The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Skwim]

No, but since creation is not based on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

And which is why it has no place in public school science classes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Even if there were such a thing as an "infinity problem", this wouldn't apply to models such as the Hawking-Hartle proposal, as it is a model of a finite past.

finite=\=infinite... pretty simple.

So transcendent cause vs. past-eternal universe is a false dilemma.

But there is no "infinity problem".

Nonsense. Even if the H-H model is true, there would still be an infinite number of moments which lead to your birth, so my question would still apply. It just isn't going anywhere.

I suppose that's true, in a sense; since there isn't any "infinity problem", it isn't going anywhere, since there isn't anything to go anywhere.

Then spare me of the rhetoric and proceed to answering the question.

Um, no... You don't just get to make s*** up and say that a particular scientific model says that. In the Hawking-Hartle proposal, the universe is self-contained and finite.

Look, I can care less about the Hawking-Hartle model. I want an answer to my question...if the universe (all space, matter, time and energy) is finite, then it began to exist and requires an external cause. If it is infinite, then explain to me how the event of your birth can come to past if an infinite number of moments preceded it.

If you can't answer the question, then why are you typing?

Right- a model of a finite universe with a particular beginning has "a past-eternal concept going on". Gotcha.

The question...

Lol, "philosophical problems". By this you mean, "it is not consistent with my religious commitments".

Nonsense. I could be a Buddhist and the infinity problem would still be...well...a problem....I could practice Witchcraft and it would still be a problem...you see, my belief is independent of the problem.

Unfortunately, even most philosophers reject a "philosophy-first" attitude where metaphysics gets to tell physics how to operate; metaphysics follows physics, not the other way around. And saying that a scientific model which is viable on scientific grounds is wrong due to "philosophical problems" isn't any real objection. And these "philosophical problems" are imaginary anyways- they are only "problems" if you accept this stupid neo-Aristotelean framework that is obsolete (modern physics supplants Aristotelean physics, and without Aristotelean physics, Aristotelean metaphysics is pointless).

Rhetoric.

But then, you would still say that if Craig had explicitly come out and said "I lost this debate"; as I said, your devotion to Craig is borderline delusional. Now, while Craig has certainly had his way with low hanging fruit like Hitchens and Dawkins, he clearly was in over his head with Carroll; if you watch the video, he does not even attempt to respond to most of Carroll's arguments, and most glaringly, Carroll's corrections of Craig's mistakes RE cosmology and physics. He knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on- he can BS total lay people about physics and cosmology, but he can't BS an actual physicist (at least he's smart enough to not even try).

More Rhetoric.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

More dodging? Must be on to something here.

This would only be true if there was a necessary and unconditional relation between what we think "cannot happen" in a thought experiment, and how the world is. Essentially, you're arguing that we are infallible. That's ridiculous.

If 2+2=16 is false in a thought analogy, how can it be true in reality?

Besides, there isn't anything to say it cannot happen in a thought experiment anyways- the thought experiment merely shows that if it were to happen, it would be weird. Weird=/impossible, remember? And this is supposing that the thought experiment is a legitimate one to begin with- which is highly questionable since, as I noted, a hotel is by nature a finite object. The thought experiment is already set up in a contradictory fashion, and thus can lead to no cogent inferences.

The concept of infinity is an absurd concept, so one should expect to get "weird" results when dealing with absurdities. But the point is the event of your birth will never come past if an infinite number of events preceded it. So this is not something that would be "weird" if it happened..this is something that just can't happen, PERIOD.

That's not a relevant question, and your procedure is still pointless; you keep just asking us whether infinity makes sense to us. The answer is a rather uncontroversial "no, not very much"- but your conclusion, that they cannot therefore exist, is non-sequitur; the world is not constrained by what makes sense to humans. Moreover, an inability to comprehend or even recognize infinite collections in nature, even if one were standing right in front of us, is precisely what you would expect if we have evolved in an environment consisting entirely of finite things- we simply never developed the cognitive machinery to deal with infinities, since we never needed to. This is why this is an entirely irrelevant line of argument- even if we grant your argument, the conclusion still doesn't follow.

