You asked for something Craig said that was incorrect scientifically. I gave that to you. Now you're goalpost shifting for the second time--and putting further conditions on your request.

And in addition, you aren't even being honest...you just say well, I'm sure Craig's right, or as you did before, you assume Craig now knows he was wrong and doesn't say that anymore. Luckily that last one is shown to be false.

If you want to know for sure, just go in SMP and ask if a contracting universe would cause stars to burn faster. That was Craig's claim that I took issue with. Or find out for yourself some other way. But don't let your ignorance stop you from finding the truth about the matter. Or worse, just assume Craig is infallible.

OK fair enough. For my part I will suspend Craig criticism as I am not willing to do the work to correct my opinion or make it robust.

However, why do you feel there must be an absolute time? My opinion is exactly the same as Bunny's as stated in one of his posts ie. the relative nature of time is actually helpful in reconciling concepts such as free will and knowledge of the future.

You are both smart so I would love to see that opinion defended. I don't see how it solves the problem at all

OK.

As givens, imagine you and I are normal human beings and I have free will. My actions are unpredictable to you. Now we change you so that you perceive time as a dimension equivalent to space, therefore events no longer need to be experienced sequentially according to human perception. All of my future (in my perception) actions are knowable to you, yet nothing about me has changed so that my assumed free will is still intact.

If that's the best you can do about something so trivial I'll just admit to anyone who asks that there's some unidentified poster on a poker forum who claims Craig made an error in his report about a 30 year old science journal article concerning a trivial matter that didn't affect his main point at all and which the poster refused to prove.

No problem.

First, you asked for something and you got what you asked for (somewhere where Craig made an incorrect statement about Physics). That should actually be the end of story.

But it is interesting on how you cope with the revelation. You then say 'well, Craig probably realizes his mistake and doesn't make it any more' (but that's shown to be incorrect), then 'well, it isn't an important part of his argument', or 'but the one article he read in 1983 says it's true' (I guess once you read something, it is true for all time--so if he were to say the sun orbits the earth, that's OK because in the 1500's it was probably written down somewhere, so he's not really wrong...)

Then, you have the above. You marginalize me twice (if that's the best you can do, random poster), the error (trivial--it might be, but it still is a mistake), you then say it's a report about a science article rather than a step in his argument (again, minimizing), and then instead of finding the truth by asking a third party, you assert your way to victory because I haven't taken it upon myself to teach you graduate level cosmology and GR (without you asking, by the way).

With all the difficulty caused by my reading of those Gardner statements and what's transpired in this thread I had forgotten what Craig said in the first chapter of his book where he explains why these questions are important.

The first reason, that Christian theism is attacked for being incoherent, is shown by citing Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking. Davies says that God can't be timeless because such a being "cannot be a personal God who thinks, converses, feels, plans and so on for these are all temporal activities". Davies also cites the incarnation as being impossible if God is timeless. But God can't be temporal either because as the creator of time He must transcend time. So Christian theism is incoherent. He shows something similar from Hawking in his Brief History.

The second reason is that Christians themselves often speak incoherently about God and His relation to time. He's especially concerned about Christian leaders - pastors, professors, theologians - who are careless in their treatment of this issue. He cites two authors that he thinks analyze time incorrectly. Interestingly, one of them is Hugh Ross, whom Craig says gets it wrong in Beyond the Cosmos.

Do I have a well-defined "now"? As I type this, my fingers and the other parts of my body are in different reference frames. Molecules are moving about in my brain in many different directions, so they are also in many different reference frames. In order for me to cling to the notion that I have a well-defined "now" in the context of this thread, it seems that I must select some zero-dimensional point (perhaps inside my head) to identify with "me". It seems quite evident to me that this is an ad-hoc fiction, and so I am left with the conclusion that I do not have a well-defined "now".

If I am able to exist in time and affect my environment without having a well-defined "now", then anything worthy of being called "God" should be able to do the same.

Suppose there was a human shaped being whose brain was made up of atoms but was light years across?

As long as he is not expected to have honest conversations with you.

He could have them with me. He just could not have them with you.

You give up alot for your well defined "now". You can't effect things very far away from you, which is a limitation that most people find unappealing for a god.

How are things going with actually fleshing out that objection? Still at the "I'm sure I could find a contradiction, I just can't be bothered - it might be the Barber paradox." stage I presume?

"God."