No, I don’t “comprehende.” Did you really learn that in a logic 101 class? Because it doesn’t seem to follow any logic that I recognize. What does “spaceless, timeless, and immaterial” even mean? It sure seems to me that, by describing it that way, you’re saying that it doesn’t actually exist.
So if there was never a time when the universe itself didn’t exist, then the universe couldn’t, by definition, have been caused?
Can you give me the logic 101 version (i.e. formalised)?
[QUOTE=CurtC]
So if there was never a time when the universe itself didn’t exist, then the universe couldn’t, by definition, have been caused?
[/QUOTE]
And if nothing could be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, then the universe could not have been caused (according to KellyCriterion); and I don’t think KellyCriterion has ever denied this. KellyCriterion hasn’t offered a position in favour or against a cause of the universe, just to the nature of the cause, if there were one.
But place or existence had to always have been first, or there would be no place for a being (of which God is suppose to be; a spiritual being). The cause doesn’t require a being any more than spontanious combustion. Existence takes in everything, in order to exist it must be in existence or it isn’t anything.One could call that God but it wouldn’t necessarily be a Supreme being.
It may be external from our universe,but not external from existence.To exist anything must be in existence or it wouldn’t exist!
Let me stress again I think Craig’s argument is full of shit as he is willing to use intuition or commonsense as foundation of his argument. Sad thing is intuition comes from our interaction with this universe, so all bets are off if we dealing with anything else. To extrapolate beyond it pointless, we don’t even know what the law of physics is like at plank epoch let alone before it. It’s misleading piece of induction reasoning trying to pass absolute truth.
But just for sake of argument I think Craig is arguing we live in Tron. The Programmer exist outside of the computer but he caused Tron to happen. He is timeless since he was around before Tron existed and seems to exist forever because computer “time” is so much faster. He is obviously immaterial and spaceless becuase he exist outside of the computer. So Disney MUST sue Craig for stealing their idea.
“Existing before” does not equal “Timeless”, and “Long time” does not equal “forever”. Analogy fail.
I hear you and I appreciate this - I think that Craig’s argument and his formulation of it, add to the discussion. I don’t think he’s right, as you don’t either, but I think he’s an able counter point and adds a lot to mentally chew on.
I do agree with you with regard to Craig’s reliance on intuition. He does this with his KCA and his moral argument. It seems to me that he switches from it being a starting point to being almost axiomatic. You can see this in his debate with Stephen Law and objective morality.
As a side note, it seems to me that our intuition is often refuted by empirical experimentation (ie, quantum physics). Further, I don’t think that it has a place when discussing ex nihilo, nihilo fit since we have absolutely no experience with ‘nothing’ nor with any physical thing coming into existence from nothing. What we have some experience with is something coming from a vacuum uncaused, which seems to weigh in against Craig’s position.
It’s also important to note that Craig’s position relies on a view of physics that is against the mainstream view (which is Minkowskism, IIRC). He’s a presentist, as opposed to a b theorist. Presumably he has some arguments in favor of presentism beyond mere intuition, since presentism, on the face of it, seems to contradict what we know about general relativity and simultaneous presents.
This would require an absolute (Newtonian) view of time (ie, time is infinite), which Craig rejects. His position is more nuanced, but I don’t think it’s particularly coherent.
He would say that there was no prior to the universe, that God was changeless and somehow through free will (which he defines as being causeless) God created the universe. I don’t think he gets around the sequential objection - it seems to me that he is equivocating, but I could be wrong in my assessment of him, my point is that he would say that there was no time prior to the universe.
I am aware the analogy does break down at extreme limits but the concept of timeless or eternal requires infinite amount of time. The concept of infinity while useful it’s not very well grounded in reality so most analogy would break. I could have used analogy that involved black hole, singularity, time dilation and differences in time frame but I get more fun thinking about Tron then trying to some up with justifications for some apologists crappy argument that incidentally have the same level grounding with reality as a movie made in the 80’s. Since I am trying to think like an apologist my analogy would degrade to the same kind of quality.