can you explain this?

Starting point can be either psychological or logical. Doesn't matter so long as the logic of the case requires the conclusion.

I sense at this time but can't yet express that physical relativity will have similar destructive effects as does moral relativity. It isn't really the relativity that is destructive, but the elimination of the absolute. Without an absolute, physical reality may make no more sense than moral reality. Truth is at issue. Not sure about this yet but will be pursuing it from time to time.

I don't understand this sentence. What is the "conclusion"? Is the logic the situation in which you invoke instantaneous transportation?

It sounds like this to me: You start with absolute time, then you show why invoking absolute time will create some sort of logical contradiction in SR, therefore there must be absolute time.

I'm not sure yet, more intuitive than anything else. Take the train case. If there is no real state of affairs then there appears to be, not just a paradox, but a real contradiction, which can be resolved with an absolute frame of reference.

I'm really out of my philosophical depth here but I do plan to pursue it. To really make a strong case it might be necessary to be a Ph.D. level philosopher and physicist, which leaves me out. Maybe Craig will go back to school and study physics.

Actually, invoking absolute time resolves the paradox. Without absolute time the paradox seems to be a real, ontological contradiction.

What I mean by starting point is that the method by which you come to a logical argument doesn't matter if the argument is true. The method is subjective and psychological, the argument itself is objective and logical.

Your intuitive notion of time is not be consistent with the hypotheses of SR. In particular, it is not consistent with the idea that the speed of light is constant according to any viewer.

So in order for this issue to be resolved, you must address the question of the constancy of the speed of light.

There is a real state of affairs, just not an absolute state of affairs. And the issue you have isn't resolved by an absolute frame of reference, but caused by it.

The "paradox" is resolved in the framework of SR. There is no logical paradox. The ontological contradiction seems to be coming out of your notion of "instantaneous transportation" (which is leading to some sort of "backwards time travel"). Therefore, it could be stated that "instantaneous transportation" is the root of the paradox.

(Edit: The "paradoxes" of SR result from trying to hold onto intuitive notions of time rather than abandoning them. Absolute time is incompatible with the notion that the speed of light is the same for all observers. So *something* has to give. It's either "time" isn't quite what we think it is, or that the speed of light is not actually the same for everybody.)

I still don't get it. What does it mean that you have a "true" argument? Are you talking about the "argument" being "valid"? Or are you talking about the "conclusion" being "true"?

I still have no idea why this is in RGT

NotReady, I think this snippet from RLK would be worth thinking on. Your perception that there is some paradox comes from assuming that there must be a state of affairs as to which is 'really' moving slower. As you allude to, your reason for thinking this is intuitive - it appears to us that time is invariant, that the speed of light will change based on how we move, etcetera. Same as your desk 'intuitively' appears solid, but is 'really' full of space.

To speculate in a hopefully useful way, I don't think SR is any threat to an absolute perspective - God's perspective or knowledge is from every frame, in my opinion - not from one preferred frame (since such doesn't exist). He knows what everything looks like in every frame at every moment - the only problem with that arises if you consider God to have a present. A human habit, but not an appropriate one, in my view - since God made time I don't think it applies to him or restricts him the way having a present/past/future would.

The paradox is real if you don't have SR:

If you want Maxwell's equations to be invariant to different moving frames you must have the speed of light constant in all frames, leading to SR.

If you don't have constant c, the electro-magnetism constants have to vary with how fast the frame is moving..

Regarding time, IMO:

it is more reasonable that there is no such thing as time( see Julian Barbour) then there is absolute time.

I think it's important to distinguish between theories and interpretations. There are scientific theories and ontological interpretations of those theories. So, just as there's quantum theory and an ontological interpretation like the multi-verse, there's the theory of relativity and its ontological interpretations.

An ontological interpretation of relativity like, "everything is relative," or it's counterpart, "there is no absolute space or time," is just that, an ontological interpretation of the theory. So, for example, if there is 'spooky action' at a distance, then Einstein's interpretation of his theory is incorrect and we'll probably have to posit absolute time and space or some sort of supra-luminal aether.

I agree. I haven't digested it yet but Craig focuses on interpretation. I don't think he questions the empirical facts, the math, etc., just goes with Newton on absolute time - and from what I understand, there are physicists today who subscribe to absolute time. Anyway, I'm not equipped to argue this and I doubt it's really worth an argument.

