Doctor William Lane Craig

[PRmerger]

All I am saying (seemingly ad infinitum) is that God is not math.

Ok.

But we are agreed that principles of logic transcend disciplines such as mathematics, theology, philosophy, right?

That is, say, the principle of non-contradiction is true for math. And it’s true in theology. And it’s true in philosophy, yes?

And other principles of logic and reason are also universal? That is, not just applicable to math?

There is no one wholly singular definition for God, and because of that we can’t assume anything about or smugly brush off questions about him.

You are absolutely correct.

Is there someone here who has smugly brushed off questions about him?

Even if it’s something that 99.44% of the population is true, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t face scrutiny. This is triply true when an undefinable concept like a creator is discussed.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Mike!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Huh? He is married, Mike.

[SIGN1]Even if someone declares him to be un-married, that cannot change the fact that he is, indeed, married.[/SIGN1]

As such, he cannot also be a bachelor.

We’re definitely going in a circle here (imagine some sort of smiley that’s very dizzy).

Again, we’re not going to prove a thing to the other. Thanks for your time on this. It was… well, fun is a strong word

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Is there someone here who has smugly brushed of questions about him?

It was a referent to how was talking earlier in the thread about an interview with William Lane Craig. He explained a member of the audience at one of his speeches asked him where God came from, and he laughed with the interviewee like it was the most ridiculous question ever asked of him. That’s it. That’s the sum total of my initial gripe that I posted.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re definitely going in a circle here (imagine some sort of smiley that’s very dizzy).

Again, we’re not going to prove a thing to the other. Thanks for your time on this. It was… well, fun is a strong word

Oh! That’s too bad, really. :sad_yes:

I thought that you were also applying the principle about your views being able to face scrutiny to yourself…but it appears that you do not wish your views to be examined?

 

[PRmerger]

It was a referent to how was talking earlier in the thread about an interview with William Lane Craig. He explained a member of the audience at one of his speeches asked him where God came from, and he laughed with the interviewee like it was the most ridiculous question ever asked of him. That’s it. That’s the sum total of my initial gripe that I posted.

K.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Oh! That’s too bad, really. :sad_yes:

I thought that you were also applying the principle about your views being able to face scrutiny to yourself…but it appears that you do not wish your views to be examined?

That’s definitely not it. If we step back from our hypothetical man here, the issue of A vs. not A in this instance is the fact that there are two different definitions of A here. Let’s say party 1’s definition of A is called A1 and that party 2’s definition of A is called A2.

Now I agree that at no point can a person be both A1 and not A1, nor can he be A2 and not A2. The trick comes from the fact that while there are some similarities between A1 and A2 and there are differences, both parties use the exact same term of A.

With that said it’s possible our man is A1 and A2 as well as not A1 and not A2. More importantly a person can be A1 and not A2, or when you take out the qualifiers A and not A. Now people who favor the party 1 perspective will say “He is A!” People favoring party 2 will say “He is not A!” If one favors neither one, it can be considered truthful to say, he is both A and not A – albeit due to a dispute over the definition of A and not because of any true contradiction.

Agreed?

 

[PRmerger]

Now I agree that at no point can a person be both A1 and not A1, nor can he be A2 and not A2.

Excellent.

So that’s why asking “Why shouldn’t an uncaused cause have a cause?” is as nonsensical as talking about married bachelors.

Because you can’t have something being both A1 and not A1 at the same time.

In order for there to be a reasoned and logical entity, you would have to change the definition from A1 to A2.

You need to change the definition in order to make it sensical.

And, sometimes you don’t have the authority to change the definition.

Like the government can’t declare a square to be a circle.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You need to change the definition in order to make it sensical.

And, sometimes you don’t have the authority to change the definition.

And this comes back to what I said before. There is no hard and fast definition of God. There’s no definition to be changed. And besides I have just as much as right to try and define the undefiniable as anybody.

Like I said before if he exists, he could very well have created the universe, yet been himself created.

God could actually be legendary z-movie character actor Eddie Deezen for all we know

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Like the government can’t declare a square to be a circle.

Trust me I don’t want the church or the government defining things for me. The church (quite incorrectly) considers me a Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

And this comes back to what I said before. There is no hard and fast definition of God.

True, that.

God is ineffable.

Is there someone here who is proclaiming that he has the hard and fast definition of God?

There’s no definition to be changed. And besides I have just as much as right to try and define the undefiniable as anybody.

Uh, no. You cannot define God.

Your role as a human person is to discern who he is. Not to define him.

Trust me I don’t want the church or the government defining things for me.

Excellent. So you are against the government attempting to re-define what marriage is?

The church (quite incorrectly) considers me a Catholic.

Well, now here you don’t get to tell the Church what to consider you. :nope:

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

True, that.

God is ineffable.

Is there someone here who is proclaiming that he has the hard and fast definition of God?

You. You’re saying that I’m redefining God, which means there is a definition of him from which I’m attempting to redefine.

Uh, no. You cannot define God.

Your role as a human person is to discern who he is. Not to define him.

Maybe God prefers humans to be inquisitive. Again, there’s no hard definition to suggest otherwise.

Excellent. So you are against the government attempting to re-define what marriage is?

Yes, marriage should be between one man, his 500 wives, and his 500 concubines.

Well, now here you don’t get to tell the Church what to consider you. :nope:

You may disagree but I find the idea that some ceremony performed on me as an infant has permanently defined me strange at best – crazy stalker ex-girlfriend at worst. “You may be away from me now, but I’ll always be in your heart. You’ll come back to me! You’ll come back to me!!!”

