Kalam Cosmological Argument, Premise One

[Blastcat]

Hi gang !

Once again, while showering, something came to mind...

William Lane Craig is famous for his re-working of the old Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Here it is in a nut-shell for those who might need a bit of a refresher. Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:

______________

The argument:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
P2. The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

C1. The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:

P3. The universe has a cause;
P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

C. An uncased, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

____________

This thread wants to take a good look at P1. that is, the very first premise of the argument that states :"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

As in all arguments, if we accept that this premise is true, we move on to the next premise, and so on, to it's conclusion that must follow from one to the next without any gaps.

Now, if we cannot demonstrate that a premise in the argument is TRUE, then the argument may be VALID, but not sound. The conclusion we get from an argument is just as weak as it's weakest link, so to speak.

So, what about the first premise?

Is it TRUE that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"?

I am a skeptic at heart, so I am suspicious about that.


Let me give some preliminary reasons, that I got while showering with my Spiderman "Spidey Sense" Soft Soap ®... ( very refreshing ) :


1. Right off the bat, I would have my skeptical spidey sense tingling by the sentence itself. It seems to imply that some things begin to exist, and that others may not begin to exist. I'm not too sure what that means... What does it MEAN to say that something has a "beginning" to it's existence? What does it MEAN to say that not all things begin to exist? Which kinds of things begin to exist, and which kinds of things don't begin to exist? Now, we need rigorous definitions, don't we? Anyone has those? I sure don't. The more that I look, the more confused I get.

2. It doesn't say what hasn't begun to exist. But I suspect that the case is very well chosen. Some people might protest that there is a difference between saying that something doesn't begin to exist and saying that something hasn't yet begun to exist. We are now having to make a distinction that is very subtly grammatical.

3. Of course, if something has not yet begun to exist, it cannot yet exist. But if we are trying to prove that something has caused the universe, it at least has to exist in some way. Otherwise, the argument... is weird.

4. The Kalam is very old.. It wasn't always phrased the way that WLC does. In fact, WLC has introduced the word "begins to" ... because before we could ask "Who caused God?". So, it seems that Craig wants to save the argument by replacing "exists" by "begins to exist". If only GOD doesn't "begin to exist", then I see special pleading going on.

5. Craig says this about the nature of "God's" infinity:

"God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on."

In other words, when Craig uses the term "infinite" to refer to a being who doesn't begin, he isn't talking about numbers, but characteristics. I "began to exist" in the middle 50's. See how that's a number? I could have started counting the years of my "existence" at 0, or 1, or some other NUMBER, but it's weird to think that we don't COUNT things without numbers.. but if there are no NUMBERS, to me, it's weird to say that something began or didn't begin. Time is a series of numbers, one after another.. seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, years.. eons.. we count those, because they are NUMBERED. If it can't be counted, I don't know how it can be called "time", and if it isn't "time" we are talking about.. causation seems a bit weird to be talking about.. and to begin.. implies "time"... so again.. very weird.

So, when I read "Whatever BEGINS to exist.." I think "What on earth is Craig talking about"? A quality or a measurable instance of time? If the word BEGINS is an instance of time that is measurable for everything ELSE but "God", this is special pleading once again.

6. The second part.. "A CAUSE" ... this is the really REALLY weird part.. and I will keep it short. You see, Craig doesn't like infinite regresses.. so, the universe can't be it's own cause due to an infinite regress.. what cause the cause of the cause.. and so on.. Physical matter NOT of this universe can't be the cause because.. what's the cause of THAT.. and so on.. more infinite regress. The very ODD thing about Craig's solution, "God", is that it is eternal in the past.. In other words, it seems to "cause the cause of the cause of the cause.. " in an infinite regress. To me, and this is just preliminary thinking, he solves one infinity.. "Cause" with another infinity "God".


Just some thoughts.. I have my doubts about the first premise.

_____________

So, here are the questions for debate:


1. Is it true that things that have a beginning have a cause?
2. How something hasn't begun to exist, continue to exist?

_____________

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to hoghead1]

"So the potentials for the universe initially existed in God,"

Since potentials exist, they must exist somewhere, in some actuality; therefore God.

Gap in my knowledge, therefore God.(God of the gaps)


Again with argument from ignorance. Wow. Seriously?!!!

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

What if the potentials for our universe existed initially in the actuality called: The Multiverse.

Q: Is the Multiverse not a viable hypothesis, huh?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 39 by hoghead1]


[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
The potentially potential yet actual God that is everything there is, and more.
Part Three: Some clarifications ... [/center]

Again, you have gotten confused on what I am saying. No problem. You are new to the material and it can be complicated. So I'll try and again clarify.

Thank you.

I'd be very interested in the answers to my questions.
That would help me understanding this new material, your explanation of panentheism is fascinating.

By "immune," I mean unaffected, absolutely indifferent and unmoved.

Ok, thanks.

I've actually not used the word that way... I thought it was a typo for not being affected by viruses. I thought you meant mutable... So.. your god is absolutely indifferent and unmoved. I find that fascinating.

