Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

William Lane Craig and "begins to exist"

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:35:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?




Well, not saying I support the argument, but I would argue that T refers only to space-time inside the universe, which is to say inside the influence of the Big Bang.

We're basically inside of that 'singularity', and science hasn't yet approached anything outside of that.

I would also say that it is ignorant to say that our space-time is the only possible t in existence.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:38:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?




No, that doesn't include God. God is by definition un-created and eternal. Therefore, there is nothing prior to God. To say such a thing is just illogical and contradictory.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:48:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:38:43 AM, Clash wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?




No, that doesn't include God. God is by definition un-created and eternal. Therefore, there is nothing prior to God. To say such a thing is just illogical and contradictory.

According to Dr. Craig's explanation of "begins to exist" it does include God. Thus, his little video here contradicts his own claims that god is eternal and is illogical with regards to his cumulative theistic case.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:52:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:35:46 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?




Well, not saying I support the argument, but I would argue that T refers only to space-time inside the universe, which is to say inside the influence of the Big Bang.

We're basically inside of that 'singularity', and science hasn't yet approached anything outside of that.

I would also say that it is ignorant to say that our space-time is the only possible t in existence.

So do you have have problem with "God exists at t"? Are you saying he didn't exist at t?
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:04:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:48:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:38:43 AM, Clash wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?




No, that doesn't include God. God is by definition un-created and eternal. Therefore, there is nothing prior to God. To say such a thing is just illogical and contradictory.

According to Dr. Craig's explanation of "begins to exist" it does include God. Thus, his little video here contradicts his own claims that god is eternal and is illogical with regards to his cumulative theistic case.

How does it include God? I'm pretty sure Craig himself doesn't mean that God must also have had something prior to him in this "begins to exist" explanation.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:10:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:52:28 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:35:46 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?




Well, not saying I support the argument, but I would argue that T refers only to space-time inside the universe, which is to say inside the influence of the Big Bang.

We're basically inside of that 'singularity', and science hasn't yet approached anything outside of that.

I would also say that it is ignorant to say that our space-time is the only possible t in existence.

So do you have have problem with "God exists at t"? Are you saying he didn't exist at t?

No, I'm saying that trying to apply T to God is irrelevant.

IF God created the universe, then obviously He did so outside of the scope of the universe. For there to be an external cause for the Big Bang, there must be more than our universe, hence more than our T.

In other words, God existed before our T even existed.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:19:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Think of it this way.

T is a characteristic of the universe.

When discussing the possibility of an external creator, is it fair to restrict the creator's existence to the creation's existence?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:36:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:19:35 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Think of it this way.

T is a characteristic of the universe.

When discussing the possibility of an external creator, is it fair to restrict the creator's existence to the creation's existence?

William Lane Craig believes God made himself a part of the universe as the moment of The Big Bang, it wouldn't matter anyway. The reason it wouldn't matter anyway, is because God still fits the criteria presented by Craig. My question to you, is which part do you not agree with?

God existing at t (the moment of The Big Bang)? Or there being no time prior to T (the moment of the Big Bang) at which God exists?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:36:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:19:35 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Think of it this way.

T is a characteristic of the universe.

When discussing the possibility of an external creator, is it fair to restrict the creator's existence to the creation's existence?

William Lane Craig believes God made himself a part of the universe as the moment of The Big Bang, it wouldn't matter anyway. The reason it wouldn't matter anyway, is because God still fits the criteria presented by Craig. My question to you, is which part do you not agree with?

God existing at t (the moment of The Big Bang)? Or there being no time prior to T (the moment of the Big Bang) at which God exists?

There being no time prior to T. It's just an extension of the human condition that we are the unique/only/center of everything. To think that the space-time of our universe is the only, and the only possible time, is ridiculous.

I also think it is ridiculous to think that God created the universe without existing independently of it.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:51:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Jaxson won the argument so far, though I'm an athiest.

So yeah, nothing important to report, just giving my two cents.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 11:59:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:36:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:19:35 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Think of it this way.

T is a characteristic of the universe.

When discussing the possibility of an external creator, is it fair to restrict the creator's existence to the creation's existence?

William Lane Craig believes God made himself a part of the universe as the moment of The Big Bang, it wouldn't matter anyway. The reason it wouldn't matter anyway, is because God still fits the criteria presented by Craig. My question to you, is which part do you not agree with?