In any case, there is no dilemma between an infinite past and a transcendent cause- and a transcendent cause is logically impossible, so we can rule that out right away. So the question is merely between an infinite past and natural cause- and on this question physicists and cosmologists are divided. As you saw in the Craig/Carroll lecture, Alan Guth, one of the authors of the BGV theorem Craig likes to misrepresent, believes the universe is eternal. Vilenkin, one of the other authors of the theorem, appears to believe the universe is not eternal. But unfortunately, either way, theism is out of the running; theism does not offer an explanation at all since IF explanations are propositional AND IF explanations are answers to questions AND IF mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND IF X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos/God), then X does not explain why anything occurs and is metaphysically vacuous (or, more succinctly, theism is not well defined, it is arbitrary and post hoc as an explanation).

More rhetoric. Just answer the question. How many seconds preceded the event of your birth? That is a very simple question. I don't want rhetoric, i want substance.

Until you can adequately answer the question, why are you talking to me?

 

[Ouroboros]

And which is why it has no place in public school science classes.

And also why creationism can't answer scientific questions. It's just simply not a science.

 

[Parsimony]

Like I keep saying; the concept of a MGB is internally coherent. It doesn't violate any laws of logic, and if you think it does, then enlighten me. If something is internally coherent, then it could happen...it is possible... Until you can identify a logical flaw based on the concept, then you are just merely stating it might be impossible, without any warrant whatsoever.

An MGB is simply the most powerful possible being that can exist. It may well be that the most powerful possible being would have a finite power, but a finite power that exceeds the power of all other beings. Infinities are a tricky thing. We don't know for sure if infinities of any type can be manifested in reality. If we don't know for sure if something infinite is possible, then we cannot say that omnipotence is guaranteed to exist.

A maximally strong material is not necessarily indestructible, it is simply the strongest material that can exist.

Is the unicorn a MGB?

Are all necessary truths MGBs?

If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, regardless of whether we like it or not.

Yes, but the premises may or may not be true in this case as we cannot demonstrate infinity beyond a concept.

 

[shawn001]

An MGB is simply the most powerful possible being that can exist. It may well be that the most powerful possible being would have a finite power, but a finite power that exceeds the power of all other beings. Infinities are a tricky thing. We don't know for sure if infinities of any type can be manifested in reality. If we don't know for sure if something infinite is possible, then we cannot say that omnipotence is guaranteed to exist.

A maximally strong material is not necessarily indestructible, it is simply the strongest material that can exist.


Are all necessary truths MGBs?


Yes, but the premises may or may not be true in this case as we cannot demonstrate infinity beyond a concept.

We might never know

Godel and the End of Physics - Stephen Hawking


I wonder how this would apply to a "god" as well though.

 

[cottage]

Like I keep saying; the concept of a MGB is internally coherent. It doesn't violate any laws of logic, and if you think it does, then enlighten me. If something is internally coherent, then it could happen...it is possible... Until you can identify a logical flaw based on the concept, then you are just merely stating it might be impossible, without any warrant whatsoever.

Well I can think of several.

The concept of a Maximally Great Being is logically incoherent, and even contradictory. Now while Plantinger himself says the Modal Ontological argument (S5) doesn’t prove the conclusion, he does maintain however that the conclusion can be ‘considered rational’. Well I’m sorry but I even disagree with that. It isn’t ‘logically coherent’ to prescribe omnibenevolence as a necessary concept of maximal greatness, which in any case is self-evidently contradicted in experience. And it can be demonstrated that no being of any magnitude is always (or ever) in existence in every possible world as per two arguments I’ve already given. And finally it isn’t rational to suppose that any self-sufficient Supreme Being has needs for any world such as ours.

 

[Thief]

I thought you were talking about scientists, and not garbage pop-science journalism created for Nat Geo or the History Channel?

In any case, it would hardly be new for scientists to get in on the fill-gaps-of-science-with-God fun and games; but when they do so, they are not really acting in their capacity as scientists.

Well gee!.....saw a lot of numbers and test tubes and funny looking people with crazy hair!

If that ain't science?......what is?

heheheheheheheh

no really.....some of these people ARE teaching.....in universities......

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And also why creationism can't answer scientific questions. It's just simply not a science.

Naturalists believe that life came from nonlife...naturally. And currently, science doesn't know how this could have occurred....so science cant even answer scientific questions. Hmmm.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

An MGB is simply the most powerful possible being that can exist. It may well be that the most powerful possible being would have a finite power

But a being with infinite power is also possible, so a being with finite power cannot be more powerful than a being with infinite power, which would make a being with finite power contingent.

