Two words: Genetic Fallacy.

As in, you grasp that he could do that in this individual case, yet you tend not see it when it is actually practiced, so far as I've observed.

As for my "such proclamations" bit, I meant ideas like, "...if God is eternal by nature... [then] God can't commit suicide." Do you actually believe that God could not commit suicide if he so chose? I can grant that this or that deity might simply never come under the effect of such a desire, but it seems to me that if God wished to self-destruct, then nothing could stand in his way.

In general, arguing about God strikes me as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: unless we can observe some angels and calculate their size, who cares? Similarly, if you won't say what God is made of, or put him on a slab for analysis, or get him to come down and talk to us in a face-to-face unambiguous conversation (as done in the Old Testament, like a good Babylonian deity), I'm unsure how we can make meaningful progress in the discussion. In the end, I don't see this conversation as you informing me of facts you have learned about a real thing by watching and studying it, but rather like you telling me all the cool logic tricks you've employed to define your imaginary friend into existence and efficacy. Like the apostle Thomas, I need to put my actual fingers through some actual holes before I'll start believing. In short, my last bit was a covert admission that I can't argue in good faith here, because once we've presumed that God exists, it's really hard for me to take the conversation seriously. I'm willing to try, I just might fail from time to time, is what I'm saying.

Or, specifically, my question comes down to this: what argument or evidence do you have that is exclusive to your beliefs, which could not be used in a mutatis-mutandis way to support just any old religion in which you do not believe? In other words, what can be said about Jesus and/or Yahweh that could not be said about Horus and/or Osiris, or Cronus and/or Zeus, or Apollonius of Tyana, or any other religion replete with holy books, fulfilled prophecies, etc.? I'm really interested in how you justify belief in your deity while also refuting the deities of others - and if you don't, then why not?

..so close, and yet so far away.

As in?

Ritchie,

There is much that is true in this world that is rather counter-intuitive. Especially where maths and physics are concerned. I rather like having my horizons broadened learning these things - more than I think I would insisting that the universe fits my pre-conceived ideas.

I agree and I do, too. But you gotta be fair here - I've not insisted the universe fit my preconceived ideas on this matter. Mind you, I've traditionally rejected First-Cause arguments of any sort. It wasn't until recently when I really dug into Aristotle's so-called Argument from Change that it came into picture. Now I understand the limits of the epistemic canvas, and nobody put forth a convincingly solid argument for options 1 or 2 over there. I'm open to somebody logically sustaining the concept of an actual infinite regress of transitions from potency to act (1). Or, if we say matter always existed, I'm open to somebody explaining how we can posit both potency and act in the singularity itself, and the peculiar coincidence that as far as we know, we are witnessing matter's last hurrah via entropic heat death (2).

Omnipotence means (broadly) limitless power - the ability to do ANYTHING.

I'm convinced we actually agree on this position - I agree that this is the popular misconception...

This quality, I think, could not possibly exist in the real world because it would involve logic contradictions.

Correct. Among other things, that's because there exists series' (plural) of transitions from potency to act that are inherently logically impossible. This is why Christians need to proceed with caution in the dogma flung around. When a Christian says, "God can do anything - He's God! - end of story," then smiles smugly, well... I agree that such is the popular conception, but it's poorly-worded and ill-thought-out in that it suggests the conundrum that God can even do the logically impossible ('logic contradictions' as you put it). As far as I've seen, the Bible is not consistent with this position, and neither is philosophical rigor. So, (not saying you personally either, Ritchie) atheists who like to argue about this stuff should take note - if you come at a Christian with the "God can do anything" trope in attempt to rebut some proclamation of God's inability they've made - if you don't tread lightly and stay in scope, they're liable to douse your strawman with gasoline and light a match. Other than that, I don't know what else to say about it this time 'round. The original attempt you mentioned is here. I still stand by my position and I'm open to counter-arguments.

D,

"Makes sense" does not equal "is true."

While I've not claimed elsewise, I agree, and note that the negative summation is also true: "does not make sense" != "is not true."

I've never understood why God can be above physics, but not logic.

I don't think God can be above physics or logic. In my view physics is God's logic: "..movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces," suggests "an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion," - Thomas Jefferson put it.

More to the point, "God is uncaused, therefore he can't create other gods because that would be a violation of divinity," is my big one here, and though you never said that, cl, I have the same problem with that statement.

I have problems with that statement, too: at least from a cursory glance, it seems both illogical and unbiblical, to begin. Illogical, because God creating lesser gods is logically permissible; it would only be illogical for God to create another "God" that was somehow not "God." Unbiblical, because according to the Bible, God has created lesser gods (i.e. Satan, angels, etc.).

I'm also unsure how to distinguish such proclamations about God from ones I could make up off the top of my head. I mean, if you think your arguments and evidence work, then shouldn't the same arguments and an equivalent amount/standard of evidence work no matter what they're applied to?

Could you elaborate on exactly what you allude to by "such proclamations" in the above? One or more specific claims you'd like me to address? Or something more qualitative / general? As far as the closing question, in theory - yes. In reality - no - due to bias and all sorts of other things. Humans are forever vulnerable to errors of slothful induction be they believers or atheists, wouldn't you agree?

Oops!

I've never understood why God can be above physics, but not logic. I just don't get that. I also don't understand how the argument "God is eternal, therefore he can't commit suicide" doesn't boil down to essentialism - shouldn't God's nature be inferred from facts, rather than simply pronounced? In other words, how do you know that "God is [X], therefore..." counts for anything? I honestly don't get it.