God existing at t (the moment of The Big Bang)? Or there being no time prior to T (the moment of the Big Bang) at which God exists?

There being no time prior to T. It's just an extension of the human condition that we are the unique/only/center of everything. To think that the space-time of our universe is the only, and the only possible time, is ridiculous.

It's not my explanation of "begins to exist", it's William Lane Craig's...You should take it up with him.


I also think it is ridiculous to think that God created the universe without existing independently of it.

Agreed, that still doesn't change the fact that if you replace x with God in his little "x begins to exist at t" explanation, it includes God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:00:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:33:05 AM, stubs wrote:


I think this addresses the objection you brought up, but I'm not sure.

No, this video is an objection to a different topic.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:27:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:59:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Agreed, that still doesn't change the fact that if you replace x with God in his little "x begins to exist at t" explanation, it includes God.

Isn't this what the video was talking about? God did not begin to exist chronological prior, just explanatory prior.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:28:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 11:59:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's not my explanation of "begins to exist", it's William Lane Craig's...You should take it up with him.

You asked for my opinion. WLC isn't on this site, and he probably wouldn't care to talk to me.

Agreed, that still doesn't change the fact that if you replace x with God in his little "x begins to exist at t" explanation, it includes God.

Right. And it's stupid to do so, because you are trying to make God's existence dependent on his creation's existence. If WLC makes that argument, it's a stupid argument.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:28:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:59:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's not my explanation of "begins to exist", it's William Lane Craig's...You should take it up with him.

You asked for my opinion. WLC isn't on this site, and he probably wouldn't care to talk to me.

Fair enough, you were just acting like I had an absurd position. My point, is that God begins to exist if you replace x with God in Dr. Craig's little "x begins to exist at t" explanation. Since this is the case, my point is that theists should not adhere to Dr. Craig's explanation here.


Agreed, that still doesn't change the fact that if you replace x with God in his little "x begins to exist at t" explanation, it includes God.

Right. And it's stupid to do so, because you are trying to make God's existence dependent on his creation's existence. If WLC makes that argument, it's a stupid argument.

What do you mean "you"...Once more, This is Craig's argument for what it means to "begin to exist" not mine. I just simply pointed out that you could replace x with God in Craig's little equation, and it would work based on the definition Craig gave. That is all..
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:42:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:27:41 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:59:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Agreed, that still doesn't change the fact that if you replace x with God in his little "x begins to exist at t" explanation, it includes God.

Isn't this what the video was talking about? God did not begin to exist chronological prior, just explanatory prior.

This thread is about Dr.Craig's explanation for what it means to "begin to exist".

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

If you replace x with God, it works (assuming all time is associated with the universe, and that it "began" as most theists believe, at The Big Bang). God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was a time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang).

Craig should retract his statement there because it applies to God if you fill the variable with God, that is all I'm saying.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 12:37:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:28:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:59:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's not my explanation of "begins to exist", it's William Lane Craig's...You should take it up with him.

You asked for my opinion. WLC isn't on this site, and he probably wouldn't care to talk to me.

Fair enough, you were just acting like I had an absurd position. My point, is that God begins to exist if you replace x with God in Dr. Craig's little "x begins to exist at t" explanation. Since this is the case, my point is that theists should not adhere to Dr. Craig's explanation here.


Agreed, that still doesn't change the fact that if you replace x with God in his little "x begins to exist at t" explanation, it includes God.

Right. And it's stupid to do so, because you are trying to make God's existence dependent on his creation's existence. If WLC makes that argument, it's a stupid argument.

What do you mean "you"...Once more, This is Craig's argument for what it means to "begin to exist" not mine. I just simply pointed out that you could replace x with God in Craig's little equation, and it would work based on the definition Craig gave. That is all..

Anybody who thinks it is a rational argument.

You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
William Lane Craig is dumb as a rock. The only theistic debater I have ever been able to take seriously is Pastor Doug Wilson.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:10:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Doug Wilson is intelligent, articulate, and truly believes what he says.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:29:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:37:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 12:28:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 11:59:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's not my explanation of "begins to exist", it's William Lane Craig's...You should take it up with him.

You asked for my opinion. WLC isn't on this site, and he probably wouldn't care to talk to me.

