car is faith in a nutshell, it's that simple. No one worries about the details of starting a car, you just get in and turn the key.

Healing is a finished work, which means, that like salvation, it's has already been paid for. If Jesus were here on the Earth right now, he couldn't heal anyone, why? because he's already done it, all that is required is that you accept your healing. Whether your faith is in prayer, or in a fake pill, the concept is the same.

What about the woman that touched Jesus and was healed? He had no idea who touched him, yet he stated that it was her faith the healed her.

What about the Roman centurion? He was a straight up pagan yet Jesus marveled at the amount of faith he had stating "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." why? because the Jews always required Jesus's presence at the scene, Jesus always obliged because that's where their faith was. The Roman was like (paraphrasing) "there's no need for you to come to my house, just say the word and my servant will be healed".

Also did not people make handkerchiefs out of the apostles clothes for the healing of the sick? Once again faith.

Now, as for the placebo effect, you refer to it as healing through natural process. If the process is natural, then you should be able to explain it naturally.

I'm all ears.

p.s.
I was, taking the time to put together a lot more evidence concerning faith and healing, but I think it would be better served by starting my own thread on the subject.

[dom.donald]

yes, start another thread on that.
It seems to me that you are using words like 'faith' and 'belief' in different ways.
Faith that God will intervene and cure you, if only you accept this gift in your life, is rather different from faith that your car will start when you turn the key.
One is evidence based and one is not evidence based.

When scientists or psychologists say that 'we can not fully explain the placebo effect', that doesn't mean the options are completely open, including the supernatural (whatever that is). It doesn't mean all options are of equal probability. All manner of things can cause physiological changes, the precise mechanisms for which are not fully explained - simply due to the complexity of the human body and the brain in particular. This doesn't mean we can just claim "God did it!".

And I know you will claim there is evidence of faith healing, but just because a religious zealot attributes the physical effects to the supernatural, it doesn't mean they're right. Finding the cause and the mechanisms remains a scientific endeavour.