Dr. Craig is a liar.

[GrandizerII]

In a timeless state, he'd be functionally no different from a non-sentient timeless entity.

When you say "functionally" you are implying that there are activities going on. That would not happen in a timeless state.

Exactly! So not even entering time could occur ...

[robvalue]

None of this sounds remotely like the character Yahweh. You know, the one who walks around like a human, gets outwitted by a talking snake and loses track of the two humans he's supposed to be managing.

[Time Traveler]

Again, because I have to state this emphatically so you don't go off trying to slay straw men, I am ONLY talking about what your timeless God supposedly did before the creation of the universe... not your God's imagined relationship to time after the creation.

You made me read a lot of material to understand the arguments. I find this conclusion from WLC's article on Time and Omnitemporaltiy to be a convincing senario. That do you think?

One must maintain that "prior " to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all. There would be no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.

But such a changeless, undifferentiated state looks suspiciously like a state of timelessness! It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without creation is timeless and that He enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination. Given that time began to exist, the most plausible view of God's relationship to time is that He is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/timelessn...z48J4TiTa9

First, let me point out that you completely sidestep your own contradictory statements which I explicitly pointed out on page 51 of this thread. I can only assume this means you acknowledge your own incongruous reasoning on this subject.

---

Even a series of mental events is enough to form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time").

Which directly contradicts...

There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts.

Contradiction: You cannot have "a series of mental events" and also assert, "there was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts."
Contradiction: You cannot "form a before and after (therefore some measure of "time")" in a truly timeless state. Timeless, by definition, would have no "before and after."

---

Now, let's address the real subject of your worship, William Lane Craig...

Craig is asserting that 1) God was timeless and unchanging prior to creation and then, 2) God enters time and becomes temporal at the moment of creation.

This is a prime example of sophistry if ever there was one. You start by imagining a God existing before the universe, incapable of thought, or action, or change of any kind, and then imagine God suddenly thinks, and acts, and changes, deciding to create the universe and time. No matter how hard you or Craig try, you can't avoid these stages of transition (a.k.a. Time): Before creation -> The Moment of creation -> Post Creation. God's imagined corresponding stages would be: Changeless/Timeless -> Changing to actualize Creation -> Temporal with the universe. In other words, a timeless state prior to time is self-contradictory, because, by identifying that the timeless state existed before time, we must necessarily place it in time, on a timeline.

This just isn't rational.

That's why your own thoughts on the matter are so contradictory... because it is logically impossible for any sentient being to do anything from a truly changeless, timeless state - including changing the timeless state itself! Your own instincts imagine God must have had "a series of mental events [forming] a before and after (therefore some measure of "time")." Your mentor Craig would completely disagree with your line of reasoning - even though his own disagreement is wholly irrational.

On the other hand, if "God existing idly before creation" is just "a figment of imagination," and "prior to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all," then God and the universe would have begun to exist at the exact same moment! Goodbye special pleading from the Kalam! Absent any moment prior to creation, there is also absolutely no point in arguing for a "timeless, unchanging" state of God, because God's existence would have always been temporal with the universe as there could be no "before," and thus no time for anything, including God, to be in any state - timeless or otherwise. (Q: How long did God's timeless state last prior to the creation of time? A: Zero seconds.)

Now, why must Craig defend such a ridiculous proposition as a timeless God "existing changelessly alone without [before] creation?" and in the same breath asserting "prior to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all" (and thus, no before)? Because he knows, absent this concocted, self-contradictory absurdity, God would himself confront the infinite past regress of events (like the "series of mental events" that you imagined) which Craig asserts is anathema to his philosophy. So Craig attempts to counter this with a preposterous proposal - imagining a timeless, changeless deity existing alone, "timeless without [before] creation and temporal subsequent to [after] creation." And yet, Craig gives God literally no time to exist prior to [without] creation. Can you say "cognitive dissonance?"

[SteveII]

I believe logic, mathematics, and abstract objects (like numbers) are not physical objects and are not a result of the physical universe.  I am not a Platonist and do not think that they are real things that exist necessarily. However, where did they come from? Would they exist in all possible worlds? On theism, it is not logical that these things exist separate from God's existence. So I believe they are properly based in the mind/nature of God, which would give them concrete meaning and applicability. 