, but a finite power that exceeds the power of all other beings. Infinities are a tricky thing. We don't know for sure if infinities of any type can be manifested in reality.

Yes we do know.

If we don't know for sure if something infinite is possible, then we cannot say that omnipotence is guaranteed to exist.

Yes we do and yes we can.

A maximally strong material is not necessarily indestructible, it is simply the strongest material that can exist.


Are all necessary truths MGBs?

You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of necessary/contingent concepts.

Yes, but the premises may or may not be true in this case as we cannot demonstrate infinity beyond a concept.

As evident..

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well I can think of several.

The concept of a Maximally Great Being is logically incoherent, and even contradictory. Now while Plantinger himself says the Modal Ontological argument (S5) doesn’t prove the conclusion, he does maintain however that the conclusion can be ‘considered rational’. Well I’m sorry but I even disagree with that. It isn’t ‘logically coherent’ to prescribe omnibenevolence as a necessary concept of maximal greatness

Is benevolence a "great making" property? I think it is, and that is based on my belief in objective moral values. If there are objective moral values, then obviously we can conceive of an omnibenevolent being.

, which in any case is self-evidently contradicted in experience.

Through what experience?

And it can be demonstrated that no being of any magnitude is always (or ever) in existence in every possible world as per two arguments I’ve already given.

A demonstration that I've yet to be convinced by.

And finally it isn’t rational to suppose that any self-sufficient Supreme Being has needs for any world such as ours.

There should be a distingish"ment" between a "need", and a "want".

 

[cottage]

Is benevolence a "great making" property? I think it is, and that is based on my belief in objective moral values. If there are objective moral values, then obviously we can conceive of an omnibenevolent being.

But that’s neither here nor there if omnibenevolence isn’t necessary to the concept. Anyway, if omnibenevolence is ‘great making property’ that first requires God to cause/permit evil and suffering in order to give the term any functional meaning, then it is clearly an oxymoron.

Through what experience?

General experience: the fact that evil and suffering exists!

A demonstration that I've yet to be convinced by.

So give me your objections then?

There should be a distingish"ment" between a "need", and a "want".

Just as you like. I’m quite happy with ‘want’ as it is still irrational, contradictory actually.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I’ve been asking repeatedly. I’m simply asking you to demonstrate that the principle of causation is necessary. Why must an A-thing precede a B-thing, or why must a B-thing always follow an A-thing?

Thought so. I can give two reasons why causation is necessary on both theistic and naturalistic viewpoints.

1. Theistic: If there exist a Supreme Being (MGB), which exists eternally...and this being had an eternal will to create the universe....then it would seem to me that causation would be necessary because it would be impossible for things to be any different than what the being wanted it to be. Not to mention the fact that there aren't any pre-deterministic factors concerning the will...so there isn't a "things didn't have to be like this" factor if the will to create the universe was something that had to happen based on an eternally divine will, based on the existence of an eternally divine being.

2. Naturalistic: Causation would be necessary even if a Supreme Being didn't exist, because the chain couldn't have started from a state of nothingness. If the chain as a whole couldn’t come from “nothing”, that would mean that the chain as a whole had to exist eternally and necessarily. If the chain as a whole couldn’t come from anything, then it had to already be here under necessary parameters.

The point is very simple, regardless of whether you are a theistic or naturalist, you have to believe in the necessity of either nature, or the necessity of a supernatural being. Either way, something is necessary.

Energy is physical phenomena and has no necessity.

Then where did it come from? If it is contingent, what would be its origins other than pre-existing energy?

Yes, that’s absolutely the point. Suffering exists because God means for us to suffer, and in which case he is not all merciful and omnibenevolent.

If there were no reasons for God to allow the suffering, he wouldn’t be merciful and omnibenevolent….you are basically saying that you know for a fact that there is no morally sufficient reason why God allows suffering…so my question is..how do you know??? Where are you getting this knowledge from?

Yes, yes, precisely that! There is a timeless period, which means there is no continuity in time.

But there would still be seconds in between the cease of motion and the reoccurrence of motion!!! You are basically saying if all motion ceased for 13.7 billion years and reoccurred shortly thereafter, one cannot ask “how long was there a cease in motion?” and come to think of it, one CAN ask that question, and there is an answer to the question…..13.7 billion years!!!

