Dr. Craig is a liar.

[The Grand Nudger]

You are making the argument, that there can be no change, outside of time.  If this is true, and their was a beginning of time, then we would be in the same state as that point.   Time could have never began, because your argument doesn't allow for any change.

RR, I've made no such argument, nor do I care to. My position on the origin of our universe (and all the various considerations that might entail)is that I don't know....and neither do you. That's my position, that's the argument I would make. All this bullshit about time and change is just straw that you find easier to address than anything I might say to you.

I've explicitly mentioned...more than once, that I see no need to argue against any portion of the KCA. It doesn't get us to a god. That I point to deficiencies in the relationships between the statements you use to support your acceptance of the KCA on it's own or as an argument for a god does not mean that I'm making any argument, to or for, any other thing "x".

This is a common mistake apologists on this site make. They think that if a person brings up some possibility or proposition that the other has not thoroughly eliminated..they must be arguing for the truth of that position. For example..If you told me that chocolate was the best flavor of ice cream in the world...and I suggested that you had not eliminated vanilla as a candidate for that title...it doesn;t actually mean that I think vanilla is the best flavor of icecream in the world. I'm only pointing out that you have not done what needs be done to support the claim that's been made.

[The Reality Salesman01]

When you set out to do research to prove what you want to be true, it's easy to overlook alternatives. I have a hunch that somewhere deep down we know that we cheated ourselves and rushed to a conclusion because when someone easily points to an example of something we overlooked in our attempts to confirm a bias, it causes a defensive "nuh-uh!" reaction.

And to Rhythms point, if I told my son to put his shoes on; and when I come downstairs he's watching tv, still barefoot. He will likely tell me "I couldn't find them", his argument is essentially-"there are no shoes to be put on my feet, therefore I should not be expected to be wearing any". If I ask "did you look in the closet?", I don't personally know whether or not the shoes are actually in the closet, but by pointing out that there is a place he didn't look, I've invalidated his conclusion. His reaction is sometimes "nuh-uh, I never put my shoes in the closet, so I didn't check there"...we go upstairs, they're in the closet, and he is embarrassed. Not because the shoes were in the closet, but because he tried to defend the logic behind not having to look there.

[Jehanne]

RE:

---

Actually, my understanding is; that is part of the argument for a personal cause or one capable of intention. And if time is relational to the physical world, and not separate, then also for a non-physical cause.

The questions, and I don't think we have any point of reference to answer them, is can a non-physical entity act outside of time.  However, if the evidence points to a beginning of time, then I think that the answer has to be yes.   Otherwise we wouldn't be asking the question "why is there something; rather than nothing".

---

That -is- a wonderful question....isn't it.......

...now I'd go even farther, and ask how you came to string those sentences together in the first place?  What relationship do you think they have to each other...what is the means of inference you would use to go from any one of them, to any other?

You are making the argument, that there can be no change, outside of time.  If this is true, and their was a beginning of time, then we would be in the same state as that point.   Time could have never began, because your argument doesn't allow for any change.

You're ignoring the possibility that the Cosmos may be infinite in the past yet finite in spacial extent.  How about Sphere World, a world of finite radius that simply changes color, say, from red to green and back from eternity past until eternity future?  Is such a world logically impossible?

[Huggy Bear]

It seems someone never received the memo that time is relative...

Not only did I get the memo, I am a firm advocate for the Theory of Relativity (both special and general). But the Relativity doesn't help a theist who asserts 1) Time began when the universe was created, and 2) There was a timeless time on the universe's timeline before time began in which God existed. Additionally, the implications of Relativity support the B-theory of time, which I've addressed here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-42797.html. William Lane Craig and other proponents of a "timeless" deity derived from the KCA are not in favor of a Relativity based theory of time in which past, present, and future all co-exist equally.

*emphasis mine*
"began" defines a point in TIME when something started, and anything that was created had a beginning. God is eternal, which is the very definition of timeless (no beginning and no end) since it cant be measured.

So in short, time exists for the creation, not the creator.