Related to the question why God cannot do logically impossible things, God would not be able to do things contrary to his nature. Even further, constructing a sentence that has logical impossibilities like a round square or married bachelor are just a grouping of contradictory words and not really a thing to consider. In the same way, can God count to infinity and lift that rock are not really coherent questions.

Numbers are just models; tangible constructs thought up by human minds to describe the abstract concepts of mathematics.  I don't understand why theists are always so baffled by the invention of numeric symbols.  It's really not that different from how we use language, but I've never heard a theist using the existence of words as evidence for god.

So, say in another identical universe, there were no minds to contemplate such things. Would that mean that the concept of 8 objects does not exist? Does that mean that E=MC^2 still does not have a mathematical relationship? Does that mean that the idea of P then Q; P therefore Q would not have meaning? Words just represent concepts.

[The Grand Nudger]

We generally accept that our concepts are referent amigo.  That they...you know...describe a world that we perceive?  That if there was no one to call 8 objects floating in space "8 objects"...that would not change the number of objects floating in space.

Proposing otherwise runs the risk of claiming that there would be no red, if there were no word for red - which is not how we understand that relationship to play out in our experience.

[SteveII]

I don't think I will ever understand this comeback. The KCA is properly formed, logically sound, not question begging, not equivocating, and not contradictory. The premises of the KCA, if true, infer the cause of the universe (or its predecessor) to be uncaused, timeless, immaterial, personal, and at least powerful enough to bring a universe into being from nothing. This is all it does. It does not get us to the the God of the Christianity and says nothing about other attributes that God might have.

So, how do we get from that to your comeback?

But you can't demonstrate that the KCA's premises are true, can you?  This is a problem for the argument.  

And you still haven't adequately described with supporting evidence how something can exist timelessly, immaterially, not in any space, and without any temporal stream of consciousness, and yet perform an action as powerful as creating the universe.  Or, perform any action at all for that matter.  How does something exist in non-existence and "then" create existence?  You have a lot to answer for here with these bald assertions, and the KCA is not an answer.  [emoji53]

In both cases, you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. 

inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which specific line of reasoning are you objecting to in the KCA? Did you read the presentation of the whole argument (link again below). I can't defend if I do not know specifically what your complaint is. Please read and be specific if you are serious about this. 

 http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...l-argument

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with the KCA is that it doesn't -matter- whether the premises are true.

[LadyForCamus]

Numbers are just models; tangible constructs thought up by human minds to describe the abstract concepts of mathematics.  I don't understand why theists are always so baffled by the invention of numeric symbols.  It's really not that different from how we use language, but I've never heard a theist using the existence of words as evidence for god.

So, say in another identical universe, there were no minds to contemplate such things. Would that mean that the concept of 8 objects does not exist? Does that mean that E=MC^2 still does not have a mathematical relationship? Does that mean that the idea of P then Q; P therefore Q would not have meaning? Words just represent concepts.

Well of course all those concepts would still exist, assuming this other universe is identical to ours.  I just don't see how it supports the God hypothesis.  The laws of our universe exist as they are.  I don't understand your point.

[SteveII]

Okay, those are fair questions.

Let's start with why I said personal. God created the universe instead of not creating the universe (which seems to be the only two choices). The creation act seems to be a free act of the will rather than something determined by some prior condition.

The quote I posted a page or two ago might help with the timeless question:


If God is omniscient, he would know all truths simultaneously in his timeless state. An entity who knows all truths does not have to think about things, reason things out, etc. (and therefore mark time with mental events).  As the quote above says, that timeless state ended when the universe was created.  Time started at that point. God was extrinsically changed by his creation. The creative act was simultaneous with its effect.

:: Bold mine ::

How does God "know" anything without a mind? Without the ability to think? By what other mechanism does he process information? You seem to want God to perform like a sentient, conscious being without any of the necessary constituents of such a being. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; not without evidence.

P.S. "God-Magic" is a non-answer.

[SteveII]

When you say "functionally" you are implying that there are activities going on. That would not happen in a timeless state.

Exactly! So not even entering time could occur ...

How does that follow? At the point of creation, God became temporal because that is when time began.