Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16

# Is Dr. Craig Putting Forward A Contradiction?

 Posts: 9,473 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2013 6:14:12 PMPosted: 6 years agoHe says:"By an 'event,' one means any change. Since any change takes time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could there be an infinitely slow event, since such an "event" would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will have a finite, nonzero duration." - William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair[1]"So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that He cannot change. I"d say that He can change and if he were to do so, he would cease to be timeless. And that"s exactly what I think He did." - William Lane Craig[2]Craig claims that God changes from timeless to temporal. Lets call this event E. Event E actually ends at t=0 (when time begins), as by this time he is temporal. This is when the change from timeless to temporal completes. However, since every event/ change has to have a finite duration, like Craig claims, then there must be time duration prior t=0 as that is when the events ends. Thus, there must have been time before the beginning of time. This is a contradiction.How can it be that there can be no instantaneous change, with all change inferring a finite duration like Craig states, but God ends a change at the first moment of time? How is this not logically contradictory?Sources[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, " 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6Page 106.[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2013 7:04:29 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/6/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:He says:"By an 'event,' one means any change. Since any change takes time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could there be an infinitely slow event, since such an "event" would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will have a finite, nonzero duration." - William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair[1]"So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that He cannot change. I"d say that He can change and if he were to do so, he would cease to be timeless. And that"s exactly what I think He did." - William Lane Craig[2]Craig claims that God changes from timeless to temporal. Lets call this event E. Event E actually ends at t=0 (when time begins), as by this time he is temporal. This is when the change from timeless to temporal completes. However, since every event/ change has to have a finite duration, like Craig claims, then there must be time duration prior t=0 as that is when the events ends. Thus, there must have been time before the beginning of time. This is a contradiction.How can it be that there can be no instantaneous change, with all change inferring a finite duration like Craig states, but God ends a change at the first moment of time? How is this not logically contradictory?Sources[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, " 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6Page 106.[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...God is timeless means he does not depend on time, whatever he does, time does not affect him nor his actions, He affects time.What Is time ? it's just a dimension that helps to organise events. An instantaneous change, isn't an event, but a metamorphose which is still a change, Craig just don't want to call it an "event" It doesn't mean it can't be.
 Posts: 9,473 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2013 7:20:52 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/6/2013 7:04:29 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/6/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:He says:"By an 'event,' one means any change. Since any change takes time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could there be an infinitely slow event, since such an "event" would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will have a finite, nonzero duration." - William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair[1]"So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that He cannot change. I"d say that He can change and if he were to do so, he would cease to be timeless. And that"s exactly what I think He did." - William Lane Craig[2]Craig claims that God changes from timeless to temporal. Lets call this event E. Event E actually ends at t=0 (when time begins), as by this time he is temporal. This is when the change from timeless to temporal completes. However, since every event/ change has to have a finite duration, like Craig claims, then there must be time duration prior t=0 as that is when the events ends. Thus, there must have been time before the beginning of time. This is a contradiction.How can it be that there can be no instantaneous change, with all change inferring a finite duration like Craig states, but God ends a change at the first moment of time? How is this not logically contradictory?Sources[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, " 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6Page 106.[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...God is timeless means he does not depend on time, whatever he does, time does not affect him nor his actions, He affects time.Time does effect his action of "undertaking" with regards to the universe, as he would after enter time to do that. His act of creating the universe has to be simultaneous to t=0.What Is time ? it's just a dimension that helps to organise events.I know what time is. I study the metaphysics of time quite often.An instantaneous change, isn't an event, but a metamorphose which is still a change, Craig just don't want to call it an "event" It doesn't mean it can't be.Well, you seem to agree that based on Craig's definitions he is putting forward a contradiction. I too agree agree that there is nothing incoherent with instantaneous change. I was just stating that based on Craig's definitions, he is putting forward a contradiction.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 12:41:45 AMPosted: 6 years agoWell, I think timeless change is incoherent. There must be a "before" and an "after" for "change" to have any meaning. Which is why talkign about anything "outside time" doing anything is absurd.