Fair enough, you were just acting like I had an absurd position. My point, is that God begins to exist if you replace x with God in Dr. Craig's little "x begins to exist at t" explanation. Since this is the case, my point is that theists should not adhere to Dr. Craig's explanation here.


Agreed, that still doesn't change the fact that if you replace x with God in his little "x begins to exist at t" explanation, it includes God.

Right. And it's stupid to do so, because you are trying to make God's existence dependent on his creation's existence. If WLC makes that argument, it's a stupid argument.

What do you mean "you"...Once more, This is Craig's argument for what it means to "begin to exist" not mine. I just simply pointed out that you could replace x with God in Craig's little equation, and it would work based on the definition Craig gave. That is all..

Anybody who thinks it is a rational argument.

You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?

So, you disagree with "God existing at t" then? This is all I've been trying to get at, you keep dodging the question. If you think Dr. Craig's explanation applies to everything, but not God then this is special pleading.

According to your argument, God never existed (at no time) because he ie not within time. So you believe God never existed?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:45:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:29:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, you disagree with "God existing at t" then? This is all I've been trying to get at, you keep dodging the question. If you think Dr. Craig's explanation applies to everything, but not God then this is special pleading.

According to your argument, God never existed (at no time) because he ie not within time. So you believe God never existed?

Dodging the question? Are you serious? I said it in my first post, clarified it here:

At 6/17/2012 10:10:41 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
No, I'm saying that trying to apply T to God is irrelevant.

IF God created the universe, then obviously He did so outside of the scope of the universe. For there to be an external cause for the Big Bang, there must be more than our universe, hence more than our T.

In other words, God existed before our T even existed.

Addressed it again, specifically, in response to your question, here:

At 6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
There being no time prior to T.

Stated it again, here:

At 6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?

RATIONAL THINKER9119

I AGREE THAT GOD EXISTED AT T
SAYING THERE WAS NO TIME BEFORE T ONLY APPLIES TO OUR UNIVERSE. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR T IS THE ONLY T. T DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS INSIDE OUR UNIVERSE, OR INSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE BIG BANG. T IS REALLY JUST ANOTHER FANCY WAY OF REFERRING TO THE SPACE THAT THE UNIVERSE TAKES UP.

Are you clear now?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:49:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:45:58 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:29:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, you disagree with "God existing at t" then? This is all I've been trying to get at, you keep dodging the question. If you think Dr. Craig's explanation applies to everything, but not God then this is special pleading.

According to your argument, God never existed (at no time) because he ie not within time. So you believe God never existed?

Dodging the question? Are you serious? I said it in my first post, clarified it here:

At 6/17/2012 10:10:41 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
No, I'm saying that trying to apply T to God is irrelevant.

IF God created the universe, then obviously He did so outside of the scope of the universe. For there to be an external cause for the Big Bang, there must be more than our universe, hence more than our T.

In other words, God existed before our T even existed.

Addressed it again, specifically, in response to your question, here:

At 6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
There being no time prior to T.

Stated it again, here:


At 6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?


RATIONAL THINKER9119

I AGREE THAT GOD EXISTED AT T
SAYING THERE WAS NO TIME BEFORE T ONLY APPLIES TO OUR UNIVERSE. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR T IS THE ONLY T. T DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS INSIDE OUR UNIVERSE, OR INSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE BIG BANG. T IS REALLY JUST ANOTHER FANCY WAY OF REFERRING TO THE SPACE THAT THE UNIVERSE TAKES UP.

Are you clear now?

"THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE"

There is no "before" the universe came into existence, the Plank Epoch is the first period of time.

Also, William Lane Craig believes that God put himself in time at the moment of The Big Bang. So yes, his explanation of "begins to exist" still applies to God either way.

If you believe there are other times, then you are appealing to an infinite regress.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:54:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:49:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:45:58 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:29:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, you disagree with "God existing at t" then? This is all I've been trying to get at, you keep dodging the question. If you think Dr. Craig's explanation applies to everything, but not God then this is special pleading.

According to your argument, God never existed (at no time) because he ie not within time. So you believe God never existed?

Dodging the question? Are you serious? I said it in my first post, clarified it here:

At 6/17/2012 10:10:41 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
No, I'm saying that trying to apply T to God is irrelevant.

IF God created the universe, then obviously He did so outside of the scope of the universe. For there to be an external cause for the Big Bang, there must be more than our universe, hence more than our T.

