Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

1) Define cause and effect.
2) Demonstrate simultaneous cause and effect is plausible under your definition.
3) Even if we grant whatever you mean by simultaneous cause and effect, you still can't get around the fact that, God could not exist timelessly and changelessly without the universe prior to causing time to exist within the universe. This is a non sequitur.

Review the first video in my "Timelessness" thread here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-42797.html
Time becomes an emergent property of causality. Or, put in terms of the video, "Causality is responsible for Time."

Third time trying to post this...

Pisser.  You have my sympathy.  

First, we must distinquish between a material cause and an efficient cause (there are more types of causes, but I don't think they are germane to the discussion). A material cause always precedes its effect. It is not so clear that an efficient cause does.

For example, take a train locomotive and a freight car connected by a coupling with 0% flex. When the locomotive starts moving (the efficient cause), the freight care moves as well (the effect). Simultaneous. 

You are denying relativity.  Yours is a pre-Einsteinian argument.  If there were such a thing as zero flex, then we would live in a Newtonian universe.  But we don't.  

Science is against you on this point.  And we're not talking about a mere consensus of quantum physicists; you're just indisputably wrong.  

[/quote]

[LadyForCamus]

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).

[wiploc]

But, but!  You can't prove that the actual universe isn't an infinite regress, so therefore my premise is true and you have to agree with me!  

Sound familiar?

No, not at all familiar.

Huh.

Sure you can prove that an infinite regress is absurd. I posted about Hilbert's Hotel awhile back. Here it is again:

Imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. All the rooms are full and a new guest walks in and wants a room. The desk clerk says no rooms are available.

Now imagine a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms. All the rooms are filled up so an infinite number of guests. A new guest walks up and wants a room. All the clerk has to to do is to move the guest in room #1 to room #2 and the guest from #2 to #3 and so on so your new guest can have a room #1. You can do this infinite number of times to a hotel that was already full.

Now imagine instead the clerk moves the guest from #1 to #2 and from #2 to #4 and from #3 to #6 (each being moved to a room number twice the original). All the odd number rooms become vacant. You can add an infinite number of new guests to a hotel that was full and end up with it half empty. 

How many people would be in the hotel if the guest in #1 checked out?

If everyone in odd number rooms checks out, how many checked out? How many are left?

Now what if all the guest above room number 3 check out. How many checked out? How many are left?

So from the above we get:
infinity + infinity = infinity
infinity + infinity = infinity/2
infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity / 2 = infinity
infinity - infinity = 3

Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd. 

Pythagoras made an equally strong argument against irrational numbers.

My little sister once made a similar case against negative numbers. 

I have a similar distaste for imaginary numbers. 

But we're stuck with all of these because they describe the universe we live in.  Computers are designed thru the use of imaginary numbers.  If such numbers weren't true, then computers wouldn't work. 

Negative numbers don't work exactly like positive numbers, but that doesn't prove them false. 
Irrational numbers don't work exactly like rational numbers, but that doesn't prove them false.

And transfinite numbers don't work exactly like finite numbers, but that doesn't make them false.  


And that's all that you've demonstrated:  Transfinite numbers can't be used in exactly the same way as finite numbers.  That doesn't even tend to prove that they don't function well and describe reality when you treat them like transfinite numbers rather than finite numbers. 

But Christians keep making the claim that infinities don't exist.  Is this a scientific fact or a religious dogma?  To answer that question, I went on campus and found three physics professors.  I put the question to them: Do infinities exist in the real world?   None of them came down on your side. 

I, therefore, tentatively conclude that your claim is religious dogma rather than scientific fact.  This is my lightly-held belief. 

I'll be happy to change my opinion if you establish that your opinion is the scientific consensus. 

Your demonstration that you can make mistakes by treating transfinite numbers like finite numbers doesn't prove anything about the reality or usefulness of infinities. 

William Lane Craig is smart, and educated, and makes a profession of fielding arguments like this.  I can't believe he hasn't been corrected on this point, or that he hasn't understood the corrections.  Yet he still fields this argument.  That is why I believe that the title of this thread ("Dr. Craig is a liar") is a true statement.  

If scientists generally agreed with Craig on this point, he would certainly tell his audiences about that.  Instead, all he proves is that college math and grade school math are different.  That's not a proof of anything but intellectual stubbornness.

[LadyForCamus]

It is? Why? Put it into your own words.

I can imagine "Sphere World", a world which exists eternally, which simply changes colors from red to blue and back from one moment to the next.  Such a world is finite, and yet, it possess an actual infinite in that it alternatives between red and blue from eternity past until eternity future.