Well, there seems to be confusion here (in red). My argument is that by definition if God is the creator and sustainer of existence then whatever God gives he can take away. He can stop time!

I disagree with that notion but even if that were the case…so what? What is the point?

The logical question has nothing whatsoever to do with what is just or moral.

It absolutely does, because if God has reasons for allowing suffering, then that is no contradiction between his failure to stop or prevent it and his omnibenevolence, which I believe is the case you are trying to make.

Reasons or explanations for suffering do not address the logical argument and hence the contradiction is left soundly in place.

Wait a minute, so if God allows me to bang my pinky toe against the leg of a chair because he wants me to suffer for sin X that I committed, that is immoral on his part??

The difference here is that my complete ignorance of why things exist, and are the way they are, is what drives me to seek answers and explore possibilities. By comparison you adamantly presume to know what those answers are

Well it is very easy to determine what the answers are if there are only two possibilities. Either God exist, or God doesn’t exist. Each one of those possibilities has certain explanatory values, and I believe that the arguments for God’s existence are more plausible than its negations. So I have REASONS to believe.

, and yet that confidence you display isn’t justified by the answers I'm being given.

That confidence comes from knowing that I am on the winning team.

I’ve been looking back at our discussions and it is very noticeable how the God concept is being watered down and made a slave to the world in order to defend the believer’s sensibilities.

Sorry you feel that way, partner.

Anyway, the question of ‘how’ is highly relevant. The world cannot come from God himself if the Supreme Being is conceptually perfect and without composition, i.e. having no parts. For God cannot cause something to come from himself that is not wholly God-like, and since there can be no parts to God, then there can be no parts of God that are inferior or contradictory to his essence and perfection. And yet the world is imperfect and contrary to the Deity’s supposed essence and perfection, which informs that no deity is the Supreme Being.

I guess it was just meant for me to die without knowing what that means.

Wrong! Both can be false!

Creation ex nihilo is absurd, utterly! God creating the world from nothing is logically impossible, whilst the world coming into existence uncaused is not. (This is consistent with my view that there is nothing but the world. And I do not commit to ‘There are no things outside of the world’ as even that would seem to imply that there is an ‘outside’.)

What is irrational about creation out of nothing?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But that’s neither here nor there if omnibenevolence isn’t necessary to the concept.

If objective moral values exist then there has to be an objective standard by which goodness stems from.

Anyway, if omnibenevolence is ‘great making property’ that first requires God to cause/permit evil and suffering in order to give the term any functional meaning, then it is clearly an oxymoron.

Back to morally sufficient reasons. The evil is caused by people that chooses to do evil...and the suffering comes from the original sin that we are all born in to.

General experience: the fact that evil and suffering exists!

If there was no evil before the creation of man/beings...but there was evil after the creational of man/beings...doesn't that tell you that evil stems from man/beings?

So give me your objections then?

Well, is it possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil/suffering? Yes or no?

Just as you like. I’m quite happy with ‘want’ as it is still irrational, contradictory actually.

Get back to you on that one.

 

[McBell]

If objective moral values exist then there has to be an objective standard by which goodness stems from.

objective moral values do not exist.

Back to morally sufficient reasons. The evil is caused by people that chooses to do evil...and the suffering comes from the original sin that we are all born in to.

You did not address the point:

requires God to cause/permit evil and suffering​

If there was no evil before the creation of man/beings...but there was evil after the creational of man/beings...doesn't that tell you that evil stems from man/beings?

If god made humans capable of doing evil and put them in a world that had not evil, then it still falls onto god the evil in the world.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

objective moral values do not exist.

Ok, so me murdering your entire family and rapeing all of the women in your family isn't objectively wrong.

Gotcha.

You did not address the point: requires God to cause/permit evil and suffering

What part of God may have morally sufficient reasons to cause/permit evil and suffering did you not understand?

If god made humans capable of doing evil and put them in a world that had not evil, then it still falls onto god the evil in the world.

Capable of doing evil = the ability to have free will to act on your own accord and make your own decisions. God cannot guarantee that everyone will make the right decision with every single action that they take.

Second, if God does not exist then there isn't any objective evil anyway, as you already stated that there is no objective moral values. So if there is no objective evil, then everything is arbitrary and you have no case to make against evil.

 

[Parsimony]

But a being with infinite power is also possible, so a being with finite power cannot be more powerful than a being with infinite power, which would make a being with finite power contingent.

