Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

However, I did not.

Then I apologize.

[Jehanne]

Richard Swinburne:

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/god-all-knowing

Did you actually listen to the interview??? This is a discussion on how free will interacts with God's knowledge and doctrinal distinctions. It is not proving what you think it does. Are you going to try again or do you just move on to another ridiculous assertion because that one didn't stick.

Yes, I did listen to them, all of them, in fact.  Richard Swinburne does not believe that "god" knows the future (i.e., he/she/it is "omniscient").

[SteveII]

Did you actually listen to the interview??? This is a discussion on how free will interacts with God's knowledge and doctrinal distinctions. It is not proving what you think it does. Are you going to try again or do you just move on to another ridiculous assertion because that one didn't stick.

Yes, I did listen to them, all of them, in fact.  Richard Swinburne does not believe that "god" knows the future (i.e., he/she/it is "omniscient").

Knowing the future and omniscience is not the same thing. From wikipedia

There is a distinction between:
inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.

Some do not believe in Free Will and would tend toward total omniscience. You are getting into doctrinal distinctions that are not proving your point, which was, if I can reword it succinctly, that natural theology was not a dependable source of knowledge of God.

[wiploc]

"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

"Prior to the universe"?  Do you mean causally prior?  If you mean temporally prior, then nothing can be prior; you can't be before time.  But if you mean causally prior, then--since you are abandoning the idea of causes preceding effects--everything that ever has or will exist is a candidate.  Since you have abandoned the normal meaning of "cause," nothing at all can be eliminated as the cause of the universe.   

I know you have this theory that things before time have to be non-physical, but, first, you can have no justification for that claim aside from wanting your non-physical god to be the conclusion of the argument. 

Second, "before time" is self-contradictory gibberish.  You can't draw any logical conclusion from self-contradictory gibberish, not non-physicality or anything else. 

Third, since you have abandoned the requirement that causes precede effects, the cause of the universe need not have happened yet.  As I said above, anything that has happened or will happen, for the entire duration of the universe, may be have been or may yet become the cause of the universe.  
 

that would have some metaphysical properties we can discuss?

We can discuss any metaphysical properties you want. 

Would it have existed necessarily or contingently?

I can't imagine anything existing necessarily, certainly not a god.  There are godless possible worlds.  Therefore, by definition, no god is necessary. [/quote]

[robvalue]

I thought that "X is physical" and "X (literally) exists" mean exactly the same thing.

If something is non-physical, then it can only exist abstractly at best (a concept).

What exactly does it mean for something to exist but not be physical? Unless I'm getting the definition wrong, it seems to be a contradiction in terms.

If people want to put supernatural stuff alongside abstract concepts, then I have no argument with that. But a concept has no power to do anything in of itself.

[Pat Mustard]

True that, the scientific method has no way to inspect what is not real. Next piece of nonsense, please.

"what is not real" huh. What do you mean by real?

What can be demonstrated by objective means to be so. Take for example yhwh, we know him to be imaginaty because of the impossuble attributes ascribred to him in the bible, so he's a good example. The current thinking on him (I use the word thinking very loosely) is that he is a being which is indectectable by any measuring instrument, completely divorced from our reality and able to change our reality on a whim without us being possibly ever able to detect his influence. Now this being who theists insists we'll never detect (until we die and go to heaven) can safely be dismissed because as theists point out we'll never have evidence (not one single scrap) for him.

[SteveII]

I guess that is possible. Can you think of something else that is non-physical that would exist prior to the universe

"Prior to the universe"?  Do you mean causally prior?  If you mean temporally prior, then nothing can be prior; you can't be before time.  But if you mean causally prior, then--since you are abandoning the idea of causes preceding effects--everything that ever has or will exist is a candidate.  Since you have abandoned the normal meaning of "cause," nothing at all can be eliminated as the cause of the universe.   

I know you have this theory that things before time have to be non-physical, but, first, you can have no justification for that claim aside from wanting your non-physical god to be the conclusion of the argument. 

Second, "before time" is self-contradictory gibberish.  You can't draw any logical conclusion from self-contradictory gibberish, not non-physicality or anything else. 

Third, since you have abandoned the requirement that causes precede effects, the cause of the universe need not have happened yet.  As I said above, anything that has happened or will happen, for the entire duration of the universe, may be have been or may yet become the cause of the universe.  
 

that would have some metaphysical properties we can discuss?

We can discuss any metaphysical properties you want. 

Would it have existed necessarily or contingently?

I can't imagine anything existing necessarily, certainly not a god.  There are godless possible worlds.  Therefore, by definition, no god is necessary.

Of course I mean causally prior. That was the sentence I highlighted in your post. Regarding causation, we would have to distinguish between efficient and material causation. For material causation, the cause would have to precede its effect. For efficient causation, the cause can simultaneous with its effect.

Since the idea of God creating the universe would be ex nihilo, there is no material causation--only efficient causation. So, I have not "abandoned" the causal principle and the rest of your conclusions do not follow. 

If nothing exists necessarily, everything exists contingently. Contingent things have an explanation for their existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? To say "I don't know" to that question and then tell a theist that the idea of God is ridiculous is, at best, inconsistent.

[SteveII]

"what is not real" huh. What do you mean by real?

What can be demonstrated by objective means to be so. Take for example yhwh, we know him to be imaginaty because of the impossuble attributes ascribred to him in the bible, so he's a good example. The current thinking on him (I use the word thinking very loosely) is that he is a being which is indectectable by any measuring instrument, completely divorced from our reality and able to change our reality on a whim without us being possibly ever able to detect his influence. Now this being who theists insists we'll never detect (until we die and go to heaven) can safely be dismissed because as theists point out we'll never have evidence (not one single scrap) for him.

indetectible?

From natural theology:
  KCA
  Moral argument
  Ontological Argument
  Fine Tuning Argument
  Argument from Contingency

OT Revelation
Miracles
Jesus
NT Revelation

Personal experiences of literally billions of Christians


Perhaps:
Life
Consciousness

[Angrboda]

If nothing exists necessarily, everything exists contingently. Contingent things have an explanation for their existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? To say "I don't know" to that question and then tell a theist that the idea of God is ridiculous is, at best, inconsistent.

Exactly what do you mean when you say it's inconsistent here? The idea of God is ridiculous whether or not there is an alternative or not. To reject a ludicrous hypothesis even if you lack an alternative is not inconsistent, it's just common sense. What do you mean here?

[RoadRunner79]

Of course I mean causally prior. That was the sentence I highlighted in your post. Regarding causation, we would have to distinguish between efficient and material causation. For material causation, the cause would have to precede its effect. For efficient causation, the cause can simultaneous with its effect.

Since the idea of God creating the universe would be ex nihilo, there is no material causation--only efficient causation. So, I have not "abandoned" the causal principle and the rest of your conclusions do not follow. 

If nothing exists necessarily, everything exists contingently. Contingent things have an explanation for their existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? To say "I don't know" to that question and then tell a theist that the idea of God is ridiculous is, at best, inconsistent.

I have heard the argument, that even in a physical cause/effect relationship, that the cause is temporally simultaneous to the effect. It is logically prior however. I believe it makes sense. If you are moving an object, you do not have the cause and then some time later produce the effect. What leads us to view it as before and after, is that we see the events leading up to the cause, and the effects continuing after. There is also often a series of cause and effect relationships, which we may not always notice.

Imagine a billiards game, where the cue ball is striking the object ball, and causing it to move. If we make the assumption that there is no compression, the transfer of energy is going be simultaneous as the balls make contact. In reality there is going to be some compression, which is the series of cause and effects relationships and may be why we think there is a delay.