In other words, God existed before our T even existed.

Addressed it again, specifically, in response to your question, here:

At 6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
There being no time prior to T.

Stated it again, here:


At 6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?


RATIONAL THINKER9119

I AGREE THAT GOD EXISTED AT T
SAYING THERE WAS NO TIME BEFORE T ONLY APPLIES TO OUR UNIVERSE. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR T IS THE ONLY T. T DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS INSIDE OUR UNIVERSE, OR INSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE BIG BANG. T IS REALLY JUST ANOTHER FANCY WAY OF REFERRING TO THE SPACE THAT THE UNIVERSE TAKES UP.

Are you clear now?

"THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE"

There is no "before" the universe came into existence, the Plank Epoch is the first period of time.

Also, William Lane Craig believes that God put himself in time at the moment of The Big Bang. So yes, his explanation of "begins to exist" still applies to God either way.

If you believe there are other times, then you are appealing to an infinite regress.

I don't care what WLC believes. If God put himself in our time by physically entering the space in the universe, then fine.

You are making the fallacy of assuming that the space-time of our universe is the only possible space-time in existence.

You CANNOT make that an axiomatic argument in a discussion about an external creator. You don't seem to understand time, because nobody claims that time not existing at the singularity means that there could be no other existence outside of the scope of the singularity. There is just no science for it, and won't be until(if) we ever discover a way out of the universe.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:57:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:45:58 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:29:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, you disagree with "God existing at t" then? This is all I've been trying to get at, you keep dodging the question. If you think Dr. Craig's explanation applies to everything, but not God then this is special pleading.

According to your argument, God never existed (at no time) because he ie not within time. So you believe God never existed?

Dodging the question? Are you serious? I said it in my first post, clarified it here:

At 6/17/2012 10:10:41 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
No, I'm saying that trying to apply T to God is irrelevant.

IF God created the universe, then obviously He did so outside of the scope of the universe. For there to be an external cause for the Big Bang, there must be more than our universe, hence more than our T.

In other words, God existed before our T even existed.

Addressed it again, specifically, in response to your question, here:

At 6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
There being no time prior to T.

Stated it again, here:


At 6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?


RATIONAL THINKER9119

I AGREE THAT GOD EXISTED AT T
SAYING THERE WAS NO TIME BEFORE T ONLY APPLIES TO OUR UNIVERSE. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR T IS THE ONLY T. T DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS INSIDE OUR UNIVERSE, OR INSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE BIG BANG. T IS REALLY JUST ANOTHER FANCY WAY OF REFERRING TO THE SPACE THAT THE UNIVERSE TAKES UP.

Are you clear now?

"Time comes into existence at creation and so has a beginning and is finite in the past. God, in virtue of his real relation to the temporal world, becomes temporal a the moment of creation" - William Lane Craig (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)

So I take it you disagree with that..
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:59:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:54:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:49:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:45:58 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:29:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, you disagree with "God existing at t" then? This is all I've been trying to get at, you keep dodging the question. If you think Dr. Craig's explanation applies to everything, but not God then this is special pleading.

According to your argument, God never existed (at no time) because he ie not within time. So you believe God never existed?

Dodging the question? Are you serious? I said it in my first post, clarified it here:

At 6/17/2012 10:10:41 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
No, I'm saying that trying to apply T to God is irrelevant.

IF God created the universe, then obviously He did so outside of the scope of the universe. For there to be an external cause for the Big Bang, there must be more than our universe, hence more than our T.

In other words, God existed before our T even existed.

Addressed it again, specifically, in response to your question, here:

At 6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
There being no time prior to T.

Stated it again, here:


At 6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?


RATIONAL THINKER9119

I AGREE THAT GOD EXISTED AT T
SAYING THERE WAS NO TIME BEFORE T ONLY APPLIES TO OUR UNIVERSE. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR T IS THE ONLY T. T DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS INSIDE OUR UNIVERSE, OR INSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE BIG BANG. T IS REALLY JUST ANOTHER FANCY WAY OF REFERRING TO THE SPACE THAT THE UNIVERSE TAKES UP.

Are you clear now?

"THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE"

There is no "before" the universe came into existence, the Plank Epoch is the first period of time.

Also, William Lane Craig believes that God put himself in time at the moment of The Big Bang. So yes, his explanation of "begins to exist" still applies to God either way.