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 2:42:44 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/6/2013 7:20:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/6/2013 7:04:29 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/6/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:He says:"By an 'event,' one means any change. Since any change takes time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could there be an infinitely slow event, since such an "event" would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will have a finite, nonzero duration." - William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair[1]"So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that He cannot change. I"d say that He can change and if he were to do so, he would cease to be timeless. And that"s exactly what I think He did." - William Lane Craig[2]Craig claims that God changes from timeless to temporal. Lets call this event E. Event E actually ends at t=0 (when time begins), as by this time he is temporal. This is when the change from timeless to temporal completes. However, since every event/ change has to have a finite duration, like Craig claims, then there must be time duration prior t=0 as that is when the events ends. Thus, there must have been time before the beginning of time. This is a contradiction.How can it be that there can be no instantaneous change, with all change inferring a finite duration like Craig states, but God ends a change at the first moment of time? How is this not logically contradictory?Sources[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, " 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6Page 106.[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...God is timeless means he does not depend on time, whatever he does, time does not affect him nor his actions, He affects time.Time does effect his action of "undertaking" with regards to the universe, as he would after enter time to do that. His act of creating the universe has to be simultaneous to t=0.What Is time ? it's just a dimension that helps to organise events.I know what time is. I study the metaphysics of time quite often.An instantaneous change, isn't an event, but a metamorphose which is still a change, Craig just don't want to call it an "event" It doesn't mean it can't be.Well, you seem to agree that based on Craig's definitions he is putting forward a contradiction. I too agree agree that there is nothing incoherent with instantaneous change. I was just stating that based on Craig's definitions, he is putting forward a contradiction.What if time is one of his attributes ?!For time is coherent only if there are changes and events that pressed one another and that have a different duration , and He is the setter of changes and events.In the scriptures of my own faith there is a text where God says He is time literally.
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 2:45:34 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/6/2013 7:20:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Well, you seem to agree that based on Craig's definitions he is putting forward a contradiction. I too agree agree that there is nothing incoherent with instantaneous change. I was just stating that based on Craig's definitions, he is putting forward a contradiction.Well and Yes I basically don't agree with Craig definition but still want to discuss this further.
 Posts: 9,473 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 3:06:12 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 2:42:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/6/2013 7:20:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/6/2013 7:04:29 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/6/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:He says:"By an 'event,' one means any change. Since any change takes time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could there be an infinitely slow event, since such an "event" would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will have a finite, nonzero duration." - William Lane Craig and J. P. Sinclair[1]"So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that He cannot change. I"d say that He can change and if he were to do so, he would cease to be timeless. And that"s exactly what I think He did." - William Lane Craig[2]Craig claims that God changes from timeless to temporal. Lets call this event E. Event E actually ends at t=0 (when time begins), as by this time he is temporal. This is when the change from timeless to temporal completes. However, since every event/ change has to have a finite duration, like Craig claims, then there must be time duration prior t=0 as that is when the events ends. Thus, there must have been time before the beginning of time. This is a contradiction.How can it be that there can be no instantaneous change, with all change inferring a finite duration like Craig states, but God ends a change at the first moment of time? How is this not logically contradictory?Sources[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument", in "The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology", Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, " 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6Page 106.[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...God is timeless means he does not depend on time, whatever he does, time does not affect him nor his actions, He affects time.Time does effect his action of "undertaking" with regards to the universe, as he would after enter time to do that. His act of creating the universe has to be simultaneous to t=0.What Is time ? it's just a dimension that helps to organise events.I know what time is. I study the metaphysics of time quite often.An instantaneous change, isn't an event, but a metamorphose which is still a change, Craig just don't want to call it an "event" It doesn't mean it can't be.Well, you seem to agree that based on Craig's definitions he is putting forward a contradiction. I too agree agree that there is nothing incoherent with instantaneous change. I was just stating that based on Craig's definitions, he is putting forward a contradiction.What if time is one of his attributes ?!As Quentin Smith notes, this would be a contradiction. If time came into existence, then an attribute of God came into existence. However, if someone does not come into existence, then neither do any of his fundamental attributes. God by definition is a being that did not come into existence.For time is coherent only if there are changes and events that pressed one another and that have a different duration , and He is the setter of changes and events.No. Time can be coherent without ontological change if one invokes a tenseless theory of time.In the scriptures of my own faith there is a text where God says He is time literally.If God is time then God had a beginning, as time had a beginning. If you believe that time does not have to have a beginning, then the universe could have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. Meaning that your precious Kalam goes bye bye.
