Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SofaKingHigh]

What prevents god from doing so?  What constrains god within those logical boundaries,  if god is so constrained?  Perhaps you could elaborate upon this force or power that surrounds and limits a god?

Rhythm, good day to your sir.......Mario, in your avatar; he must have some size of an appendage to be getting through that frock.

Lucky girl.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've been pulling weeds, and my back.  Good to see yall too.

[LadyForCamus]

Yeah, yeah, some of you guys have actual lives outside of AF...I knew you were going to say that. Damn...[emoji12]

[RoadRunner79]

P1 has problems:

• We don't know that it's true; it's an arbitrary assumption.
  
• Physics (quantum mechanics) rejects P1 as false.  Very tiny things do not seem to have causes, and the beginning of the big bang would have been very tiny. To claim otherwise is to renounce science, or to proclaim that one is smarter and more authoritative than science.
  
  
  
• P1 is arbitrary and self serving.  If, instead of an unbegun god, you worshiped a blue god, P1 would read, "Everything that isn't blue has a cause of its existence."  And, thus modified, the argument would be exactly as strong as it is in WLC's version

Ah, yes.   This reminds me a bit of that "maximally great being" (ontological?) argument, where we can substitute "maximally great" with "maximally smelly", or whatever suites your fancy, and it works out exactly the same.  Perhaps we have a maximally smelly, blue, uncaused God!  Thanks for your insight.

If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that.  Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[*]

Ah, yes.   This reminds me a bit of that "maximally great being" (ontological?) argument, where we can substitute "maximally great" with "maximally smelly", or whatever suites your fancy, and it works out exactly the same.  Perhaps we have a maximally smelly, blue, uncaused God!  Thanks for your insight.

[*]

If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that.  Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd?

[*]

If we were simply defining evolution into existence, as you're effectively doing with the God of this first-mover argument, then yes you could. However, since evolution describes demonstrable phenomena to which we simply assign names and descriptions, it wouldn't really work the same way.

[LadyForCamus]

@Roadrunner

The reason for the claim is that the claimant believes God exists. How does this lend it credit? My point isn't that the argument is absurd, it's that philosophical argument alone without supporting evidence is meaningless and of no practical use.

Sure, go ahead with the evolution example; I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.

[LadyForCamus]

[*]

If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that.  Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd?

[*]

If we were simply defining evolution into existence, as you're effectively doing with the God of this first-mover argument, then yes you could. However, since evolution describes demonstrable phenomena to which we simply assign names and descriptions, it wouldn't really work the same way.

Oh, let him try. It might be fun. :: popcorn :: [emoji56]

[RoadRunner79]

If the set of natural numbers is an actual infinite set (most mathematicians say that it is), does "god" have an infinite number of thoughts in his head?  Or, is there a natural number that "god" does not know about?

Are we discovering new numbers, that we previously did not have knowledge of?   It doesn't seem to me, that knowledge of (in this case) constitutes an actual infinity.

[Jehanne]

Notice how Steve is ignoring my posts; perhaps someone else can answer for him.

You are asking the same thing as "can God make a rock so big that he can't pick it up". No, God cannot do logically impossible things like count all the natural numbers.

Seems like special pleading to say that god can create something out of nothing, as others have pointed out.  But, as I have asked (as have others), when did god go from being "timeless" to being "timely" (sorry if that is not the correct word); what caused god to change states?

[RoadRunner79]

[*]

If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that.  Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd?

[*]

If we were simply defining evolution into existence, as you're effectively doing with the God of this first-mover argument, then yes you could. However, since evolution describes demonstrable phenomena to which we simply assign names and descriptions, it wouldn't really work the same way.

[*]

Yes.... I am still waiting for my kit, in which I can reproduce common descent evolution (probably should send you an address).  However, I think that it really shows a lack of understanding of the premise "everything that begins to exist... has a cause" to think that "begins" can arbitrarily be replaced with "blue".    I can understand the case being made, concerning the ontological argument; however, I think it is misguided here.