Dr. Craig is a liar.

[LadyForCamus]

I think this might be turning into gibberish.  We're told that an unchanging god becomes something, we're told that concepts don't require a particular universe to exist, and also that the concepts of math and logic are dependent upon a universe in which god exists - possibly even dependent upon that god itself within that particular universe.  We're told that god is limited by possibility but also that possibility is somehow defined by or rooted in whatever it is a god does or is. We're told that a temporal cause can exist in the absence of a temporal framework and even in the absence of existence.

All of this, confusingly, we're told in defense of an argument which fails to establish what is being claimed. Which is -supposed- to make someones beliefs rational....somehow?

I think, "turning into" is rather generous here. [emoji12]

The worst part for me is all the extraordinary fiat regarding god's nature and attributes (assuming we could make rational sense of any of this) without a tiny shred of verifiable evidence to support it. But we are the dummies for not "just having faith..."

[robvalue]

This all just sounds like kids arguing whose super hero would win, and they keep giving them more and more ridiculous powers.

Hmmm...sounds like a good premise for a video, Rob.  What do you think?

Oh yeah, good idea! Thanks

What could I do with that

[wiploc]

Wouldn't that be an actual infinite?

No. There is no such thing as an actual infinite of anything--including truths.

Your god is finite, then.

[LadyForCamus]

Hmmm...sounds like a good premise for a video, Rob.  What do you think?

Oh yeah, good idea! Thanks

What could I do with that

God versus...LOGIC! [emoji41]

[SteveII]

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?"

Why do you think God needs to "think" about anything prior to creation? 
Why can't causation be simultaneous with its effect? Why does causation presuppose the existence of time? 
Why can't God become temporal the moment there was something to have a temporal relationship with?

You misunderstood the sentence: "The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination." The point was NOT to imagine God sitting idly.

[FatAndFaithless]

"God can do anything"

[robvalue]

Why can't Santa get round to every house in a single night, if he has magic reindeer?

LFC: Ahah, God versus logic! You're onto something there

[LadyForCamus]

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?"

Why do you think God needs to "think" about anything prior to creation? 
Why can't causation be simultaneous with its effect? Why does causation presuppose the existence of time? 
Why can't God become temporal the moment there was something to have a temporal relationship with?

You misunderstood the sentence: "The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination." The point was NOT to imagine God sitting idly.

Aaaand...god-magic. [emoji53]. Steve: TT is not required to think any of these things about God. He can simply follow logic and reason where they lead. You're the one making the assertions (e.g. God has some other magical way of coming up with the idea of creation without using "thoughts" or "a mind," which frankly, is idiotic and desperate when you consider it from an unbiased POV), so if you expect anyone to take them seriously you must support them with evidence.

[wiploc]

So God can do things not in keeping with logic.

No. You seem not to understand what it means to say something is illogical. Logic has nothing to do with naturalism or science.

Logic has nothing to do with science?  That's crazy talk.  

Logic has to do with the form of the statement rather than its content. You are trying to say something like this:

1. Only natural things have natural causes
2. God is supernatural 
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things

That is a logically sound argument. However, that does not mean its conclusion is true. I would debate you on premise 1.

Do you mean "valid" rather than "sound"?  The conclusions of sound arguments are always true.

I don't see how you can even think it is valid.  I wonder if I can nudge it a little to get it close enough to being valid that it will be a recognizable fallacy.  Hmm.  

1. Only natural things have natural causes
2. God is supernatural 
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things

Hmm. 

Okay, I'm going to apologize in advance for if I get this wrong.  I hate to misrepresent people, but the attempt to translate what you're trying to say is an opportunity for you to correct me if I guess wrong.  I'm going to change P2.  

1. Only natural things have natural causes.
2. God is not a natural cause.
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things.

I feel like that's close to "affirming the consequent," a recognized fallacy.  But I'm not sure it's exactly right.  

Tell you what, let's keep those premises and see what conclusion we can legitimately derive.   

P1 says that natural things can have natural causes, and that unnatural things cannot have natural causes.  Therefore, an unnatural god may be able to cause natural things and unnatural things.  

Wait!  Did you misplace the "only"?  Is P1 supposed to be something like, "1. Natural things can only have natural causes.  In that case, your god could cause unnatural things, but he couldn't cause natural things.  This doesn't sound like something you'd say, so I'm going to set this possibility aside.  

Here are two versions of P1.  

1a. Only natural things have natural causes.
1b. Unnatural things do not have natural causes.  

Their meanings are identical.  So I'm going to substitute in the more easily  comprehended 1b, to see what we can derive:

1. Unnatural things do not have natural causes.
2. God is not a natural cause.

And our conclusion, then, is:  

3. Perhaps god is a cause of unnatural things. 

This is valid:

1. Only natural things have natural causes.
2. God is not a natural cause.
3. Perhaps god is a cause of unnatural things. 

But that conclusion is a far cry from your conclusion.  

3. Perhaps god causes unnatural things. 
is a far cry from
3. Therefore God does not cause natural things.

I have to reconsider the issue I set aside above, the misplaced "only."  Because you can never get from "1. Only natural things have natural causes," to, "Therefore God does not cause natural things."  But if that's really the conclusion you want, then "1. Natural things have only natural causes," can get you to that conclusion.  

But you said the argument was sound, even though, if I understand, you believe god created everything natural.  

Okay, I've got it.  You misplaced the "only," and  you mistakenly said "sound" when you meant "valid."  That makes everything work out.  

So I'm going to reproduce your post here, with amendments.  I normally hate "fixed it for you posts," but this one isn't me snidely misrepresenting you to make you say something you don't agree with.  I expect you will agree that this is a better phrasing of what you actually believe.  And I'm posting this so that you can either ratify it or correct me if I'm wrong:

---amended version of Steve II's post---

Logic has to do with the form of the statement rather than its content. You are trying to say something like this:

1. Natural things have only natural causes.
2. God is not natural.
3. Therefore, God does not cause natural things.

That is a logically valid argument. However, that does not mean its conclusion is true. I would debate you on premise 1.

---end of amended version of Steve II's post---

Okay, that makes sense now.  I'm sorry it took me so long to work out what you were trying to say.





















[/quote]

[LadyForCamus]

@steve

I apologize for using "idiotic." I wasn't calling you an idiot; you seem very well educated. I only meant that I find these ideas about God idiotic. Still, you have always been respectful in our exchanges and I owe you the same. I could have come up with less inflammatory phrasing. Sorry.