Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Crossless2.0]

It can if non-physical issues supposedly cause physical effects. Then we can test for those.

I think for something to affect the physical world implies it is physical.

The Abrahamic religions all claim to worship a god who is non-physical but who (once upon a time) interacted directly and often with the physical world. Hell, he ate lunch with fucking Abraham!

Such a being, if it existed and affected the world through its interaction with it, would presumably leave effects that could be studied.

[Cyberman]

Exactly, either it can affect the physical world and thus leave evidence, or it can't (or won't) and thus is irrelevant.

[SteveII]

On the A theory, once God created space-time, God underwent an extrinsic change with the new relationship to his creation and in doing so became temporal.

A truly timeless entity cannot do anything, including creating space-time. There is no moment of "change" without some form of time. Without change, there can be no cause and effect. God cannot exist sans universe, then suddenly create the universe absent some form of time to which he himself must be subjected to. You're addressing what happened after God created space-time without addressing how God  could have logically created space-time absent any form of time or change.

Why can't a timeless entity do anything? Even a series of mental events is enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time"). Why does causation need space-time to work? Further, why can't a cause can be simultaneous with its effect?

On the B theory, you could conclude that God did not undergo any temporal change (neither intrinsic nor extrinsic) and exists outside the block of time.

If the B-theory based on Relativity is correct, then all times past, present, and future have always co-existed and there would never be a moment where a creation event was required, which is why Craig dismisses the B-theory in order to hang on, however tentatively, to his precious Kalam. He would also adamantly disagree with you that God currently "exists outside the block of time," as Craig believes God is now definitely temporal post creation.

I don't think you are right about the B theory of time. You might not prefer to call it a beginning, but it will have a front edge. You still have cause and effect to measure a before and after all the way back to that front edge. I merely pointed out that if the B theory of time is correct, it would actually be a more simple relationship between God and time than on the A theory.

[SteveII]

God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal.

"Causally prior."  I like it.  If causes need not (chronologically) precede effects, then the creation event need not have happened yet.  If the Large Hadron Collider doesn't manage it, some later--even more powerful--collider may do the job.  If causes need not precede effects, your god is out of a job. 

If Jehovah can exist timelessly and changelessly, atemporally, causally prior to the rest of the universe, why can't other things?  Why can't the cosmic egg that caused the big bang have existed atemporally?  For that matter--I had a big mac for lunch--how do I know that my big mac wasn't causally prior to the partaverse?

I guess that is possible. Can you think of something else that is non-physical that would exist prior to the universe that would have some metaphysical properties we can discuss? Would it have existed necessarily or contingently?

[dyresand]

A truly timeless entity cannot do anything, including creating space-time. There is no moment of "change" without some form of time. Without change, there can be no cause and effect. God cannot exist sans universe, then suddenly create the universe absent some form of time to which he himself must be subjected to. You're addressing what happened after God created space-time without addressing how God  could have logically created space-time absent any form of time or change.

Why can't a timeless entity do anything? Even a series of mental events is enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time"). Why does causation need space-time to work? Further, why can't a cause can be simultaneous with its effect?

If the B-theory based on Relativity is correct, then all times past, present, and future have always co-existed and there would never be a moment where a creation event was required, which is why Craig dismisses the B-theory in order to hang on, however tentatively, to his precious Kalam. He would also adamantly disagree with you that God currently "exists outside the block of time," as Craig believes God is now definitely temporal post creation.

I don't think you are right about the B theory of time. You might not prefer to call it a beginning, but it will have a front edge. You still have cause and effect to measure a before and after all the way back to that front edge. I merely pointed out that if the B theory of time is correct, it would actually be a more simple relationship between God and time than on the A theory.

Depends if god is anything god himself would need simple like a photon. Even then photons are visible but
are in a timeless state for how fast they move. So if god is in a similar state of a photon how could said being
do anything at all and also how would said being not be visible if it emits any sort of light.

[SteveII]

How exactly do you study theology?

I'd really like to know. You can study religious texts, you can study religions, and you can study the reasons people might believe in religions. You can parrot bullshit arguments.

But how do you study theology? It just seems to be adults arguing about who has the best sounding fairy tale. You all have to be living in a fantasy world before the discussion can even begin. At best, all I can see is studying how internally consistent each religion is, in the same way you'd test a mathematical system.

It also seems to make the assumption that philosphy can continue to accurately learn about reality where science leaves off. No, it can't. It's idle speculation at that point. I get it, it's uncomfortable not knowing. It doesn't mean you have to make shit up.

And notice the huge gulf between the abstract deistic God that comes out of the theological waffle, and the specific characters in popular storybooks. That non sequitur alone should be enough to make people stop and think, surely. Is Yahweh a character "outside of space and time"? Hardly. He's fucking walking about, in book 1, very much in real time. So you're accusing your one and only evidence source of being entirely unreliable.

Your list is not complete. There is something called natural theology. From wikipedia: is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. This distinguishes it from revealed theology, which is based on scripture and/or religious experiences...

I think you are right about examining the internal consistency of a religion. I would add to that examining the consistency of the revealed theology with natural theology. 

On the A theory of time, God is temporal since the creation of the universe.

[SteveII]

[...]the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.

Agreed. Can anything else?

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of metaphysics--which is precisely what we are talking about.

[SteveII]

"Falsifiable" has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.

It can if non-physical issues supposedly cause physical effects. Then we can test for those.

So you can falsify the beginning of physics? How would you do that?

[SteveII]

Show me a theologian who denies God is omnipotent or omniscient--including the reasons they give. Regarding "falsifiable"--this is natural theology. This is inductive reasoning. "Falsifiable" has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.

Well, as long as you have toppled Karl Popper to your own satisfaction, I guess that's all that matters.

Editing error. Sorry. Should be been "Falsifiable" has do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.

[Crossless2.0]

Well, as long as you have toppled Karl Popper to your own satisfaction, I guess that's all that matters.

Editing error. Sorry. Should be been "Falsifiable" has do with the scientific method--which by definition cannot even comment on non-physical issues.

Fair enough. Carry on.