Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

I said "finite," not "infinite."

Sorry. But how does there not being an infinite number of truths make God finite?

You said there is no such thing as an actual infinite of anything.  That makes your god either (a) finite or (b) not actual.

[wiploc]

According to Plantinga, god knows everything that will ever happen in every possible world ... and in every impossible world.

Can you show a quote and link?

No.  It was in a book, but I don't even remember the name of the book.  It was about the weirdest thing I've seen him say.

[wiploc]

So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.

Quantum mechanics.  The weight of scientific opinion is that very tiny things are uncaused. 

If you are going to ignore science on this point, you shouldn't invoke it on other points.

[wiploc]

There doesn't -have- to be evidence against -any- premise.  That's not how this works.  FFS.  You've just pulled the "prove me wrong" card.

Right.  He also routinely does that by asking questions rather than making actual arguments.  For instance, if he can't make a case for a god creating a universe, he'll say, "What else can have done it?"

[SteveII]

Strange...I don't see WLC using any actual scientific evidence (he only gives it a shout out) to support either his grand assertions about the natural laws of the universe, or his responses to scientifically grounded objections.  

All I see here are simplistic, condescending, and childish metaphors that should insult the intelligence of any average, grown adult:  "Well, why don't bicycles just pop into existence, then?"  Really, WLC?

So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.

There doesn't -have- to be evidence against -any- premise.  That's not how this works.  FFS.  You've just pulled the "prove me wrong" card.

First, It was LadyForCamus that objected that WLC did not respond to the scientific objections. I was wondering what they were. Second, the way this works is you listen to the premise and the support of the premise and offer defeaters (either undercutting or opposing). 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "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." Wikipedia

Therefore, and this is the point so many of you are missing, it is not enough to answer "you didn't prove it!!!" 

The first premise was presented in the link as:

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Let me give three reasons in support of premiss (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...z48RDdCeQH

[LadyForCamus]

There doesn't -have- to be evidence against -any- premise.  That's not how this works.  FFS.  You've just pulled the "prove me wrong" card.

Right.  He also routinely does that by asking questions rather than making actual arguments.  For instance, if he can't make a case for a god creating a universe, he'll say, "What else can have done it?"

Good observation, wiploc. Isn't he the one who is supposed to have all the answers? Why is he asking us to explain his beliefs to him?

[SteveII]

Sorry. But how does there not being an infinite number of truths make God finite?

You said there is no such thing as an actual infinite of anything.  That makes your god either (a) finite or (b) not actual.

"of anything" = things. An actual infinite refers to a quantity.

[RoadRunner79]

So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.

Quantum mechanics.  The weight of scientific opinion is that very tiny things are uncaused. 

If you are going to ignore science on this point, you shouldn't invoke it on other points.

Why?

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry. But how does there not being an infinite number of truths make God finite?

You said there is no such thing as an actual infinite of anything.  That makes your god either (a) finite or (b) not actual.

What about pontially infinite

[LadyForCamus]

So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.

There doesn't -have- to be evidence against -any- premise.  That's not how this works.  FFS.  You've just pulled the "prove me wrong" card.

First, It was LadyForCamus that objected that WLC did not respond to the scientific objections. I was wondering what they were. Second, the way this works is you listen to the premise and the support of the premise and offer defeaters (either undercutting or opposing). 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) [i]is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

Then please provide us with strong evidence for the truth of these premises. We're waiting...


Bold below is mine:

The first premise was presented in the link as:

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Let me give three reasons in support of premiss (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. SCIENTIFICALLY UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION. You haven't even defined "nothing" yet To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...z48RDdCeQH

And, I see the rest of this is just regurgitated WLC. *face palm*

No, Steve...this is the real world we live in here. We don't live inside of a logical argument. If you can't demonstrate with good, tangible evidence that your premises are likely to be true; that they are an accurate representation of the ACTUAL universe we live in, then they are utterly meaningless.