Dr. Craig is a liar.

[RoadRunner79]

If I could chime in.  I would still argue, that if you start with nothing on one side of the equation, that you will have nothing on the other side.  I think that the doctrine of "Ex Nihilo" which is derived from scripture, is stating that God created everything  from himself. That there was nothing outside of God, with which he was working.  

........?  The doctrine of ex nihilo is creation out of nothing (literally).  Unless you think god is nothing, they don't quite match.  

OTOH, being created out of god also opens up troublesome lines of inquiry as well.  As per your ongoing description...god is a being limited by what is logically possible from which life (among other things - but definitely not all things-) originates.  You fit that description pretty well yourself................

I'd agree.... I don't think I've seen the doctrine presented in a literal way (which you are describing).  

On the second part, I am unsure to what you are referencing.

[RoadRunner79]

The extraordinary evidence well appears to have dried up in the case of god centuries ago.  

@Roadrunner, you do realize you have just such a kit, no shipping required, right?

No I did not..... You do realize, that I was talking about common descent evolution right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you think there's a difference between common descent, and common descent evolution? You and your siblings share a common ancestor. Your children will all be descended from you. This, despite the differences between you and your siblings, and any differences between your children. No matter how far apart they drift from each other, they will be linked to you and to each other, and to your own parents, by common descent. There are a plethora of ways in which this can express itself as a demonstrable metric...but honestly, you need only have children and be a child of someone yourself to understand the proposition entirely.

We get our genes from mommy and daddy. When we have the same genes, the reasonable inference is that we have the same mommy or daddy. This is the backbone of paternity cases, forensic dna, and ofc...common descent.

It's not difficult to understand, it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence that such is so...and such evidence can be found -everywhere- we've had the occasion to look.

(I referred to your ongoing description of a god, a being constrained by logic....a cause of some things, but clearly not all things - such as logical impositions and boundaries to which it is inferior)

[RoadRunner79]

Do you think there's a difference between common descent, and common descent evolution?  You and your siblings share a common ancestor.  Your children will all be descended from you.  This, despite the differences between you and your siblings, and any differences between your children.  No matter how far apart they drift from each other, they will be linked to you and to each other, and to your own parents, by common descent.  There are a plethora of ways in which this can express itself as a demonstrable metric...but honestly, you need only have children and be a child of someone yourself to understand the proposition entirely.  

(I referred to your ongoing description of a god, a being constrained by logic....a cause of some things, but clearly not all things - such as logical impositions and boundaries to which it is inferior)

What if all my kids look like the mailman?

I believe you are thinking about someone else concerning the other conversation...  but I don't see being logical as inferior.

[LadyForCamus]

The extraordinary evidence well appears to have dried up in the case of god centuries ago.  

@Roadrunner, you do realize you have just such a kit, no shipping required, right?

No I did not..... You do realize, that I was talking about common descent evolution right?

By the way...is this what you do when you have no viable explain for the contradictory assertions you've put forth? Just start picking at evolution? You should better by now, RR. You've been around here long enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

What if all my kids look like the mailman?

Then you might have to consider that your spouse is receiving special deliveries.....but, ofc, you know it's a -little- more involved than just looking like the mailman - so why ask, except to bait richly deserved ridicule?  

I believe you are thinking about someone else concerning the other conversation...  but I don't see being logical as inferior.

Being constrained within logical boundaries is the definition of being inferior to those boundaries. If the question "can god do x" is answered with the conjecture that god cannot do x, because x is impossible, logical possibility -must- exert greater control, force, or compulsion than the god which is bound by it- otherwise the answer falls into meaninglessness and self contradiction. I did, btw, confuse you with Steve. Only elaborating.

[RoadRunner79]

No I did not..... You do realize, that I was talking about common descent evolution right?

By the way...is this what you do when you have no viable explain for the contradictory assertions you've put forth?  Just start picking at evolution?  You should better by now, RR.  You've been around here long enough.

To which assertions are you referring?
Can I just insert "blue" for child and wala!!! Show that blue is the result of common descent? 

But yes, evolution does seem to be a common target when I think unreasonable principles are being put forth.  I see if those principles can be applied elsewhere.  I don't actually think they are good arguments. Which is the point.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[*]

If we were simply defining evolution into existence, as you're effectively doing with the God of this first-mover argument, then yes you could. However, since evolution describes demonstrable phenomena to which we simply assign names and descriptions, it wouldn't really work the same way.

[*]

Yes.... I am still waiting for my kit, in which I can reproduce common descent evolution (probably should send you an address).  However, I think that it really shows a lack of understanding of the premise "everything that begins to exist... has a cause" to think that "begins" can arbitrarily be replaced with "blue".    I can understand the case being made, concerning the ontological argument; however, I think it is misguided here.

[*]

I don't need an address. You can walk right in to your local university's biology department and ask a professor of genetics to show you; I'm sure there's at least one there who'd be willing to run the experiments with you. Otherwise, you can simply do the comparisons for yourself. Since we're humans (and thus prefer looking at human-related evidence), I'll use our relationship with the other Great Apes to show you, as best I can, here. What you're looking at is a chart of the striped "banding" formed by clusters of genes on the chromosome, which are inherited (with variation) from our parents and ancestors. You can clearly see that our chromosomes and those of chimpanzees were inherited from a common source. You reproduce this, with the right materials, via gel electrophoresis, at your own kitchen table... it's a technique taught in every sophomore biology course.



If you really, really want to get into the genetic details, you can look at comparisons between genetic "scars" left by ancient viral infections (called Endogenous RetroViruses, or ERVs) on prior generations' germ line cells, in non-active areas of the chromosomes (non-active means they are simply passed down with only point mutations and occasional transpositions/recombination mutations shifting them around a bit, but still visible for comparison purpose). Some of them are very ancient, and shared among lineages. Some of them happened after the populations split, and thus show up in one group but not the other. By comparing the ones that are shared with the ones that are not, and the amount of divergence between them (given known rates of average point mutation), we can even confirm what was previously thought (via other means) about the time-distance between the splits and the inter-relatedness of the various types of Great Ape, including us.

The evidence for common descent is beyond overwhelming, it's simply undeniable. If you think that atheists are just making this all up as some part of Global Scientist Conspiracy™, then I recommend, again, that you read the evangelical Christian who was the head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis S. Collins, in his book The Language of God, in which he patiently explains what we know, how we know it, and what it means in terms of our genetic relationship with the other mammals on the planet. (Or if you'd prefer a Catholic, Dr. Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University has spoken and written quite extensively on the subject, as well, as has Dr. Francisco Ayala, who originally studied to become a priest before turning to the full time pursuit of science.) Again... all of these things I'm telling you are anything but controversial in scientific circles, and can be easily demonstrated for yourself if you'll just take one of the genetics courses I've been suggesting you audit, or if you just send emails to your local professors, asking them if they'll show you how to demonstrate these things for yourself.

Or you can keep squeezing your eyes shut and shouting "Is not is not is not!" like a five-year-old, and mocking the tireless work of a century of biochemists, because you'd prefer the idea that our proof is no better than your religious/philosophical "proofs" about alleged "required" causes and effects.

[Mister Agenda]

What prevents god from doing so?  What constrains god within those logical boundaries,  if god is so constrained?  Perhaps you could elaborate upon this force or power that surrounds and limits your god?  That, whatever it is, sounds considerably more interesting and informative than this middle-manning "god" business, to me.

He's going with omnipotence as 'maximally potent', able to all things except the contradictory ones.

[Cyberman]

@roadrunner

Voilà, not wala. French, you know.