I think much of this actually depends on what type of god that one is speaking of. If we're talking about the judeo-christian god, the one that, according to that particular book's religion states that he doesn't change, then of course, there are problems.

Dawkin's has the question of whether or not God exists as a scientific question, and one which can be answered scientifically. (I have actually read the book). If God can mingle in our life's, as most theists claim he can, then it would indeed be a scientific question. One would first have to first demonstrate how something can exist outside of time for it to be disputed. The "outside of time" argument is dismissed automatically. As Christopher Hitches said, "what can be asserted with no evidence, can be dismissed with no evidence". He is not ignoring it, he is simply not arguing supernatural assertions, just as you would not argue my assertions that i rode a unicorn to work today.

Hi Paul,
I don't get the whole thing about the universe being open ended and A-theory and B-theory of time and all that.

I imagine the universe to be something like a sphere of space that is expanding with time. That if you go back to yesterday, the universe was a smaller sphere than it is today. And that if you go back and back and back, the universe is the size of a tennis ball, and if you go back to t=0, the universe has no size. i.e. it doesn't exist.
Is this the wrong way to think of the universe? Is there some kind of asymptote as you approach t=0 such that you never get there or something?

If you have time to write it, an article on relativity vs the word "begins"/"beginning" in the Kalam argument would be appreciated.

Dawkins says that his argument is endorsed by "logicians." I have no idea how many logicians he has read who have commented on this issue. I'm inclined to suspect hardly any, but it doesn't matter much. This is more about semantics than about logic. I don't see a semantic conflict between omnipotence, as most lay people (such as Dawkins) construe that notion, and omniscience.

...which specifically pertains to premise 2

And to premise 1, anything that "has a beginning" has a cause. If it's a space-time block, if there's no objective way to slice it into "space" and "time", then it is difficult for me to know what beginning means.

It simply means the point at which something comes into being

If the universe is a space-time block, there's no unique point at which it came into being. There's no objective way to set up the direction of time to say when it would start. If the space-time block is open on one end and closed on the other, I can set up my time arrow to say "the universe has a beginning but no end" or "the universe has an end but no beginning.", or possibly even "the universe has no beginning or end."

(t=0, in the case of time.)

Any point in time can be set to "t = 0". How do I know I found the real "t = 0" or that there is a real "t = 0"?

And I would highlyTime and Eternity, which contains a whole chapter on the static conception of time

I have read this. I've also read his and James Sinclair's article in the Blackwell Companion, and got to be present at his lecture about relativity at the Physics and Philosophy conference in St Andrews. I don't take his arguments about relativity very seriously, and neither do most physicists (including pretty-much all the physicists at his talk). The reasons for this are too complicated to explain here. But I'd be happy to talk with you about them privately, or maybe to write an article about them at some point.

"You keep talking about this premise two hang-up. That's not what I'm asking about, and that's not what the criticism was about. It's not really Andrew's criticism or mine. It's about what the concept of "beginning" even means if the universe is a space-time block."

...which specifically pertains to premise 2--not to premise 1, not to the logic involved in arriving at the conclusion, but the terms in premise 2.

"Assuming the universe is this space-time block, what do you mean by beginning? How do you distinguish a beginning from an ending?....... "beginning" needs to have a clear meaning here, if the Kalam argument can even get off the ground."

I agree that we must define our terms, and that the soundness of any argument depends on it. I guess I just thought "beginning" was a pretty clear term. It simply means the point at which something comes into being (t=0, in the case of time.)

I'd also recommend this article from Craig, which may provide you more clarity:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/beginning-to-exist#ixzz31pOXrv8U

And I would highly</em recommend his book Time and Eternity, which contains a whole chapter on the static conception of time (there he engages relativity theory):

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Exploring-Gods-Relationship/dp/1581342411/?tag=ththve-20

There are nevertheless strong philosophical reasons why an actual, as opposed to an imaginary, past-eternal universe is metaphysically impossible.

I'm confused. The universe is this space-time block. It has "edges" (maybe it's open-ended in some directions). What does past-eternal or non-past-eternal mean for this space-time block? If it is open on one end and closed on the other, I flip it and now it's closed on one end and open on the other.

You keep talking about this premise two hang-up. That's not what I'm asking about, and that's not what the criticism was about. It's not really Andrew's criticism or mine. It's about what the concept of "beginning" even means if the universe is a space-time block.

Assuming the universe is this space-time block, what do you mean by beginning? How do you distinguish a beginning from an ending?

(Note that I've now asked this question a third time, and am still waiting for an answer... "beginning" needs to have a clear meaning here, if the Kalam argument can even get off the ground.)

"General relativity implies that the universe can be thought of as a space-time block. If this implication is accepted, what does "beginning" mean for the universe, how is it known that the universe has one, and why does having one mean that it has to have a cause?"

You again keep going back to modern relativity theory, thinking that it somehow invalidates the second premise of the KCA. I'm willing to *concede,* for the sake of argument, that modern science does *not* support this premise (even though I'm still convinced it does--for reasons too complicated to explain here.)

There are nevertheless strong philosophical reasons why an actual, as opposed to an imaginary, past-eternal universe is metaphysically impossible. There are only two options: either the universe is past-eternal (and thus never had an ontological beginning) or it is contingent and thus began to exist. If the former is impossible, the latter must be true.

Again, I'd like to point out that even if your objections in this latest comment were valid (I don't think they are), this would in no way make the KCA a "terrible" argument because it doesn't depend on scientific verification for its premises.

"It seems that, if the universe is thought of as a block of space-time, there's no reason to accept premise (1) or premise (2), or even that the word "beginning" has much meaning in this context."

I've already explained how this model of the universe does not invalidate premise 2. But premise 1 ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") is also unaffected by it. You've provided no reason to doubt this premise--much less render it untrue.

"I suspect that the primary reason this has gone unanswered is because of the sheer amount of research necessary to come to an answer that most thinking persons would consider worthy of posting."

If it would require massive amounts of research, then either 1) apologists have not done the research, which is the same as conceding they have no answer, and know they have no answer but won't admit it or 2) they have an answer but refuse to give it even though people have been asking for it on bended knee for months.

In neither of these two scenarios do such interlocutors come out as paragons of cultivating "respectful dialogue".

"(If someone reading this knows of a good starting point, I am interested)"

Since you are a new arrival, I would be remiss not to inform you that evidence of past experience strongly indicates a Christian poster is no more likely to get an answer than any of the dozens of nonbelievers, many now banned, to this request; or if you do, it will be a "preliminary starting point" along the lines of "read all of Aquinas".