 Posts: 9,473 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 3:07:59 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 2:45:34 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/6/2013 7:20:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Well, you seem to agree that based on Craig's definitions he is putting forward a contradiction. I too agree agree that there is nothing incoherent with instantaneous change. I was just stating that based on Craig's definitions, he is putting forward a contradiction.Well and Yes I basically don't agree with Craig definition but still want to discuss this further.If you don't disagree with his definitions, then you admit a contradiction. He claims instantaneous change cannot happen, but if this is the case, then there must have been a "time before time" for God to convert from timeless to temporal being, as that change necessarily ends at t=0 when God becomes temporal. This is a blatant contradiction.
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 4:27:00 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 3:06:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 2:42:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:What if time is one of his attributes ?!As Quentin Smith notes, this would be a contradiction. If time came into existence, then an attribute of God came into existence. However, if someone does not come into existence, then neither do any of his fundamental attributes. God by definition is a being that did not come into existence.For time is coherent only if there are changes and events that pressed one another and that have a different duration , and He is the setter of changes and events.No. Time can be coherent without ontological change if one invokes a tenseless theory of time.In the scriptures of my own faith there is a text where God says He is time literally.If God is time then God had a beginning, as time had a beginning. If you believe that time does not have to have a beginning, then the universe could have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. Meaning that your precious Kalam goes bye bye.When did time begin to exist ?!It is infinite, the universe give us a way to calculate time, but the time of the universe isn't "All" the time!The Universe began to exist, but time didn't begin to exist, honestly I don't see at all how it follows that if time is infinite the universe got to be infinite too ?
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 4:51:11 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 3:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 2:45:34 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/6/2013 7:20:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Well, you seem to agree that based on Craig's definitions he is putting forward a contradiction. I too agree agree that there is nothing incoherent with instantaneous change. I was just stating that based on Craig's definitions, he is putting forward a contradiction.Well and Yes I basically don't agree with Craig definition but still want to discuss this further.If you don't disagree with his definitions, then you admit a contradiction. He claims instantaneous change cannot happen, but if this is the case, then there must have been a "time before time" for God to convert from timeless to temporal being, as that change necessarily ends at t=0 when God becomes temporal. This is a blatant contradiction.The contradiction is that he makes God who is independent of time , become dependent of time!! once God is dependent of time ! this is clearly trying to consolidate philosophy with his creed that Jesus is God.The issue is Why would the eternal God ever change to temporal, to Mortal, and become an event !!
 Posts: 9,473 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 4:58:52 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 4:27:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/7/2013 3:06:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 2:42:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:What if time is one of his attributes ?!As Quentin Smith notes, this would be a contradiction. If time came into existence, then an attribute of God came into existence. However, if someone does not come into existence, then neither do any of his fundamental attributes. God by definition is a being that did not come into existence.For time is coherent only if there are changes and events that pressed one another and that have a different duration , and He is the setter of changes and events.No. Time can be coherent without ontological change if one invokes a tenseless theory of time.In the scriptures of my own faith there is a text where God says He is time literally.If God is time then God had a beginning, as time had a beginning. If you believe that time does not have to have a beginning, then the universe could have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. Meaning that your precious Kalam goes bye bye.When did time begin to exist ?!It is infinite, the universe give us a way to calculate time, but the time of the universe isn't "All" the time!What evidence, or reason do you have to suppose that our time isn't all the time there is?The Universe began to exist,Only if you assume a tensed theory of time.but time didn't begin to exist,I agree.honestly I don't see at all how it follows that if time is infinite the universe got to be infinite too ?I did not say that it had to be.
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 5:02:08 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 3:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 2:45:34 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/6/2013 7:20:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:Well, you seem to agree that based on Craig's definitions he is putting forward a contradiction. I too agree agree that there is nothing incoherent with instantaneous change. I was just stating that based on Craig's definitions, he is putting forward a contradiction.Well and Yes I basically don't agree with Craig definition but still want to discuss this further.If you don't disagree with his definitions, then you admit a contradiction. He claims instantaneous change cannot happen, but if this is the case, then there must have been a "time before time" for God to convert from timeless to temporal being, as that change necessarily ends at t=0 when God becomes temporal. This is a blatant contradiction.The contradiction is that he makes God who is independent of time , become dependent of time!! once God is dependent of time ! this is clearly trying to consolidate philosophy with his creed that Jesus is God.The issue is Why would the eternal God ever change to temporal, to Mortal! and become an event!!
