Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

Yeah, I don't know how Steve can claim that god is "timeless" and yet claim that it is absurd to make the same claim about the Universe, that is, it is also "timeless".  For if god is "timeless", then, clearly, there must have been a "time" when god decided to create the Universe (hence, time), but Steve would have us believe that god's decision to create the Universe was simultaneous with god's acting to create the Universe which was simultaneous with the Universe's actual creation.  So, three events all happened at the same time -- deciding, doing and result, and that is absurd!

There is a fourth absurdity with a timeless god, and that is that god's very existence couldn't have preceded the decision, action, and creation of the universe. Thus, if the universe had a beginning, so did god. If god is eternal, so then the universe. And given that we have evidence of the universe, but zero evidence for god, Occam's razor slices the unnecessary deity out like an unwanted tumor.

Jehanne, Do you see the irony that you are objecting to God based on logic and metaphysics that you want to deny exist when convenient to you?

If timelessness is not an essential, but rather a contingent characteristic of God, God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal. 

Regarding claiming that God can be timeless so why can't the universe be, there is at least one big difference: The universe consist of physical "stuff" that is expanding. It cannot be past eternal.  see here, where Vilenkin concludes, “there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” God does not consist of stuff that is in a state of expansion and therefore had a beginning. 

So, what do you have? You really have evidence of the universe having a beginning which is evidence of a transcendent cause.

[GrandizerII]

If timelessness is not an essential, but rather a contingent characteristic of God, God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal.

And I could easily decide to overpower your God because I am even greater than God.

This is how stupid your argument sounds. You don't bother to challenge your views, it seems. You just take it for granted that God can somehow do illogical shit ...

[SteveII]

If timelessness is not an essential, but rather a contingent characteristic of God, God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal.

And I could easily decide to overpower your God because I am even greater than God.

This is how stupid your argument sounds. You don't bother to challenge your views, it seems. You just take it for granted that God can somehow do illogical shit ...

Is it that what I said was illogical or you don't understand what I said? You need to at least give me context clues so I can figure out what you are objecting to so I can respond or clarify.

[Time Traveler]

Vilenkin concludes, “there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”

Vilenkin also agrees with Hawking that, "the most promising approach appears to be the Quantum nucleation of the universe from nothing." ~35:15 Furthermore, when asked "Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?" by Victor Stenger, Vilenkin replied, "No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. [emphasis mine]" Vilenkin then goes on to quote the work of Gratton, Carroll and Chen who propose that the universe could very well have been contracting before it started expanding. (Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p.128).

Clearly Vilenkin doesn't draw the same conclusions about God you do.

God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal.

When exactly did God decide to exist timelessly?

[RoadRunner79]

It's amazing people have such a hard time accepting that possibility, but then allow their "God" exactly the same position without the slightest quibble.

Out of sight, out of mind. The answer is "out there somewhere".

Yeah, I don't know how Steve can claim that god is "timeless" and yet claim that it is absurd to make the same claim about the Universe, that is, it is also "timeless".  For if god is "timeless", then, clearly, there must have been a "time" when god decided to create the Universe (hence, time), but Steve would have us believe that god's decision to create the Universe was simultaneous with god's acting to create the Universe which was simultaneous with the Universe's actual creation.  So, three events all happened at the same time -- deciding, doing and result, and that is absurd!

It seems to me, that here you are both arguing that the universe could be timeless, and that there cannot be something which is timeless.  Could you clarify please?

[GrandizerII]

And I could easily decide to overpower your God because I am even greater than God.

This is how stupid your argument sounds. You don't bother to challenge your views, it seems. You just take it for granted that God can somehow do illogical shit ...

Is it that what I said was illogical or you don't understand what I said? You need to at least give me context clues so I can figure out what you are objecting to so I can respond or clarify.

You need clues? Anyone not suffering the same cognitive dissonance you are can see the problem with the logic expressed in your statement earlier. For one, you can't exist timelessly "in the past" and yet act like a being going through the passage of time. That's not logic. That's you wanting to cling to God no matter what.

[Whateverist]

He has stated in several of his debates that the "Argument of Evil" is a "dead argument," abandoned by "philosophers everywhere."  I used to believe his shit; no more:

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/does...sprove-god

You're find several distinguished philosophers in the above list (such as Tooley & Smith) who explicitly invoke the argument of evil against the existence of god.

Don't believe Criag; he is a conscious liar.

What a shocking accusation, especially here on AF.org!  I would have thought most atheists would have a low opinion of Dr Craig so that it might go without saying.  Apparently it is at least a little controversial.  

For my part, I just think in his role as a debater Craig does what pretty much all people do in that setting.  Namely he is a sophist.  The disappointing thing with Craig is he seems to carry his sophism with him wherever he goes.  As an apologist, he seems to think that it is always a good idea to say whatever it takes to win converts to xtianity.  Apparently, integrity is too expensive a luxury when you're on a mission from God!

[Time Traveler]

It seems to me, that here you are both arguing that the universe could be timeless, and that there cannot be something which is timeless.  Could you clarify please?

I started a thread called "Timelessness" in which I attempt to address my understanding of these matters, including some reference links. It's a big enough topic on its own I think to deserve its own thread.

[Cyberman]

And I could easily decide to overpower your God because I am even greater than God.

I am also greater than the "God" character. I can interact with the Universe. I can speak on my own behalf, have opinions and express them clearly. I can affect the lives of people around me, directly, without the need for anyone to interpret for me. I can be surprised. I can learn from my mistakes. I can experience joy, sadness, anger, pain, pleasure, disappointment, fear. I can die.

Were "God" to exist in this reality, the one we all share, it would be the most ineffectual creature in the Universe, for it can do none of these things.

[GrandizerII]

And I could easily decide to overpower your God because I am even greater than God.

I am also greater than the "God" character. I can interact with the Universe. I can speak on my own behalf, have opinions and express them clearly. I can affect the lives of people around me, directly, without the need for anyone to interpret for me. I can be surprised. I can learn from my mistakes. I can experience joy, sadness, anger, pain, pleasure, disappointment, fear. I can die.

Were "God" to exist in this reality, the one we all share, it would be the most ineffectual creature in the Universe, for it can do none of these things.

True, that's actually a good way of looking at it.