I completely agree with the quote from RLK. That's how I was thinking about it until I read Gardner.

But that only works if God is timeless, which raises the problem of how He can act within time. If He is in time (has a present) then preferred frame becomes an issue. So we're really back to A versus B time.

I don't see how that is an issue if God is supposed to have created time - he must be outside it, as far as I can see (or at least there's nothing problematic about assuming that) - how God can act within time is no more difficult than how he acts on matter without being made of atoms.

If you think God is not timeless, then perhaps you have a problem. Not sure why you consider that settled though - my theology is obviously riddled with heretical views, but the idea of God existing outside of the universe (including outside of time) is not a particularly contentious one as far as I'm aware.

OK, I must have misunderstood - I thought you were of the view there must be an answer to "which clock is moving slower" (ie I thought you were of the view that God would have an opinion).

I do think God has an opinion but it would be formed based on an absolute inertial frame. For us, we can't say each is moving slower than the other because we can only know one relative to the other. Which I think is what RLK is saying. It isn't that I believe SR is false but that there is an absolute frame of reference, which is undetectable to us.

I think the problem is A versus B time. If A time is real, there really is a past, present and future, then it's real for God as well. He can't know it's 3:00 p.m. until it is 3:00 p.m. That entails a moving "now" for God, and past events are really past and no longer exist.

I'm not saying it's settled at all. Craig makes it very clear that you can't decide whether A or B is correct from the Bible. So there are two philosophy/theology camps and neither is orthodox or heretical - it's an attempt to make Christian theism coherent and intelligible.

So what's the perceived problem with saying God is outside of time (yet can act within it - same as he is outside of space, yet can act within it)?

FWIW - I think A-time and B-time are concepts developed from a newtonian perspective (with this idea of static space evolving through a completely independent time) and therefore not particularly relevant since we now know the world is not like that. (Of course that's only because I accept the findings of relativity - declaring that there must be an unobservable inertial reference frame, even though it doesnt look like it, because otherwise we can't yet understand how God can act within time... seems a little like arguing for a pre-desired premise. I think SR should be taken at face value until there's some reason to think the world isnt like it appears - an intuitive unease isn't a good reason, in my mind).

I'm not certain about this yet but it appears to me that Craig is saying that c isn't constant in an absolute inertial frame, though it is in SR.

Here's a quote from his book:

I haven't dealt with the space question yet but my guess is Craig would say God is spaceless without creation but in space with creation. None of this means that God has changed in His essential attributes but that He is "in" His creation in a real way.

I understand that the fact I can't imagine how God could act in time and space without being in them doesn't mean He can't. Again, I'm not being dogmatic about this, it just seems more plausible to me and doesn't violate any Scriptural doctrine, while also making sense of our intuitions. If all of this is Newtonian, I don't consider that a criticism, but more of a compliment. Craig emphasizes several times that Newton's ideas of absolute time and space were primarily theistically derived.

What an embarrassment. As Sokal famously said, he's confusing the pedagogy of relativity with relativity itself. The teaching of it uses concepts (such as light being bounced around) that aren't actually related to what is going on. They are just a conceptual framework to understand the oddness of it. This has resulted in various paradoxes when people confuse the two. Have a read of this for a background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

This topic is very obviously beyond Craig so I humbly suggest reading someone else if you want to understand relativity. It has no bearing on God anyway.

Fair enough. I love relativity - it was one of the first concrete examples I had of science leading to an understanding of the world completely counter to my intuitions, so perhaps I'm wedded to it for psychological reasons.

Could you expand on this comment from earlier:

"But that only works if God is timeless, which raises the problem of how He can act within time."

I don't see how god being timeless means he can't act within time (allowing us to loosely use time-dependant language to refer to him 'acting' without being taken to impute a present).

We cannot say which clock is slower in an absolute sense. All experiments support that there is no absolute time.

What God perceives is unknown but I personally do not expect that there is an absolute time in any sense. I think the universe as created does not have that concept any more than it has an integer square root of 2.

IMO trying to learn physics from Craig is a big mistake. All I know about him is what is in his Wiki description which I read 2 minutes ago, but from that he does not have the tools to contribute meaningfully to the subject.

This does imply that the speed of light would not be constant for all observers. While I haven't through carefully through the details to make sure it's right, I think the Michelson-Morley experiment would demonstrate that such a reference frame would not exist (the ether would be "at rest" and be deemed the privileged frame).