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 8:20:05 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 4:58:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 4:27:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/7/2013 3:06:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 2:42:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:What if time is one of his attributes ?!As Quentin Smith notes, this would be a contradiction. If time came into existence, then an attribute of God came into existence. However, if someone does not come into existence, then neither do any of his fundamental attributes. God by definition is a being that did not come into existence.For time is coherent only if there are changes and events that pressed one another and that have a different duration , and He is the setter of changes and events.No. Time can be coherent without ontological change if one invokes a tenseless theory of time.In the scriptures of my own faith there is a text where God says He is time literally.If God is time then God had a beginning, as time had a beginning. If you believe that time does not have to have a beginning, then the universe could have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. Meaning that your precious Kalam goes bye bye.When did time begin to exist ?!It is infinite, the universe give us a way to calculate time, but the time of the universe isn't "All" the time!What evidence, or reason do you have to suppose that our time isn't all the time there is?It's simple, cause time is an infinite concept, and the universe is one finite event in the time course. The universe has a duration, time does not.The Universe began to exist,Only if you assume a tensed theory of time.but time didn't begin to exist,I agree.honestly I don't see at all how it follows that if time is infinite the universe got to be infinite too ?I did not say that it had to be.Fine.
 Posts: 9,473 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2013 8:26:46 PMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 8:20:05 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/7/2013 4:58:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 4:27:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:At 7/7/2013 3:06:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 7/7/2013 2:42:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:What if time is one of his attributes ?!As Quentin Smith notes, this would be a contradiction. If time came into existence, then an attribute of God came into existence. However, if someone does not come into existence, then neither do any of his fundamental attributes. God by definition is a being that did not come into existence.For time is coherent only if there are changes and events that pressed one another and that have a different duration , and He is the setter of changes and events.No. Time can be coherent without ontological change if one invokes a tenseless theory of time.In the scriptures of my own faith there is a text where God says He is time literally.If God is time then God had a beginning, as time had a beginning. If you believe that time does not have to have a beginning, then the universe could have existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. Meaning that your precious Kalam goes bye bye.When did time begin to exist ?!It is infinite, the universe give us a way to calculate time, but the time of the universe isn't "All" the time!What evidence, or reason do you have to suppose that our time isn't all the time there is?It's simple, cause time is an infinite concept, and the universe is one finite event in the time course. The universe has a duration, time does not.How is time an infinite concept? Also, even if our universe is finite in the past, there could be a string of universes existing for an infinite amount of time. This means, no first cause is required if you do not reject infinite time. This mans, you just stomped on the Kalam.The Universe began to exist,Only if you assume a tensed theory of time.but time didn't begin to exist,I agree.honestly I don't see at all how it follows that if time is infinite the universe got to be infinite too ?I did not say that it had to be.Fine.
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/8/2013 6:23:57 AMPosted: 6 years agoAt 7/7/2013 8:26:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:How is time an infinite concept? Also, even if our universe is finite in the past, there could be a string of universes existing for an infinite amount of time. This means, no first cause is required if you do not reject infinite time. This mans, you just stomped on the Kalam.Time is a scale, there can be no moment when it started to be.If you take any event P in the past you would always be able to consider there is time before P started. and whatever event F in the future, you will always be able to consider there is a time after F ended, so time is really independent of any event.Now about the supposed universe that would be infinite I got 2 thoughts. first that such a "possible" universe doesn't undermine the KCA, for the KCA speaks about our specific universe that happens to have a beginning. the only thing such an infinite universe would do, is be a cause for our own universe ? which will make the cause of the KCA impersonal.The second thought is, is such an infinite universe even possible ? would such a universe have events, as it has no cause? an infinite universe would have to be an empty space with no events. and the empty space would be infinite. there would be nothing besides it, nor any events in it.As long as the cause is not personal, or there is no cause, don't expect anything exciting to happen.
 Posts: 2,176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/8/2013 6:27:10 AMPosted: 6 years agoTime is a scale, there can be no moment when it started to be.If you take any event P in the past you would always be able to consider there is time before P started. and whatever event F in the future, you will always be able to consider there is a time after F ended, so time is really independent of any event.Now about the supposed universe that would be infinite I got 2 thoughts. first that such a "possible" universe doesn't undermine the KCA, for the KCA speaks about our specific universe that happens to have a beginning. the only thing such an infinite universe would do, is be a cause for our own universe ? which will make the cause of the KCA impersonal.The second thought is, is such an infinite universe even possible ? would such a universe have events, as it has no cause? an infinite universe would have to be an empty space with no events. and the empty space would be infinite. there would be nothing besides it, nor any events in it.As long as the cause is not personal, or there is no cause, don't expect anything exciting to happen.