Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Pat Mustard]

You forgot a necessary attribute in your list. Whatever caused the universe (or its predecessor) must have been uncaused to avoid a past infinite regression absurdity. 

That's why the Kalam Argument is phrased "Anything that began to exist must have a cause of it's existence".

- If things can happen without causes, then we have no need of a creator god.  "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." 

It's better, because it passes William of Ockham's doctrine of least causes. A universe uncreated by god has less explaining to do than a one created by god (that's assuming that in all other ways both possibilities are equally likely, which is preposterous given our knowledge of the world).

[Jehanne]

You just won't answer any questions will you? 

I kind of assumed you didn't need an explanation. You really don't want to think past "Dr. Craig is a liar" and his credentials.

What question do you want to ask of me?  As for Craig, no, he has not studied physics, and he should not be treated as an authority on cosmology.

[RoadRunner79]

From what I can gather Steve's argument (roadrunner doesn't go so far to actually forward an arguments, he just snipes at other posters) ...

---

is essentially that the universe must have by its nature certain conditions, first that there was a period where it didn't exist (but where time did), second that it was created, third that it was created according to a conscious plan (as all things need these three things), thus god.

However his argument falls apart, because when it comes to god none of these things necessary, he arbitrarily excludes god from the set of "all things" because it creates uncomfortable questions for him, viz "who maketh the maker?" and "is it gods all the way back?"

---

I made much the same arguments as Steve;   I gave up, because I don't think that people want to understand or be able to even correctly state them even.  And in spite the lack of knowledge of another poster these attributes of God where not made up Ad Hoc.  Jews and Christians have believed them for millennia, as they where revealed in God's word throughout history.   This is however separate from the evidence being talked about here.  The evidence points to a beginning of the Universe.   I would bet that most of the cosmologist mentioned in the thread so far, would agree with a ~14 Billion year age for the universe.  The differences come in the theoretically based (not evidential at this time) views of if there was something prior.  There are a number of different models, and you will see cosmologist speak pros and cons to different ones at different times.   Most of them have issues, and people have their favorites.   It's not new... many scientists have struggled to get around the consequences of the Universe having a beginning for quite some time. 

There is a logical argument against an infinite regress of causes and a actual infinite. Therefore there is reason to surmise a first cause somewhere in the line. The Kalam Cosmological Argument simply states that the universe had a beginning, and therefore had a cause. The absurdity that follows in trying to avoid this, I think is both hilarious and sad.

[Jehanne]

The evidence points to a beginning of the Universe...The absurdity that follows in trying to avoid this, I think is both hilarious and sad.

Maybe if you studied more physics, you would have more understanding, or, at least listen more to physicists who do have understanding:

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

Take heed of the words uttered against Galileo:

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp

Just because you and Dr. Craig do not understand certain scientific concepts does not make them untrue.

[robvalue]

Right. You can't just blunder unqualified into an area of science and say, "That seems absurd to me, so it's wrong. I'll back up my objections with speculative philosphy based on absurdly simple premises I can't possibly demonstrate to be universally true. Watch me as I pack my conclusions into my premises, which is what happens when you work backwards from conclusions you already need to be true."

[RoadRunner79]

The evidence points to a beginning of the Universe...The absurdity that follows in trying to avoid this, I think is both hilarious and sad.

Maybe if you studied more physics, you would have more understanding, or, at least listen more to physicists who do have understanding:


Just because you and Dr. Craig do not understand certain scientific concepts does not make them untrue.

I do agree with Carol, lets talk about specifics, and not vague references. What specifically is it you are saying is not being understood? What evidence do you think is being ignored? What are you proposing, that you think is more correct, or why do you think the measured age of the universe is incorrect? Carol in his debate with Craig said that he found 17+ theories in an hour on google before the debate. He also said, that he doesn't claim that any are the right answer. That we are nowhere near the right answer yet.

Is there evidence, that is pushing them to look beyond the accepted age of the universe, or is it more ideological. I'd agree, that it certainly is keeping a lot of people busy. And I don't have a problem with scientist who keep searching and looking for a possibly better answer. People here are highly critical of philosophers and saying that arguments are not evidence. I don't completely agree, and think that the arguments are as good as their foundation. When you build too far from a good foundation, then things are bound to crumble. I don't see theoretical models as much different.

[SteveII]

You forgot a necessary attribute in your list. Whatever caused the universe (or its predecessor) must have been uncaused to avoid a past infinite regression absurdity. 

That's why the Kalam Argument is phrased "Anything that began to exist must have a cause of it's existence".

- If things can happen without causes, then we have no need of a creator god.  "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." 

- Since you claim your creator god is eternal, you are not avoiding "a past infinite regression absurdity."

- There is no sense of "begin" for which your god didn't begin but the rest of the universe did.  Therefore--even according to your own logic--if the rest of the universe needs a cause, so does your god.

You are not understanding the argument. 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

In order to avoid an infinite regress, that explanation must be uncaused. This is inductive reasoning. Either argue that the universe is eternal and exist necessarily or that causal principles do not apply. Your conclusion "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." is not an answer. If you do not have successful defeaters for these, you can inductively reason an inmaterial uncaused cause with enough power to create something from nothing.

[SteveII]

You just won't answer any questions will you? 

I kind of assumed you didn't need an explanation. You really don't want to think past "Dr. Craig is a liar" and his credentials.

What question do you want to ask of me?  As for Craig, no, he has not studied physics, and he should not be treated as an authority on cosmology.

You seem to think WLC is disagreeing with Carroll/Hawkings on cosmological theories. He is not--actually why bother, they all admit shortcomings in their theories and they all know that they do not have it right yet. He is pointing out that whatever theory you want to espouse, there is a beginning/front edge/boundary/whatever you want to call it to the universe. Where a cosmologist oversteps is when they move past the boundary and declare that we don't have to discuss "before" because there was no before because time did not exist. This is clearly metaphysics and not science. 

[robvalue]

A liar, a bounder and a cad.

Is anyone ever a bounder but not a cad? Or vice versa?

Craig hides behind the bland deistic God in every "science" debate, then equivocates by shoving in his local favourite story book characters based on nothing. Just like every apologist from every religion. Liar.

[GrandizerII]

- If things can happen without causes, then we have no need of a creator god.  "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." 

- Since you claim your creator god is eternal, you are not avoiding "a past infinite regression absurdity."

- There is no sense of "begin" for which your god didn't begin but the rest of the universe did.  Therefore--even according to your own logic--if the rest of the universe needs a cause, so does your god.

You are not understanding the argument. 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

In order to avoid an infinite regress, that explanation must be uncaused. This is inductive reasoning. Either argue that the universe is eternal and exist necessarily or that causal principles do not apply. Your conclusion "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." is not an answer. If you do not have successful defeaters for these, you can inductively reason an inmaterial uncaused cause with enough power to create something from nothing.

You can't create something from literal "nothing". Again, another example of a statement that defies logic that you accept as logically possible because thinking otherwise would mean having to let go of your concept of God.

Infinite regression defies human intuition, but it's not necessarily illogical.