Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Jehanne]

For example, take a train locomotive and a freight car connected by a coupling with 0% flex. When the locomotive starts moving (the efficient cause), the freight care moves as well (the effect). Simultaneous. 

This is absolutely false; special relativity prohibits faster-than-light effects.

[Jehanne]

Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd. 

This is false:

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogsp...ctual.html

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC it is, and it wouldn't be the first time Steve has been made aware of that - but it also won't be the last time he makes the claim -there are a few more of these assertions regarding logical absurdity or the implications of what one percieves to be logically absurd in this thread - each equally malformed.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Time Traveler]

1) Define cause and effect.
2) Demonstrate simultaneous cause and effect is plausible under your definition.
3) Even if we grant whatever you mean by simultaneous cause and effect, you still can't get around the fact that, God could not exist timelessly and changelessly without the universe prior to causing time to exist within the universe. This is a non sequitur.

Review the first video in my "Timelessness" thread here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-42797.html
Time becomes an emergent property of causality. Or, put in terms of the video, "Causality is responsible for Time."

Third time trying to post this...

First, we must distinquish between a material cause and an efficient cause (there are more types of causes, but I don't think they are germane to the discussion). A material cause always precedes its effect. It is not so clear that an efficient cause does.

For example, take a train locomotive and a freight car connected by a coupling with 0% flex. When the locomotive starts moving (the efficient cause), the freight care moves as well (the effect). Simultaneous. 

Another thought experiment: Take an artist and a clay vase. The clay is the material cause. The efficient cause is not the artist (person) alone. That artist can go home from the studio and may be a mother or daughter and engage in other activities. It is only the artist (person) and the act of molding the clay together that can be considered the efficient cause and therefore necessarily simultaneous with the effect (the vase). 

Regarding your point 3), why do you say that? Do you imagine that God had to count down 3...2...1...create? 

Time is a measurement of a sequence of events and/or the duration between them. Does time require causality or does causality require time?

It's funny how, from my entire post, this is the one section you choose to address. But okay.

Locomotives don't magically "start moving." The locomotive and freight car move because potential energy, perhaps from coal, is converted to mechanical energy. Pistons fire, the drive shaft turns wheels, friction between the wheel and track due mainly to gravity then create a force which cause the train as a unit to accelerate.

An artist too has a process in which they convert energy into action, which then is responsible for shaping matter into a form the artist defines as a "vase."

For each of these processes, if you look more closely, you see a causal chain of material events, one after another. If not for the combustion of coal, the pistons would not fire. If not for the pistons firing, the drive shaft would not move, etc. If not for the intent to mold clay, the artist would not begin. If not for directing their energy into action, the clay would not move, if not for declaring the clay "a vase," no vase would exist, etc. At no point is there a non-material cause. (If you want to argue the thoughts of the artist are non-material, I suggest you demonstrate this by shutting down their brain and seeing what gets produced then.)

"Do you imagine that God had to count down 3...2...1...create?" I don't imagine your God can do anything since things which don't exist have trouble creating anything. These are YOUR arguments, and I'm asking you to defend your ridiculous notion of a timeless, changeless deity doing anything. Yet almost every time I ask you a question, I get back William Lane Craig's ideas. When Craig is silent on a subject, you avoid answering. It's almost like you don't have any independent thoughts on this topic yourself (except the contradictory ones, which I've previously exposed).

But we'll do this again to see if you can answer direct questions...

Let's try two simple Yes/No questions based on our discussion, addressing the implications of each answer:

1) Did God exist timelessly and changelessly by himself, prior to the creation of the universe?
1a) If Yes, then by definition, something that is changeless cannot change, something that is timeless will never transition from one state to another; therefore, God could not have logically been the agent of change, and could not have transitioned from a (timeless + no universe) state to a (temporal + universe) state.
1b) If No, see question 2.

2) Was God's existence simultaneous with his creation of the universe?
2a) If Yes, and if the universe had a beginning as theists' assert, then God had a beginning at the exact same moment as the universe. If two things can begin to exist at the exact same moment, and we have empirical evidence for one (the universe) and absolutely no evidence for the other (God), then we can safely excise the latter as wholly superfluous.
2b) If No, then God must have preceded the universe, see question 1.

