Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

If that's the case, then God cannot have created anything out of nothing ... or timelessly created ... or anything of the sort ...

Not to mention if God was all that existed and was everywhere, where did he get the 'nothing' from in the first place? If God is something that exists, and exists eternally, the philosophical nothingness needed for creation ex nihilo never 'existed'.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's going with omnipotence as 'maximally potent', able to all things except the contradictory ones.

Which is fine by me, more palatable than being able to do impossible things, at least.  Although it does seem to turn "god" into an issue of worshipping the player with the greatest hookshot, rather than an investigation of the relationships by which that hook is both supported and constrained.

[robvalue]

Well, the good thing about fantasy is that you can make it up as you go along, including the rules about how it works. The drawback is that it doesn't achieve anything.

Dealing with reality, and putting out meaningful claims that people can actually test is a lot harder work.

[RoadRunner79]

@roadrunner

Voilà, not wala. French, you know.

Thanks for the correction....

[LadyForCamus]

By the way...is this what you do when you have no viable explain for the contradictory assertions you've put forth?  Just start picking at evolution?  You should better by now, RR.  You've been around here long enough.

To which assertions are you referring?
Can I just insert "blue" for child and wala!!! Show that blue is the result? 

But yes, evolution does seem to be a common target when I think unreasonable principles are being put forth.  I see if those principles can be applied elsewhere.  I don't actually think they are good arguments. Which is the point.

I was referring to these assertions that you have yet to provide a mechanism of action with supporting evidence for:

I'm not sure what you are asking... Non-physical (not sure what this means) but everywhere (even though there is no "anywhere" until God creates space) existing timelessly in non-existence? My friend, I'm afraid you have lost me completely.

Evolution is not an argument, it's a scientific fact and a cornerstone of biology. Your inability to accept that is your own issue. And really, has very little to do with atheism, as a matter of fact.

[Cyberman]

If the energy spent in rationalising baby stories was channelled into space research, we'd be colonising other galaxies by now.

[Cyberman]

@roadrunner

Voilà, not wala. French, you know.

Thanks for the correction....

You're welcome.

[RoadRunner79]

---

[*]

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.

[*]

I don't need an address. You can walk right in to your local university's biology department and ask a professor of genetics to show you; I'm sure there's at least one there who'd be willing to run the experiments with you. Otherwise, you can simply do the comparisons for yourself. Since we're humans (and thus prefer looking at human-related evidence), I'll use our relationship with the other Great Apes to show you, as best I can, here. What you're looking at is a chart of the striped "banding" formed by clusters of genes on the chromosome, which are inherited (with variation) from our parents and ancestors. You can clearly see that our chromosomes and those of chimpanzees were inherited from a common source. You reproduce this, with the right materials, via gel electrophoresis, at your own kitchen table... it's a technique taught in every sophomore biology course.



If you really, really want to get into the genetic details, you can look at comparisons between genetic "scars" left by ancient viral infections (called Endogenous RetroViruses, or ERVs) on prior generations' germ line cells, in non-active areas of the chromosomes (non-active means they are simply passed down with only point mutations and occasional transpositions/recombination mutations shifting them around a bit, but still visible for comparison purpose). Some of them are very ancient, and shared among lineages. Some of them happened after the populations split, and thus show up in one group but not the other. By comparing the ones that are shared with the ones that are not, and the amount of divergence between them (given known rates of average point mutation), we can even confirm what was previously thought (via other means) about the time-distance between the splits and the inter-relatedness of the various types of Great Ape, including us.

The evidence for common descent is beyond overwhelming, it's simply undeniable. If you think that atheists are just making this all up as some part of Global Scientist Conspiracy™, then I recommend, again, that you read the evangelical Christian who was the head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis S. Collins, in his book The Language of God, in which he patiently explains what we know, how we know it, and what it means in terms of our genetic relationship with the other mammals on the planet. (Or if you'd prefer a Catholic, Dr. Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University has spoken and written quite extensively on the subject, as well, as has Dr. Francisco Ayala, who originally studied to become a priest before turning to the full time pursuit of science.) Again... all of these things I'm telling you are anything but controversial in scientific circles, and can be easily demonstrated for yourself if you'll just take one of the genetics courses I've been suggesting you audit, or if you just send emails to your local professors, asking them if they'll show you how to demonstrate these things for yourself.

Or you can keep squeezing your eyes shut and shouting "Is not is not is not!" like a five-year-old, and mocking the tireless work of a century of biochemists, because you'd prefer the idea that our proof is no better than your religious/philosophical "proofs" about alleged "required" causes and effects.

---

I actually meant to respond to your other similar post, but time got away from me, and it wasn't actually about evolution anyway (similar to here). I do find this to be the best argument for evolution, because I think it is the main one, that tries to demonstrate common descent (rather than assuming it). If you want to start another thread or message me, if you have better information available (better than that simplistic drawing). I would be looking for more of the actual data, with similarities and discrepancies included (what are the difficulties). Personally, I think that because common descent is assumed so much, that it isn't taught very well. The data isn't organized and explained well. I'm by no means an expert in biology so I need some help and explanation, and I realize that I may not understand everything. But in my experience, someone who knows the subject well, should be able to explain their reasoning, and someone who doesn't know the subject well can assess it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Where did your genes come from Roadrunner?  If you were confronted with someone who shared a staggering amount of genetic similarity with you, what might -you- infer about the relationship between yourself and that person?

[Cyberman]

........?  The doctrine of ex nihilo is creation out of nothing (literally).  Unless you think god is nothing, they don't quite match.

I think "God" is nothing.