If you believe there are other times, then you are appealing to an infinite regress.

I don't care what WLC believes. If God put himself in our time by physically entering the space in the universe, then fine.

You are making the fallacy of assuming that the space-time of our universe is the only possible space-time in existence.

You CANNOT make that an axiomatic argument in a discussion about an external creator. You don't seem to understand time, because nobody claims that time not existing at the singularity means that there could be no other existence outside of the scope of the singularity. There is just no science for it, and won't be until(if) we ever discover a way out of the universe.

"You don't seem to understand time, because nobody claims that time not existing at the singularity means that there could be no other existence outside of the scope of the singularity. "

I never said this was the case in the first place....Try to stick to the subject.

I'm saying that Craig's explanation for what it means to "begins to exist" applies to God, you still haven't explained how saying this isn't the case, isn't special pleading.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:00:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:54:00 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:49:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:45:58 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:29:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, you disagree with "God existing at t" then? This is all I've been trying to get at, you keep dodging the question. If you think Dr. Craig's explanation applies to everything, but not God then this is special pleading.

According to your argument, God never existed (at no time) because he ie not within time. So you believe God never existed?

Dodging the question? Are you serious? I said it in my first post, clarified it here:

At 6/17/2012 10:10:41 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
No, I'm saying that trying to apply T to God is irrelevant.

IF God created the universe, then obviously He did so outside of the scope of the universe. For there to be an external cause for the Big Bang, there must be more than our universe, hence more than our T.

In other words, God existed before our T even existed.

Addressed it again, specifically, in response to your question, here:

At 6/17/2012 10:48:15 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
There being no time prior to T.

Stated it again, here:


At 6/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
You asked how theists would respond, I responded. Trying to attach God to our T is stupid. That's my response. What do you want?


RATIONAL THINKER9119

I AGREE THAT GOD EXISTED AT T
SAYING THERE WAS NO TIME BEFORE T ONLY APPLIES TO OUR UNIVERSE. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR T IS THE ONLY T. T DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS INSIDE OUR UNIVERSE, OR INSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE BIG BANG. T IS REALLY JUST ANOTHER FANCY WAY OF REFERRING TO THE SPACE THAT THE UNIVERSE TAKES UP.

Are you clear now?

"THEN HE DID SO BEFORE OUR T CAME INTO EXISTENCE"

There is no "before" the universe came into existence, the Plank Epoch is the first period of time.

Also, William Lane Craig believes that God put himself in time at the moment of The Big Bang. So yes, his explanation of "begins to exist" still applies to God either way.

If you believe there are other times, then you are appealing to an infinite regress.

I don't care what WLC believes. If God put himself in our time by physically entering the space in the universe, then fine.

You are making the fallacy of assuming that the space-time of our universe is the only possible space-time in existence.

You CANNOT make that an axiomatic argument in a discussion about an external creator. You don't seem to understand time, because nobody claims that time not existing at the singularity means that there could be no other existence outside of the scope of the singularity. There is just no science for it, and won't be until(if) we ever discover a way out of the universe.

You either don't understand Dr. Craig's explanation for what it means to "begin to exist", or you are appealing to a multiverse or an infinite regress by talking about other time. Which is it?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:08:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 6:19:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In the video I provided, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist:

"x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists" – William Lane Craig

Unfortunately for him, this includes God.

"God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists"

Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t at which God exists (if there was time prior to t at which God exists, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig's own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God.

How would theists respond to this?




Can I just say that this means that the universe is eternal? That's what basically all people have taken from this. Which means a) the universe is eternal or b) the definition of time isn't.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 2:16:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 2:00:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
You either don't understand Dr. Craig's explanation for what it means to "begin to exist", or you are appealing to a multiverse or an infinite regress by talking about other time. Which is it?

Wow. Seriously?

I HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT HIS ARGUMENT AS YOU PRESENT IT IS DUMB.

NOBODY CAN CREATE SOMETHING WITHOUT EXISTING BEFORE IT.

I saying, that if God exists, then there is obviously some kind of time other than our own. Considering that time is really just space, it's pretty stupid to say that our space is the only space and if someone created our space they must have done it from no-space.

I don't claim to know how it works, but saying our T is the only T is like the people who knew there was an edge to the world with nothing beyond it.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13