More to the point, "God is uncaused, therefore he can't create other gods because that would be a violation of divinity," is my big one here, and though you never said that, cl, I have the same problem with that statement. Even more specifically, I'm also unsure how to distinguish such proclamations about God from ones I could make up off the top of my head. I mean, if you think your arguments and evidence work, then shouldn't the same arguments and an equivalent amount/standard of evidence work no matter what they're applied to? And if not, then what makes your stuff different, and how do you know?

That's because it DOES. :)

There is much that is true in this world that is rather counter-intuitive. Especially where maths and physics are concerned. I rather like having my horizons broadened learning these things - more than I think I would insisting that the universe fits my pre-conceived ideas.

God's inability to create an actual infinity does not entail that God is less than omnipotent. Creating an actual infinity may be logically impossible for some reason. For example, if God is eternal by nature, the fact that God can't commit suicide is not a violation of omnipotence - it's consistency of logic.

We've touched on this in the thread on your site, but I still cannot see your logic here. Omnipotence means (broadly) limitless power - the ability to do ANYTHING. This quality, I think, could not possibly exist in the real world because it would involve logic contradictions. Ergo, God, if he does exist, cannot really be omnipotent. If God is unable to create an actual infinite, then He IS less than omnipotent.

couldn't Craig just argue that inflation was part of God's equation?

Yes. You are so close, and yet so far away.

The fallacy here is in Craig's implicit claim that it's necessary to "traverse" the past to arrive at the present.

Your first defense attempts victory by offering a renegade definition of time, when what it should do is address Craig's intended implication head-on and irrespective of time: without an Unmoved Mover, when we try to account for change in the natural world, we either establish an infinite regress of potency to actuality, or violate known principles of logic.

You see, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds... it's not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. (Craig)

If this is true, then Craig has just dealt a critical blow to his own faith... if an actual infinity cannot exist in the real world, then it must be the case that God is not omnipotent; the number of possible worlds he can create must be finite, which must mean there are possible worlds that God does not have the ability to bring about.

I define an infinity as a causal series that does not stop, and I'm not accepting or denying a position on infinities right now. That being said, even if we grant that an actual infinity can't exist in the real world, your conclusion still does not flow from your premise: God's inability to create an actual infinity does not entail that God is less than omnipotent. Creating an actual infinity may be logically impossible for some reason. For example, if God is eternal by nature, the fact that God can't commit suicide is not a violation of omnipotence - it's consistency of logic.

Ritchie,

Before you really reason it through, it SEEMS as though it should make sense.

That's because it DOES. :)

lpetrich,

But inflation produces that result without requiring any fine tuning of initial conditions.

I'm trying to figure out how inflation would have adverse impact on Craig's argument - I read Ebonmuse's sentiments but they don't wash - couldn't Craig just argue that inflation was part of God's equation?

It's the sequence of our memories, the so-called arrow of time, that seems to make them flow from one to the other.

The "arrow of time" is more than simply an artifact of our own relative perception. It's the result of entropy, i.e. the increase of disorder in the universe (at least according to my reading of Hawking). So time does indeed seem to have a direction and it proceeds into the future.

Not that I am agreeing with that idiot Craig, mind you.

Furthermore, if the universe is infinitely old, there never was an instant that was "the beginning", so any estimates of the amount of time that has passed since then are nonsense.

Well put, Valhar. Craig repeatedly confuses the counterintuitive properties of an actual infinity (if such a thing exists) with logical contradictions. For instance, even if the universe is infinitely old, any point in its history is separated from the present by a finite amount of time, however large. There is no point in time that is "infinitely far away" from us, so there's no need to worry about "traversing" an infinity to get to where we are now.

Wow, 7 comments that actually know what they're talking about and not a single creationist troll! Did I wake up in the same world I fell asleep in last night?

Welcome to Daylight Atheism, Jack. It's a pretty nice place. :)

Please, someone describe for me a 'moment' that's categorically different from any other, that for some reason is close-ended on the other side. Weird.

I can't imagine such a thing either, Jim, although one could use Stephen Hawking's analogy and say that trying to move beyond the beginning of time is like trying to go north from the North Pole. You can move in any direction you want, but they all take you farther away, not closer. I can't visualize what this analogy might mean when applied to time rather than space, but it does give a dim idea of the principles involved. (It would also eliminate Craig's view of the necessity of a creator, because asking what preceded or caused the first moment would be a meaningless question.)

What is actually the difference between an "actual infinity" and a "potential infinity", or whatever the second infinity is called? I have never understood why people make such a big deal from apparently arbitrary distinction.

Craig's argument, prase, is that a potential infinity is merely a quantity that increases without limit. His notion is of a saved soul in heaven - that person will live forever, but his lifespan will consist of increasingly greater but finite values. There will never be a point where he can say he'll have lived an infinite number of days.

Of course, if God is omniscient, his knowledge of every future day of that person's existence will constitute an actual infinity, and Craig says no such thing can exist, so one would have to conclude that God can't know the entire future. This is usually the point where apologists begin furiously redefining their terms, as Craig does here when this is pointed out to him.

Very curious. I wonder if your surmise about Craig's motives is correct. It seems a strange thing to randomly object to.

Although I don't know for sure, Lynet, I think I can plausibly reconstruct his motivations in this passage. lpetrich explained it in his comment: If one rejects cosmic inflation, there's a residual problem that the mass-energy density of the early universe would have to have been fine-tuned to an extremely precise value to create the flat spacetime we observe. Naturally, this is a point Craig and other apologists would love to grab onto as evidence of intelligent design.

Inflation eliminates the need for this fine-tuning by smoothing out the mass-energy density of the early universe, causing a wide range of starting values to converge on the critical value. Presumably, Craig sees this as "philosophical bias" because science prefers explanations that don't need fine-tuning, and because he doesn't think scientists are giving sufficient consideration to the hypothesis that the critical density really was carefully chosen by Yahweh. I have no idea how, or whether, he answers the horizon problem.