[SteveII]

Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd. 

This is false:

http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogsp...ctual.html

It is? Why? Put it into your own words.

[The Grand Nudger]

Logical absurdity doesn't mean what you think it means..and isn't decided by it's deleteriousness to your premises.  

You're welcome.

[SteveII]

Third time trying to post this...

First, we must distinquish between a material cause and an efficient cause (there are more types of causes, but I don't think they are germane to the discussion). A material cause always precedes its effect. It is not so clear that an efficient cause does.

For example, take a train locomotive and a freight car connected by a coupling with 0% flex. When the locomotive starts moving (the efficient cause), the freight care moves as well (the effect). Simultaneous. 

Another thought experiment: Take an artist and a clay vase. The clay is the material cause. The efficient cause is not the artist (person) alone. That artist can go home from the studio and may be a mother or daughter and engage in other activities. It is only the artist (person) and the act of molding the clay together that can be considered the efficient cause and therefore necessarily simultaneous with the effect (the vase). 

Regarding your point 3), why do you say that? Do you imagine that God had to count down 3...2...1...create? 

Time is a measurement of a sequence of events and/or the duration between them. Does time require causality or does causality require time?

It's funny how, from my entire post, this is the one section you choose to address. But okay.

Locomotives don't magically "start moving." The locomotive and freight car move because potential energy, perhaps from coal, is converted to mechanical energy. Pistons fire, the drive shaft turns wheels, friction between the wheel and track due mainly to gravity then create a force which cause the train as a unit to accelerate.

An artist too has a process in which they convert energy into action, which then is responsible for shaping matter into a form the artist defines as a "vase."

For each of these processes, if you look more closely, you see a causal chain of material events, one after another. If not for the combustion of coal, the pistons would not fire. If not for the pistons firing, the drive shaft would not move, etc. If not for the intent to mold clay, the artist would not begin. If not for directing their energy into action, the clay would not move, if not for declaring the clay "a vase," no vase would exist, etc. At no point is there a non-material cause. (If you want to argue the thoughts of the artist are non-material, I suggest you demonstrate this by shutting down their brain and seeing what gets produced then.)

"Do you imagine that God had to count down 3...2...1...create?" I don't imagine your God can do anything since things which don't exist have trouble creating anything. These are YOUR arguments, and I'm asking you to defend your ridiculous notion of a timeless, changeless deity doing anything. Yet almost every time I ask you a question, I get back William Lane Craig's ideas. When Craig is silent on a subject, you avoid answering. It's almost like you don't have any independent thoughts on this topic yourself (except the contradictory ones, which I've previously exposed).

But we'll do this again to see if you can answer direct questions...

Let's try two simple Yes/No questions based on our discussion, addressing the implications of each answer:

1) Did God exist timelessly and changelessly by himself, prior to the creation of the universe?
1a) If Yes, then by definition, something that is changeless cannot change, something that is timeless will never transition from one state to another; therefore, God could not have logically been the agent of change, and could not have transitioned from a (timeless + no universe) state to a (temporal + universe) state.
1b) If No, see question 2.

2) Was God's existence simultaneous with his creation of the universe?
2a) If Yes, and if the universe had a beginning as theists' assert, then God had a beginning at the exact same moment as the universe. If two things can begin to exist at the exact same moment, and we have empirical evidence for one (the universe) and absolutely no evidence for the other (God), then we can safely excise the latter as wholly superfluous.
2b) If No, then God must have preceded the universe, see question 1.

First, your answer to my thought experiments was simply...we can always find the material cause. The point was, there was no material cause at the point of creating the universe. So, what is your point then? There could be no efficient cause because there was no material cause? Why?

1) Answer: Yes. However, existing in a state of changelessness does not mean the potential for change is not there. You are confusing changeless with immutability (incapable of change). A timeless being must also be changeless (as we have been discussing). At the point of creation, a change occurred from existing timelessly and unchanging to temporal and changing (entering into an new relationship would be a change).

