John, I think you’re misunderstanding everything I’m saying.
That’s not equivocating in any sense. I realize that no one said that “all things must be created”. The problem is that in my estimation, no sufficient explanation has been made as to why some things need a cause while God doesn’t. If pointing this out is equivocating… I don’t even know what to say. How would you ask the question? It’s just bizarre.
Of course what you said is equivocating. Your argument is that because people say the universe needs a cause, therefore that should also imply that God also needs a cause. That’s equivocating. You can’t take a rule that applies to X and say therefore the rule should also apply to Y. The way you should have phrased your question is “Do you think God needs a cause to exist? If not, why not?” This way of phrasing the question avoids equivocation. Secondly, I’ve explained over and over why God doesn’t need a cause. You seem to have entirely missed it, even after quoting me saying it. God doesn’t need a cause because God never began to exist at one point, he’s eternal. There is not even a point in the time or reality of God where you could insert a cause, and therefore the entire idea of God needing to be caused to exist is logically incoherent. A second logically incoherent thing about God needing a cause is simply asking: what on Earth would such a cause be? What, that isn’t God, can cause the existence of a maximally great being? There is no such thing, even in imagination. So it’s pretty obvious why “What did God come from?” is the worst objection to God’s existence in Western history, as has been pointed out by theistic and atheistic philosophers alike.
It’s not complicated. It hasn’t been shown that the universe needs a cause, and using this idea to make further logical conclusions is silly. Noting that our knowledge is incomplete isn’t making an unfalsifiable claim.
That’s not what I said. I never said “saying our knowledge is incomplete is unfalsifiable.” If you think I did say that, please quote me doing so. What I did say was that the only way to get around the BGV Theorem is to postulate unfalsifiable claims about our universe, such as a hypothetical formula of quantum gravity that removes the existence of time. That’s the one condition where the BGV Theorem doesn’t apply. And it’s unfalsifiable. And there’s no reason to even use it as a second option, since there is, so far, not a single logically consistent model of quantum gravity that avoids time. So why do you even think its possible that the universe didn’t begin to exist if your friends can’t even come up with a logical scenario of our universe where this happens?
There are example in this thread, and I have seen many elsewhere, which show that it is uncertain what the beginning of the universe truly represents.
What do you mean “truly represents”? The universe came into existence. Simple. Whatever details you throw in the model, the basic confirmation of Craig’s premise doesn’t change.
I’ve already said that the universe hasn’t been demonstrated to begin to exist in the sense required for the argument, and that therefore the argument is not sound. I’m just going a bit further here, if you don’t mind. I find it confusing and amusing that you are willing to insist on strict levels of scientific evidence with long explanations in order to support your idea of a universe which “began to exist etc.”, while not offering even a rudimentary theory of how the creative force could possible exist at all, AND while seeking to use it as an explanation for what we plainly know to exist. To put it mildly, the argument has no explanatory power. I fully understand a belief in God, but I am not understanding anything about this argument.
As we’ve seen earlier, 1) God doesn’t have a cause, so asking “how” God exists is irrelevant, and 2) By any scientific analysis, if you come to any conclusion, you’ll have to come to the (at least preliminary) conclusion that the universe began to exist. There is not a single valid model of the universe that postulates a past-eternal state. Which means that the hypothesis your backing hasn’t even shown to be coherent. So why even think its possible that premise 2 of the KCA is not correct? Since it can’t even be shown that it’s possible that the premise is incorrect, we must conclude, unless future evidence suggests otherwise, that the premise is correct. I don’t know how any of this is controversial.