I'm not familiar with the beliefs of William Lane Craig, but I can tell you this, the past present and future all coexisting equally can be supported with the bible. Does not the bible state that Jesus Christ was slain (past tense) before the foundation of the world? If Jesus was crucified before the world was created then it shows that past, present and future do in fact coexist equally.

for photons, they exist within the universe. A photon is emitted when an electron at a high energy level converts to a lower energy level, or, in the early universe, when leptons and antileptons annihilated each other. The first photons appeared about 10 seconds after the Big Bang in what is known as the Photon Epoch, after quarks, hadrons, and leptons appeared. So if God is indeed "light," it would appear the universe preceded God and he was rather late to the party.

Also, if you could please explain the physics behind how a massless particle such as a photon - which predates the universe - can not only exist outside the universe, but create all the space, time, matter and energy within the universe, that would be helpful. You might even win a Nobel prize! And can you please define the photon's rest frame via a Lorentz transformation because, from what I've come to understand, it just isn't properly defined mathematically to describe massless particles, and thus leads to nonsensical, seemingly paradoxical results. In this case, you will have to find another method to mathematically prove your assertions regarding time and space from a photon's rest frame.

Finally, if "God is light," then we have no need for "God" because we already have a perfectly good definition of light, which we not surprisingly call... "light."

The point of the photon example was to illustrate how timelessness and time are relative to the point of view.

You are correct, there is nothing incoherent about a "timeline," UNLESS you are idiotic enough to insist that one of those states on the timeline is... timeless!

Time and distance doesn't exist from the point of view of a photon, yet from our point of view, the distance in which light travels can be measured by time.

I don't presume to know what the essence of God is, I haven't reached that level of arrogance just yet.

[Jehanne]

I don't presume to know what the essence of God is, I haven't reached that level of arrogance just yet.

Why not just "suspend judgment" and embrace negative atheism?  There's nothing wrong with saying, "Gee, we just don't know."  Look it up; you might be surprised at what you find!

[The Reality Salesman01]

 God is eternal, which is the very definition of timeless (no beginning and no end) since it cant be measured.

Eternal and timeless? Interesting. Tell me something else about God's essence...

I don't presume to know what the essence of God is, I haven't reached that level of arrogance just yet.

Oh ok. For a second there I thought you actually knew what you're talking about. Thank for clearing that up.

[Huggy Bear]

Oh ok. For a second there I thought you actually knew what you're talking about. Thank for clearing that up.

Snide comments all you got?

As for the original point I believe I demonstrated that time and timelessness can both exist based on point of view. The essence of God has nothing to do with that point

[The Reality Salesman01]

 God is eternal, which is the very definition of timeless (no beginning and no end) since it cant be measured.

The essence of God has nothing to do with that point

How do you know what God's essence has to do or does not have to do with-without knowing anything about it? I'm really confused here...

So, eternal and timelessness are not part of God's essence, or are you just saying that you don't know anymore?

P.S.
If you find yourself insisting to your audience that you already demonstrated something, you didn't demonstrate it very well. Try demonstrating it and let the responses dictate whether or not you did what you think you did. Or, you can just wait for your turn to speak, the choice obviously yours. Please don't spew a long response, try and make the point you hope to make about the above comments and lets push through this...

[Huggy Bear]

 God is eternal, which is the very definition of timeless (no beginning and no end) since it cant be measured.

The essence of God has nothing to do with that point

How do you know what God's essence has to do or does not have to do with-without knowing anything about it? I'm really confused here...

So, eternal and timelessness are not part of God's essence, or are you just saying that you don't know anymore?

If you Go back and look at my original post, you'd see that I was responding to this quote.

You are correct, there is nothing incoherent about a "timeline," UNLESS you are idiotic enough to insist that one of those states on the timeline is... timeless!

EDIT: And it is equally ridiculous to assert that one of those elements on the timeline is actually prior to the beginning of the timeline itself.

Do you see God mentioned anywhere? So God's essence isn't in question, the issue is whether or not "time" and "timelessness" can both exist, which they can seeing how time is relative.

[abaris]

Huggy, you're under the delusion that anyone on this board is taking a young earth creationist seriously. Maybe try a different tac?