[SteveII]

GENERAL COMMENT: I am trying to answer everyone who has a legit question. I am not being intentionally obtuse or ignore portions of an issue. There is a lot the group of you throws from multiple angles and sometimes I do not get the point you are trying to make. Just ask it again. Sometimes I am not familiar with the objection and need 1) to read more thoroughly what the objection is and then 2) read the defense--often leading to more reading.

The constant digs of "parroting" WLC are getting old. We are discussing the KCA -- a continuous project for him for 40 years. Of course the defenses are going to sound like him -- they are his defenses!

I am however, getting more selective in my answers because a) I don't have an actual infinite amount of time, and b) it gets tiresome to answer the "less thoughtful" ones.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your posts aren't incredibly thoughtful and no one's complaining about responding.  Buckle up or give up, but don't bitch up. 

[Time Traveler]

---

It's funny how, from my entire post, this is the one section you choose to address. But okay.

Locomotives don't magically "start moving." The locomotive and freight car move because potential energy, perhaps from coal, is converted to mechanical energy. Pistons fire, the drive shaft turns wheels, friction between the wheel and track due mainly to gravity then create a force which cause the train as a unit to accelerate.

An artist too has a process in which they convert energy into action, which then is responsible for shaping matter into a form the artist defines as a "vase."

For each of these processes, if you look more closely, you see a causal chain of material events, one after another. If not for the combustion of coal, the pistons would not fire. If not for the pistons firing, the drive shaft would not move, etc. If not for the intent to mold clay, the artist would not begin. If not for directing their energy into action, the clay would not move, if not for declaring the clay "a vase," no vase would exist, etc. At no point is there a non-material cause. (If you want to argue the thoughts of the artist are non-material, I suggest you demonstrate this by shutting down their brain and seeing what gets produced then.)

"Do you imagine that God had to count down 3...2...1...create?" I don't imagine your God can do anything since things which don't exist have trouble creating anything. These are YOUR arguments, and I'm asking you to defend your ridiculous notion of a timeless, changeless deity doing anything. Yet almost every time I ask you a question, I get back William Lane Craig's ideas. When Craig is silent on a subject, you avoid answering. It's almost like you don't have any independent thoughts on this topic yourself (except the contradictory ones, which I've previously exposed).

But we'll do this again to see if you can answer direct questions...

Let's try two simple Yes/No questions based on our discussion, addressing the implications of each answer:

1) Did God exist timelessly and changelessly by himself, prior to the creation of the universe?
1a) If Yes, then by definition, something that is changeless cannot change, something that is timeless will never transition from one state to another; therefore, God could not have logically been the agent of change, and could not have transitioned from a (timeless + no universe) state to a (temporal + universe) state.
1b) If No, see question 2.

2) Was God's existence simultaneous with his creation of the universe?
2a) If Yes, and if the universe had a beginning as theists' assert, then God had a beginning at the exact same moment as the universe. If two things can begin to exist at the exact same moment, and we have empirical evidence for one (the universe) and absolutely no evidence for the other (God), then we can safely excise the latter as wholly superfluous.
2b) If No, then God must have preceded the universe, see question 1.

---

First, your answer to my thought experiments was simply...we can always find the material cause. The point was, there was no material cause at the point of creating the universe.

It is YOUR bald assertion that there "was no material cause at the point of creating the universe." This is what YOU have to demonstrate. So far, you have failed.

1) Did God exist timelessly and changelessly by himself, prior to the creation of the universe? Answer: Yes.

Okay, after all this, your "Yes" to this question finally establishes that you believe 1) There was a period prior to the creation of the universe, and 2) God existed in a timeless, changeless state during this period.

Question: How long was this period prior to the creation of time in which God existed in a timeless, changeless state?

However, existing in a state of changelessness does not mean the potential for change is not there. You are confusing changeless with immutability (incapable of change). A timeless being must also be changeless (as we have been discussing). At the point of creation, a change occurred from existing timelessly and unchanging to temporal and changing (entering into an new relationship would be a change).

Question: Even if God had the "potential" for change, what internal mechanism could ever trigger a change in a timeless, changeless being that somehow existed prior to the creation of time?