A being with infinite power only might be possible. It might also be impossible. If a being with infinite power is certainly possible, then please tell me where the evidence is that something infinite can exist beyond a concept. This is a case of where your ability to propose a concept is used as evidence that it must exist.

It's like the difference between saying that a silicon-based life form might be possible and is definitely possible; the laws of chemistry might or might not allow it to be possible. One would have to investigate the behavior of many silicon-based molecules and complex silicon-based systems in order to conclude that an organism based on silicon-based molecules could exist. Even then, just because it can exist doesn't mean that it must exist somewhere.

It should be possible for a horse with the features of a classical unicorn to exist as well (a horn and cloven hooves). Just because a unicorn could exist without violating logical laws doesn't mean that is has to exist.

Yes we do know.

Yes we do and yes we can.

Please name something that we know is both infinite and exists observably in reality.

You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of necessary/contingent concepts.

Then enlighten me.

Is benevolence a "great making" property?

You're using the equivocation fallacy again. Great as in "powerful" is not the same as great as in "good".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It cannot be eternal if there is no time. Though you have yet to provide how infinite regression is a problem.

I did.

Once again you have just admitted that your analogy is flawed and cannot be used as an argument for your point.

No I haven't.

Because the point of your analogy is to provide an example of how a non-temporal being created a temporal reality.

Which I did.

And on every level of this your analogy has failed. You have "stated" that the example exists outside of time. Fine. However this means that the integral components necessary for your arguments are invalidated mostly in part to the dependent nature of your point. Yes it is.

There is no temporal factor in the analogy.

Which is why you cannot even begin to make assumptions about it. Anything you say on the matter is either nonesense or baseless claims with nothing to support them.
Yes it still does. If there was something "before" the change then it must have existed in "time".

Not in the analogy...in the analogy something was "before" the change, but not in time, as there was no temporal duration leading to the change, so therefore, there was no time before the change.

Your understanding of time is lacking. The point remains that you cannot be "atemporal" and suddenly "temporal".

Yes you can, and the analogy proved it. But here is what there cannot be; there cannot be an infinite number of causes leading up to any specific event X. That is what cannot be.

Even if I gave you this point for the sake of argument how did god "create" time if he did somehow exist in an atemporal state?

He created time by initiating the first change in "history", which was the creation event. With this creation even came time.

This just about sums up our back and forth here.
You still have not demonstrated why it is impossible.
I have been waiting for the answer to that and have requested that you answer it several times. You said it is demonstrable. Demonstrate it. Till then you have no argument (actually even if you do demonstrate it you still have no argument that "god" is the initial cause but I digress and wish you to focus on the first)

If you are building a brick house which will take an infinite number of bricks for it to be complete, will you ever finish building the house? Yes or no?

Its your analogy. How many? An infinite number if I recall.

You are right, it is my analogy, but tell ya what....imagine it is your analogy, and I am asking you how many moments were there prior to the girl popping next to me...now this time, it is YOUR analogy...so please answer the question.

Because that is an innate property of an atemporal state.

Notice that I said God was atemporal before creation, and temporal after creation..get it?

Why? Explain in detail please. Actually we don't know if those are the only two options. A circular temporal track would technically be infinite with no beginning or end.

There still couldn't be in an infinite chain of events on this circular temporal track, monky.

You gave it your best at least.

Which is more than enough to get the job done.

I'm not saying it is or isn't possible. I'm asking you why you dismiss it as impossible. We don't know if it is or isn't.

If you were running for an infinite amount of time on an infinitely long road, and I am standing on the side of the road, and once you reach me I stop you...and I tell you to run in the opposite direction you came and once you reach the equal distance at which you reached me, to STOP. At what point would you stop and how long would the distance be?

No. Its because I know why they are correct and I am one of them. Your arguments have been flawed from the beginning.

You know what they say about birds of a feather, right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is no point an infinitely long distance away because wherever it is the distance between here and this point is always finite. Your statement is meaningless.

No your objection is meaningless. Would you like to know why it is meaningless? Because even though you are right that whatever distance between "here and this point is always finite", that is only true when talking about POTENTIAL INFINITY, but we are not talking about potential infinity, we are talking about ACTUAL INFINITY. I will assume you know the difference between these two concepts of infinity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A being with infinite power only might be possible. It might also be impossible. If a being with infinite power is certainly possible, then please tell me where the evidence is that something infinite can exist beyond a concept. This is a case of where your ability to propose a concept is used as evidence that it must exist.