This world would fit perfectly to my alien argument. [emoji13]

@steve

Did you think that you were the only one who could use his imagination to conceive of wild theories about the nature of our universe? [emoji6]

[LadyForCamus]

Defeater for P1: infinite regression of past causes is logically absurd.

How is it more logically absurd than an uncaused first cause?

Exactly. [emoji6]

[LadyForCamus]

No, not at all familiar.

Huh.

Sure you can prove that an infinite regress is absurd. I posted about Hilbert's Hotel awhile back. Here it is again:

Imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. All the rooms are full and a new guest walks in and wants a room. The desk clerk says no rooms are available.

Now imagine a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms. All the rooms are filled up so an infinite number of guests. A new guest walks up and wants a room. All the clerk has to to do is to move the guest in room #1 to room #2 and the guest from #2 to #3 and so on so your new guest can have a room #1. You can do this infinite number of times to a hotel that was already full.

Now imagine instead the clerk moves the guest from #1 to #2 and from #2 to #4 and from #3 to #6 (each being moved to a room number twice the original). All the odd number rooms become vacant. You can add an infinite number of new guests to a hotel that was full and end up with it half empty. 

How many people would be in the hotel if the guest in #1 checked out?

If everyone in odd number rooms checks out, how many checked out? How many are left?

Now what if all the guest above room number 3 check out. How many checked out? How many are left?

So from the above we get:
infinity + infinity = infinity
infinity + infinity = infinity/2
infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity / 2 = infinity
infinity - infinity = 3

Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd. 

Pythagoras made an equally strong argument against irrational numbers.

My little sister once made a similar case against negative numbers. 

I have a similar distaste for imaginary numbers. 

But we're stuck with all of these because they describe the universe we live in.  Computers are designed thru the use of imaginary numbers.  If such numbers weren't true, then computers wouldn't work. 

Negative numbers don't work exactly like positive numbers, but that doesn't prove them false. 
Irrational numbers don't work exactly like rational numbers, but that doesn't prove them false.

And transfinite numbers don't work exactly like finite numbers, but that doesn't make them false.  


And that's all that you've demonstrated:  Transfinite numbers can't be used in exactly the same way as finite numbers.  That doesn't even tend to prove that they don't function well and describe reality when you treat them like transfinite numbers rather than finite numbers. 

But Christians keep making the claim that infinities don't exist.  Is this a scientific fact or a religious dogma?  To answer that question, I went on campus and found three physics professors.  I put the question to them: Do infinities exist in the real world?   None of them came down on your side. 

I, therefore, tentatively conclude that your claim is religious dogma rather than scientific fact.  This is my lightly-held belief. 

I'll be happy to change my opinion if you establish that your opinion is the scientific consensus. 

Your demonstration that you can make mistakes by treating transfinite numbers like finite numbers doesn't prove anything about the reality or usefulness of infinities. 

William Lane Craig is smart, and educated, and makes a profession of fielding arguments like this.  I can't believe he hasn't been corrected on this point, or that he hasn't understood the corrections.  Yet he still fields this argument.  That is why I believe that the title of this thread ("Dr. Craig is a liar") is a true statement.  

If scientists generally agreed with Craig on this point, he would certainly tell his audiences about that.  Instead, all he proves is that college math and grade school math are different.  That's not a proof of anything but intellectual stubbornness.

I can't believe WLC has been working on one logical argument for 40 years..

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry, if I was unclear... The why was directed at the first statement about tiny things.

Got it.  Thanks for the clarification. 

Quantum mechanics deals with the very tiny.  Quarks, electrons, virtual particles, cosmic eggs, and such.

Why do they think these things poof I to existence without any cause?

[Jackalope]

[...]sometimes I do not get the point you are trying to make.[...]

Truer words were never spoken.

Perhaps if you stopped fellating WLC and learned to honestly evaluate crticism?

Just a thought.

[LadyForCamus]

Got it.  Thanks for the clarification. 

Quantum mechanics deals with the very tiny.  Quarks, electrons, virtual particles, cosmic eggs, and such.

Why do they think these things poof I to existence without any cause?

My rough, Laymen interpretation of what I've heard from the scientists: because they "pop in and out" of existence, uncaused. I'm SURE someone else can give you a more scientifically accurate description of the physics of it though.

Edit: sorry RR, I misunderstood what you were asking. Gonna quit while I'm ahead tonight. [emoji13]

[Jackalope]

"of anything" = things. An actual infinite refers to a quantity.

Does anybody understand what his point is here?

Yeah. He's trying to set up a "gotcha" moment where he excludes from the set "things" whatever it is you're concerned with counting.

It's a standard play.