 

[Peter_Plato]

But that’s just it. Mathematics is grounded. There are rules that can be used to prove or disprove notions about mathematics.

Mathematics is only grounded because we accept the rules and terms by which mathematics operates. We accept that 1+1+1=3 because we accept the discrete quantities under which the equation works. However, take this picture of the three drops of water.

View attachment 16329

If you run your finger through the three drops, the three drops can come together to form one big drop. Does that prove the original equation false? No, because the unit of one is no longer a discrete quantity in each water drop, so it does not operate as expected by the math equation.

The problem is not with the math equation being, as you say below, a fanciful concept. The problem is that as human thinkers our application of concepts is sometimes challenged by our own conceptions about reality.

The concept of a creator is more fanciful. Not to discount the possibility of his existence, but so much of what people attribute to such a creator can’t definitively be denied or ascertained (a truth most believers will agree with). There are major disagreements as to what properties the creator of the universe possesses.

Even if some peoples’ concepts of God verge on the fanciful, that does not mean every person’s understanding does. Some individuals have expertise that others do not. We would not say that the body of knowledge in biology, chemistry or physics is fanciful just because so many people have fancifully conflicting ideas about these. We do not rely on what “**people attribute to” ** physics or math to define the best understanding of those areas. Likewise, we ought not accept common conceptions as definitive in our understanding of God or Creator.

My whole point extending from my first post in this thread is this, considering:

• People have long asked where God came from,
• The idea of God is nebulous and unprovable
• People have many vastly different opinions of God’s nature
• God is already said to possess several seemingly contraditctory attributes
• In general, it’s wise not to make assumptions in philisophical discussion

that when William Lane Craig dismisses the question of “Where did God come from?” as laughable it belies blind spots in his methods. The only thing laughable is a philosopher whose nature isn’t to question certain precepts.

Everything you say above applies to areas of quantum mechanics, theories of cosmic origins, life origins and many, if not most, theories of science. It is not clear to me how the uncertainty of the knowledge of some or many individual human beings disproves Craig’s formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The entire argument is aimed at demonstrating how an uncaused cause is metaphysically necessary. The one question that should not be asked after reading and understanding the argument is, “Why is an uncaused cause necessary?” I suspect the reason Craig laughed was because his entire case was to demonstrate why an uncaused cause is necessary, and so to ask the question of why an uncaused cause is necessary is the same as asking him to repeat the entire case from the beginning as if it were completely not heard or understood the first time around. What would be the point of merely rehashing it after taking such pains to get into every minute detail the first time?

 

[PRmerger]

You may disagree but I find the idea that some ceremony performed on me as an infant has permanently defined me strange at best – crazy stalker ex-girlfriend at worst. “You may be away from me now, but I’ll always be in your heart. You’ll come back to me! You’ll come back to me!!!”

Some ceremony, eh? You have no idea what happened to you during your baptism and your confirmation, Mike. The universe was changed forever.

Calling baptism and confirmation a ceremony is like calling nuclear fission a nightlight.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, marriage should be between one man, his 500 wives, and his 500 concubines.

I sense a dig at the Catholic Church here. Am I right?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I sense a dig at the Catholic Church here. Am I right?

Not the Catholic Church, but most definitely the Bible.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You may disagree but I find the idea that some ceremony performed on me as an infant has permanently defined me strange at best – crazy stalker ex-girlfriend at worst. “You may be away from me now, but I’ll always be in your heart. You’ll come back to me! You’ll come back to me!!!”

I guess just as crazy as the seed of the universe appearing in an instant and rapidly expanding at the speed of light beyond our capacity to undertstand or measure; or as crazy as thinking the entire plethora of life on Earth blooming from an insignificant biogenetic egg; or that every human being unfolds from the coming together of a tiny egg and sperm. Interesting, how so many unbelievably crazy, strange and insignificant phenomena seem to lead to “big deals” in this God created universe. Perhaps your insignificant ceremony has a tad more meaning than you suppose. Remember: “…the stone rejected by the builders has become the keystone…”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Some ceremony, eh? You have no idea what happened to you during your baptism and your confirmation, Mike. The universe was changed forever.

Calling baptism and confirmation a ceremony is like calling nuclear fission a nightlight.

You have to understand that I don’t see any difference between that and any other religious ceremony – whether it be a native american vision quest, a voodoo ceremony, or a bar mitzvah.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not the Catholic Church, but most definitely the Bible.

Do you think the Bible sanctioned Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines?

In fact, the books of 1 & 2 Kings make it abundantly clear that the disintegration of the Kingdom of Israel following Solomon was due to his own choices regarding nuptial partners.

 

[PRmerger]

Not the Catholic Church, but most definitely the Bible.

Well, that’s why the Bible needs a Church to interpret it. Otherwise, you can take stories like Solomon and his 500 wives and think it represents God’s version of marriage. It does not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You have to understand that I don’t see any difference between that and any other religious ceremony – whether it be a native american vision quest, a voodoo ceremony, or a bar mitzvah.

What you understand makes no difference as to its real significance, just as what you think God is makes no difference as to who God really is.

 

[PRmerger]

You have to understand that I don’t see any difference between that and any other religious ceremony – whether it be a native american vision quest, a voodoo ceremony, or a bar mitzvah.

I get that.

But you would absolutely have a point if you said that a Native American vision quest ceremony done when you were 3 days old has no impact on your life today.