It's like the difference between saying that a silicon-based life form might be possible and is definitely possible; the laws of chemistry might or might not allow it to be possible. One would have to investigate the behavior of many silicon-based molecules and complex silicon-based systems in order to conclude that an organism based on silicon-based molecules could exist. Even then, just because it can exist doesn't mean that it must exist somewhere.

It should be possible for a horse with the features of a classical unicorn to exist as well (a horn and cloven hooves). Just because a unicorn could exist without violating logical laws doesn't mean that is has to exist.


Please name something that we know is both infinite and exists observably in reality.


Then enlighten me.


You're using the equivocation fallacy again. Great as in "powerful" is not the same as great as in "good".

Lets take this to mibbit.

 

[cottage]

Thought so. I can give two reasons why causation is necessary on both theistic and naturalistic viewpoints.

1. Theistic: If there exist a Supreme Being (MGB), which exists eternally...and this being had an eternal will to create the universe....then it would seem to me that causation would be necessary because it would be impossible for things to be any different than what the being wanted it to be. Not to mention the fact that there aren't any pre-deterministic factors concerning the will...so there isn't a "things didn't have to be like this" factor if the will to create the universe was something that had to happen based on an eternally divine will, based on the existence of an eternally divine being.

All you are doing here is saying that causality is required in order to argue to God, but without demonstrating that causality is necessary.

2. Naturalistic: Causation would be necessary even if a Supreme Being didn't exist, because the chain couldn't have started from a state of nothingness. If the chain as a whole couldn’t come from “nothing”, that would mean that the chain as a whole had to exist eternally and necessarily. If the chain as a whole couldn’t come from anything, then it had to already be here under necessary parameters.

You are saying causation is necessary in order to make an argument from a supposed cause to its effect as a series of causes and effects; which is nothing but a circular argument as you’re assuming, as a first premise, what it is that you mean to prove as the conclusion.

The point is very simple, regardless of whether you are a theistic or naturalist, you have to believe in the necessity of either nature, or the necessity of a supernatural being. Either way, something is necessary.

Is it? So conditioned are we to think in terms of cause and effect, a phenomenon that belongs to the finite physical world, that some even suppose it to have other-worldly qualities, but what we do know is that the principle of causality isn’t a necessary truth, and can be denied without contradiction. And there is not the least reason to suppose that the phenomenon will not expire with the rest of the world some day.

Then where did it come from? If it is contingent, what would be its origins other than pre-existing energy?

It didn’t come from anywhere.

If there were no reasons for God to allow the suffering, he wouldn’t be merciful and omnibenevolent….you are basically saying that you know for a fact that there is no morally sufficient reason why God allows suffering…so my question is..how do you know??? Where are you getting this knowledge from?

No! I’m not making any moral judgement, as I keep repeatedly telling you. I’m identifying a contradiction, where if God is omnibenevolent there would be no suffering:
If A, then not-B.
A, therefore not-B.

But there would still be seconds in between the cease of motion and the reoccurrence of motion!!! You are basically saying if all motion ceased for 13.7 billion years and reoccurred shortly thereafter, one cannot ask “how long was there a cease in motion?” and come to think of it, one CAN ask that question, and there is an answer to the question…..13.7 billion years!!!

I’m saying if time stopped and then started again then time would resume from where it left off.

I disagree with that notion but even if that were the case…so what? What is the point?

The point is that God is supposed to be the omnipotent creator and whatever is created is sustained is kept in existence, or not, purely by his power alone.

It absolutely does, because if God has reasons for allowing suffering, then that is no contradiction between his failure to stop or prevent it and his omnibenevolence, which I believe is the case you are trying to make.

So there’s the contradiction! If he has reasons for causing suffering then he is not the all loving and omnibenevolent God.

Wait a minute, so if God allows me to bang my pinky toe against the leg of a chair because he wants me to suffer for sin X that I committed, that is immoral on his part??

I’m not in the least concerned with what is moral, but only with the logical contradiction where a supposed all loving, omnibenevolent God causes and permits evil and suffering.

What is irrational about creation out of nothing?

Because, as your master, Dr Craig, says himself: ‘Out of nothing, nothing comes’.