Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Edwardo Piet]

Phenomenology is just the most perfect fucking combination of philosophy and science ever.

Without phenomenology I would feel philosophy was pretty much worthless.

Phenomona is reality.

The whole problem with the supernatural is it addresses the noumena.

Phenomena > Noumena

Empiricism > Rationalism

David Hume > Immanuel Kant

Aristotle > Plato

[SteveII]

I don't know what the fuck "supernatural" is meant to be either.

We arbitrarily label certain things "natural". Scientifically, we label everything we observe that way. Informally we may distinguish between natural and "man made". Either way, it's just labels.

I know, I know... supernatural breaks "the laws of nature". I've been through all this before. It's an equivocation fallacy between our scientific models and any actual laws that exist.

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of being dishonest...

http://youtu.be/J5u5-Bg2ENQ

Why would you define supernatural as "breaks the laws of nature". There is no breaking. A supernatural cause having an effect on the natural world is perfectly logical. What exactly is the "dishonesty" you have detected? All i'm seeing is a discussion on the assertion that God is not a coherent idea that, when pressed, atheist can't defend. Science certainly can't disprove the supernatural. What ground to you have to say, not that you believe there is no supernatural, but you take it further and say that belief in the supernatural is ridiculous (and dishonest)?

[Time Traveler]

---

A truly timeless entity cannot do anything, including creating space-time. There is no moment of "change" without some form of time. Without change, there can be no cause and effect. God cannot exist sans universe, then suddenly create the universe absent some form of time to which he himself must be subjected to. You're addressing what happened after God created space-time without addressing how God  could have logically created space-time absent any form of time or change.

---

Why can't a timeless entity do anything? Even a series of mental events is enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time").

Okay, Steve, this is only going downhill. You assert that your timeless God can have "a series of mental events [...] enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time.") 1) Given that you believe your God is eternal, his "series of mental events" would be actually infinite, contradicting your many prior assertions that a past "infinite regress" is absurd. 2) This "series of mental events" measuring time also blatantly contradicts your confident earlier statement...

God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts.

You are clearly making this stuff up as you go!

[Cyberman]

In a word: theology.

[SteveII]

---

---

Why can't a timeless entity do anything? Even a series of mental events is enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time").

Okay, Steve, this is only going downhill. You assert that your timeless God can have "a series of mental events [...] enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time.") 1) Given that you believe your God is eternal, his "series of mental events" would be actually infinite, contradicting your many prior assertions that a past "infinite regress" is absurd. 2) This "series of mental events" measuring time also blatantly contradicts your confident earlier statement...

God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts.

You are clearly making this stuff up as you go!

You missed the qualifier in the sentence preceding the quote: "prior to the universe". Your objection is that there was no time in order to change from this state into creating the universe. Why is it not possible, that God, after existing timelessly created the universe--which would be a mental event causally prior to the universe taking shape? Alternatively, why isn't it possible that God causing the event was simultaneous with the effect (since it was only efficient causation--not material causation)?

[SteveII]

The following are general observations and not specifically aimed at one person.

I realize I am not going to convince any of you that God exists. What I am doing is pointing out that the typical objections for God existing are not very good ones and certainly don't rise to the point of "God is a ridiculous notion".

Just as some have pointed out, I don't believe in God because of the KCA or some other bit of natural theology. This is support for the direct revelation and personal revelation from God (the Bible and personal relationship respectively).

I think in a similar way, many (not all) atheist don't believe in God because of an argument or premise in some syllogism. They just reject the whole ball of wax, often based on feelings, influence, or personal experiences, and they have been assured by others this is the intelligent thing to do. They have been told that Christians don't have answers to x y and z, and therefore their belief is unfounded and ignorant. You can see from dozens and dozens of posts in this very thread that that seems to be the case.

What some are not getting is that these questions are not new. They have been answered extensively. There is no coherent argument you can raise that has not been addressed. In some cases, the answer to a particular question is not certain (ranging from possible to probable). That is to be expected. Christianity does not hang on a single data point. It is a very complex system blending revealed, natural, and systematic theology. It is a cumulative case with thousands of data points. You should not think that because you can trip up a Christian who is not prepared to defend all of the facets of that system, that that means anything other than that person is unprepared.

While, it is fun to discuss these questions and probe each other's abilities to articulate a point, the result will never be cut and dried--case closed. Belief in God is not irrational and the concept of God is not ridiculous no matter how many times (or ways) you are willing to type it.

[Edwardo Piet]

I realize I am not going to convince any of you that God exists.

[dyresand]

In a word: theology.

Aka mental masturbation on a grand scale

[SteveII]

I realize I am not going to convince any of you that God exists.

Thanks for helping me prove my point. 

[SteveII]

deleted