Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Jehanne]

Then there are truths which exist independently of god, which god did not cause.

How is "logic is grounded in his nature" construed as "exist independently".

Because god did not cause mathematical truths to be; they simply are.  God could have created the Cosmos to be different, no?  Different physical constants?  Laws?  Number of planets?  Even us!  But, god could not have caused 2 + 2 to equal anything but 4.  Why not just say that "abstract objects" created the Cosmos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4

[Jehanne]

What? No.
The only thing with "atheism being true" is that the universe's explanation of its existence would not involve Jehovah a deity.

We were  discussing what options an atheist has for an explanation of the universe (or its predecessor)? Carroll (the renowned atheist cosmologist) thinks there is no explanation. Do you know of an explanation that avoids the problem of infinite regression?

Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" proposal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%...king_state

[wiploc]

that the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor)
 
If the universe is everything that exists, including time, then it can't have a predecessor. 

That depends on what model you are hanging your hat on,

No, that's just a fact. 

but that does not matter. Carroll understands the problem. Going back however many steps you think it takes does not escape the problem of the past infinite causes. Do you believe the universe began or are you willing to live with the absurdity of an infinite regression?

I don't believe either.  Since I don't know which is true, I have to be willing to live with not knowing.  

What I'm not willing to live with is pretending to know, arbitrarily declaring one to be true and the other to be absurd.  

does not exist necessarily (could have failed to exist) and that it has existed from infinity with no explanation--a "brute fact" as he also put it.
 
Like your god?

I notice you didn't respond to this.  If you don't like brute facts, how is your god not a brute fact?  Or how is a brute-fact god more plausible than a brute-fact rest of the universe?

 
He does not believe in God so that is not an explanatory option for him.
 
I don't think gods are ever explanatory.

So you are willing to believe, despite the logical absurdity and scientific evidence, that the universe is past eternal or sprang from nothing uncaused

So you are willing to believe, despite the logical absurdity and scientific evidence, that your god is past eternal or sprang from nothing uncaused?  

How is your position less embarrassing than the position you attribute to me?

but deny that God [can] be an explanatory option?

I don't see how any kind of magic can be explanatory.  I'm willing to openly state that gods cannot be explanatory.  I so state. 

If that draws from you information that makes me have to retract, it will be worth it.  

Other atheists might have a slightly different idea about universe generators, endless expansion/contraction, etc. but that does not escape the problem of eventually you have to say something always existed (brute fact) 
 
So many ways to approach that.  Let me just ask, how is it different with gods? 

BTW, this type of argument is part of natural theology. Natural theology is examining attributes and properties of God through examining reality and using logic rather than appealing to the Bible. To avoid the problems above, you need an uncaused first cause.

A brute fact uncaused first cause?  

I ask again, how is your position less embarrassing than the position you attribute to me?  If an uncaused rest of the universe is embarrassing, why isn't an uncaused god embarrassing?   If an eternal universe is absurd, why isn't an eternal god absurd?  

Just by examining the problem, you get the properties of this entity: eternal, timeless, powerful enough to make something out of nothing, non-physical, has intent, etc.

Word salad, non-sequitur, contradiction, and equivocation.  I don't know what your argument is going to be, but you've definitely got the ingredients for a classic theist apology there.    

I'm willing to entertain your argument, but you'll have to spell it out.  I'm not going to guess at it or make it up for you.

even in the face of the absurdity of a past infinite.  
 
I don't see how an unbegun infinite past is any more absurd than a begun finite past.  Both present conceptual difficulties greater than I can cope with. 
 
I can't say, "X must be true because Y is weird," when X and Y seem to be equally weird.  If Y's weirdness made X true, then X's weirdness would also make Y true, which would result in contradiction.  So I think the rational response is to say we don't  know. 
 
I wandered onto campus one day to check out this no-infinities assertion that Christians make.  I found three physics professors, and put the question to them:  Do infinities exist in real life?   None of them opined that infinities do not exist.

 
You perhaps did not phrase the question right.

They understood the question, and none of them took your side.  

Infinites in math is a conceptual tool. It is used in equations (which of course physicist use). There are an infinite number of real numbers. We are talking about actual infinities.

I understand your point.  

There is no way to get to infinity by adding one at a time--you will never get there. Causal chains and time are created by adding. The same principle applies going into the past. You could never had arrived at today without there being a yesterday and a day before. You could never get to today as the end of a causal chain without all the causes before adding one to another.

I understand your argument.  But, as I said before, if X and Y are both weird, X's weirdness doesn't prove that Y is true.  It isn't even a step in that direction.  

A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.

If your claim is that this is the claim of this Carroll person, I'll have to take your word for it.  But if your claim is that this claim is logically entailed by atheism, then I'd like to see you make your case.

see above

See above.

If you believe A) to be true then you also believe B) If the universe (or its predecessor) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true because it is the logical equivalent. You cannot affirm A) and deny B) --they rise and fall together.
 
I don't want to nitpick.  I can say it this way:
 
The premise, "If there are no gods, then the universe has no explanation," logically entails the conclusion, "If the universe has an explanation, then there is at least one god." 
 
I agree that that premise entails that conclusion.

That's fine. Occam's razor would dictate that we consider only one at this stage, but that's fine with me.

You lost me.

[robvalue]

Since WLC never produces any evidence for anything he says, I think we should be able to say whatever the fuck we want about him without evidence either.

Who's first?

[dyresand]

Since WLC never produces any evidence for anything he says, I think we should be able to say whatever the fuck we want about him without evidence either.

Who's first?

Me first me first

WLC is a lying manipulative piece of shit.

[robvalue]

Ah that doesn't count, we have plenty of evidence for that

[dyresand]

Ah that doesn't count, we have plenty of evidence for that

Unlike evidence for god(s) and the paranormal 

[SteveII]

How is "logic is grounded in his nature" construed as "exist independently".

Because god did not cause mathematical truths to be; they simply are.  God could have created the Cosmos to be different, no?  Different physical constants?  Laws?  Number of planets?  Even us!  But, god could not have caused 2 + 2 to equal anything but 4.  Why not just say that "abstract objects" created the Cosmos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4

That has got to bet he worst rebuttal I have ever heard. Can you pull out the point you think he made that made sense?

[robvalue]

1) Everything that begins to earn money through apologetics is a devious cunt.

2) WLC began to earn money through apologetics.

3) WLC is a devious cunt.

4) Therefor FSM

[SteveII]

We were  discussing what options an atheist has for an explanation of the universe (or its predecessor)? Carroll (the renowned atheist cosmologist) thinks there is no explanation. Do you know of an explanation that avoids the problem of infinite regression?

Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" proposal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%...king_state

The Hartle-Hawkings model does not answer the question of explanation. It is just another theory with a boundary.