Dr. Craig is a liar.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was being facetious,  I'm not going to base my beliefs on bad arguments from others. 

Probably a wise decision.

 Although it does help on an emotional level....

Gives you the feels?  

 Anyways, in my example, time will tell; who is correct.  But inconsistencies in applying principles and reason, do make me not question your arguments as much.   It just makes me think that you don't have a clue what you are talking about, and don't have to apply it, in the real world.   I have to make a living on it however.

........?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Do you see that there is a counter intuitive quality in making statements such as this? When you say that God decided to create "x", you imply a state in which God existed, but "x" did not, and then an event occurs that leads to a state where both God and "x" exist. If something is "timeless", there is no timeline or series of events. You have to reconcile this or revise...

I am more than implying that there was a state that God existed and the universe did not. But there is an event that marks the change from one state to another--therefore establishing the difference between previous and current states and therefore a "timeline". There is nothing incoherent about that.

Because, if what is being said is that the beginning of the universe marks the beginning time, how can there be events that transpired prior to? Even within the states of God's mind...1 moment his good with no universe, another moment, "I think I want a universe...pop!" , that is change...a product of time. Without time there is no change and vice-versa. These are all examples of events prior to what you are supposing to be the beginning. 

I'm picturing a bearded fella, surrounded in what I can only fathom to be black abyss...His name is God. He's just sitting there, suspended in a vacuum of not-time. Then he mutters some stuff under his breath, and in a giant poof...there's a universe full of smoldering gaseous combustibles, just waiting to form the universe we know today. God sees all of this and thinks-"Only 14 billion years to go, then I'm totally going down there to kill myself."

[Time Traveler]

What gets me is the idea that a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, spaceless being is somehow a less ludicrous supposition than an infinite past or something coming from nothing.  You don't solve an absurdity by proposing an even greater absurdity.  The chosen solution, this 'God', is more extreme than the alternatives.

That is a good point. However, no one is using the KCA alone to prove God's existence. There are additional reasons to think that God exists. 

Natural Theology:

• Cosmological Argument from Contingency
  
• Basis for Moral Absolutes
  
• Teleological Argument from Fine Tuning
  
• The Ontological Argument
  

Revealed Theology:

• The OT
  
• The NT
  
• Miracles
  

Individual's personal experience

And don't forget the best reason: Empirical, verifiable evidence for God's existence!
What? Oh, wait, sorry. That one has never been on your list.

While you may debate as to how much evidence each gives, they mostly stand or fall together so if someone wants to say there is no proof for God, you would have to dismantle all of them to support that statement.

No, if they "fall together," someone only need to dismantle ONE to bring them all down.

And by "proof," we don't mean syllogisms or ancient texts. We mean that one little thing that has never been on your list... empirical, verifiable evidence.

I am sure there are some people here who think they can do that, but what it really comes down to is that it takes an extremely high level of skepticism to deny all of them. At that level of skepticism, you have to start asking if it possible to believe in anything.

It only takes a moderate level of critical thinking to deny these assertions and see them for what they are. And, at the level of skepticism you describe, it is possible to believe in an entire universe full of real things! However, it is not possible to believe imaginary things are real with even a modicum level of healthy skepticism.

OR, is it more often the case that non-belief  is a result of an emotional response...perhaps because suffering exists or some related objection?

On your thread listing reasons why Christians Believe, you enumerated several reasons based on emotional "appeal." While some physicists might become teary-eyed over contemplating the periodic chart or giddy imagining inflation theory, their beliefs are grounded in evidence and reason, not emotion. Some children cling to the idea of Santa Clause for emotional reasons far beyond the age when they should abandon the idea. Some adults do the same, clinging to their notion of God despite myriad absurdities.

[SteveII]

There was no time so measuring it would be nonsensical. Since I am positing a beginning to the universe and a change in God, use of the word prior just refers to the previous state.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "Previous"...

1 : existing or happening before the present time
2 : earlier in time or order
3 : immediately before in time or order

William Lane Craig has you are locked in a temporal hell. The word "previous" is synonymous with "prior." Every time you attempt to define God existing "timelessly" prior to/previous to (take your pick) creating the universe, you fail... by definition!

It is only because you cannot defend a past infinite regression that you must defend such obvious absurdities! But you are really only trading one paradox for another. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

There is an event that marks the change from one state to another--therefore establishing the difference between previous and the next states and therefore a "timeline". There is nothing incoherent about that.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Hey Steve, I'll grant you that the universe had a cause, if you'll concede that every example of things being caused into existence requires the prior existence of some other thing. Causal power, even if infinite becomes impotent without some object to exert its causal power on.

[Angrboda]

What gets me is the idea that a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, spaceless being is somehow a less ludicrous supposition than an infinite past or something coming from nothing.  You don't solve an absurdity by proposing an even greater absurdity.  The chosen solution, this 'God', is more extreme than the alternatives.

That is a good point. However, no one is using the KCA alone to prove God's existence. There are additional reasons to think that God exists. 

Natural Theology:

• Cosmological Argument from Contingency
  
• Basis for Moral Absolutes
  
• Teleological Argument from Fine Tuning
  
• The Ontological Argument
  

With the exception of the ontological argument, these tend to devolve into arguments from ignorance, that we can't explain this or that paradox, therefore God. It doesn't take radical skepticism to doubt those conclusions.

Revealed Theology:

• The OT
  
• The NT
  
• Miracles
  

Revealed by God or by man? These have the appearance of man-made things and so using them as evidence for the same man-made things is circular. You're using mortal words to demonstrate the transcendent. It just doesn't wash.

Individual's personal experience

This is only evidence insofar as it is a reliable indicator of an encounter with the divine. It tends to be more likely an encounter with human psychology than an encounter with the divine. That makes it unreliable.

While you may debate as to how much evidence each gives, they mostly stand or fall together so if someone wants to say there is no proof for God, you would have to dismantle all of them to support that statement. I am sure there are some people here who think they can do that, but what it really comes down to is that it takes an extremely high level of skepticism to deny all of them. At that level of skepticism, you have to start asking if it possible to believe in anything.

It doesn't take radical skepticism to find fault with all these evidences, thus your slippery slope does not exist.

OR, is it more often the case that non-belief  is a result of an emotional response...perhaps because suffering exists or some related objection?

I can't speak for others, but I find your hypothesis self-serving and highly questionable. I think ultimately those who disbelieve come to the same fundamental conclusion: those things that are believed are absurd and unbelievable.

[wiploc]

I don't know.  I'm not a quantum physicist.

You can read up on the Copenhagen interpretation.

I've never seen anyone giving a reason for this.... Usually just general hand waving, and appeal to very small things or vague references.   Thought maybe by the way you where talking, you knew something that I didn't.

Sorry, I can't handle the math that would be required by quantum physics.

[wiploc]

It would be like me saying to you:  "Well RR, if you can't explain the mathematical equations behind special relativity to me then I don't have to believe that gravity exists."  

Kind of silly, don't you think?

Except for when I'm being Poe, and demanding that the same requirements that others put forth they hold up to as well. I don't believe that we need to understand something in order to believe it. 

I'm just asking for the reasons that this claim is being made.   Then I will compare the reasons with what others say.  I think that the principle of causality is fairly foundational to science, and that the reason for denying it is more ideological than anything.

If somebody answers your question, I want to read that answer.

And, for that matter, if anybody can explain how, when discussing the uncertainty principle, physicists manage the leap between "We don't know the underlying truth" to "There is no underlying truth," I want to read that too.

[The Reality Salesman01]

[The Reality Salesman01]

This one is just cool!