You got confused about what I mean when of speak of potentiality and actuality.

Yes, that's true.
I am trying to make sense out of all of this new material ... and as it stands, can't.
Try, try again, right?

Yes, potentials do exist, but they are potentials for actual things, not the actual things themselves.

Yeah, potentials are potentials. I got that.
The "things" if only potentially existing, do not actually exist.

Another word for potential is possible.
We could maybe say that everything is possible to think about.. like Santa and God.

Before you bake a cake, the potential for baking this cake exists.

Before I bake a cake, all the ingredients already actually exist.
Look for my questions concerning cake vs. universe below.

But you can't eat a potential cake, you can eat only a real cake. The potential has to be actualized before you have the real thing.

If something is only potentially real, it's not actually real yet.
Look for the question about that below.

I said that nothing comes out of nowhere.

I will try to remember that in my question below.

Since potentials exist, they must exist somewhere, in some actuality.

That can be interpreted to mean "that what potentially exists, actually exists".
To me, that represents a contradiction.

So the potentials for the universe initially existed in God, in the divine imagination.

It seems as if you are saying that "God" actually existed BEFORE creation. And that "God" came into being WITH creation.

I will really need you to explain the apparent contradiction.
Look for the questions.

I realize you are having trouble with this notion that potentials have to exist in something.

Yes, things exist or they don't.
I do have trouble with Platonic ideals.. I don't think concepts exist OUTSIDE of minds.
I think I was missing the point that to you, the concept called "potential for the universe to exist" exists in "God's mind.

I hope I understand.
Please confirm if so.

The best I can do is refer you to my earlier point that potentials are basically creative ideas, and that ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they always exist in a mind.

Ideas exist in minds.

Ideas about potential things have to exist in something that can have ideas.
So, I think when you use the word "potential" you really mean "idea".

I think I got confused by the way you were talking about potentials. I think you meant IDEAS. Please confirm.

The potential here.. is something that "God" thinks or can possibly think, or only unconsciously thinks. The the potential seems to EXIST IN ( that's the "where" I think you are talking about ) in "God's" mind.

That's assuming that a "God" actually exists, that it has a mind and so on...

I think I'm catching on ... I'll ask you questions below.

I said that God, prior to any creation, exists as an unconscious imagination with a creative drive to self-actualize.

Ok, this is a bit clearer. "God" was unconscious before creation.
But that must mean that "God" existed.. but maybe, asleep.

Questions below.

Creation is God's own self-evolution or self-creation.

I think you are saying that "God" didn't actually exist before the universe, is created along with the universe and that "God" is something EXTRA to the universe...

Since the word "universe" means "everything that exists", your concept of "God" is a something MORE than "everything". Which to me, makes no sense. There can't be something "more" to everything.

Questions below.

I realize that self-creation may seem a kind of paradox, but it happens everyday. Consider the fact that we self-create, we decide what we are going to be.

We don't think ourselves into existence, we have been already "created" before we decide what we are "going to be", so that example fails. You say that "God" SELF-CREATES before it existed. That's not the same at all.

I don't know here you came up with all this stuff about potentially married bachelors existing, etc. I am not talking anything remotely related to that.

I was using a reductio ad absurdum example like that to illustrate the consequences of your reasoning. I came up with this stuff by way of my imagination.

You may not care how others have defined God.

I will only care if there is a hope for any of those definitions to be TRUE.
Show me how your belief is true, or can possibly be true, for example, and then I WILL care very much indeed. Right now, I am given no reason to believe what you do.

Hence, at this time, I am immune to your belief.
I am, however, mutable if presented with a solid case for it.

But I will guarantee you that others most certainly do.

I agree with that.

A lot of people sure seem to care a LOT about their ideas concerning "God", don't they? I'm only really interested in true beliefs. People believe all kinds of things. I am accustomed to that idea.

This is a key item in discussions on the existence of God.

What is the key item.. "God"?
Then I agree.

God is the key item when discussing "God".

If, however, you are not at all interested, then others are simply going to assume that you are not really interested in the discussion and then irrelevant.

They would be assuming wrong.
I care about the DISCUSSION, I care about HOW people think, but of course, if what they believe has no hope of being proved true.. then.. yeah, WHAT they believe to me is less important than HOW they formed those beliefs. I am greatly interested in epistemology. Not so much with theology, you see. '

When people explain to me what they believe in, you will always see my focus is on HOW they have arrived at those beliefs. I have to first UNDERSTAND their beliefs, and I usually stop there... I usually can't make much sense out of what they believe in. I need to learn about propositional logic, so I do that, too. I want to look at how beliefs make internal SENSE. Not many religious beliefs do.

At least, not to the Blastcat, you see.

To me, the content is rather irrelevant. People can believe anything that they want to.
But if the content doesn't make sense, I'll try my best to figure it out with the person.
This sometimes takes a lot of time.

In my experience, people tend to ASSUME that their ideas can make perfect sense to everyone. And that... isn't quite the case. When they try to articulate that sense... Hmm.. In my experience, most people have a lot of trouble communicating that sense.

We are knee deep trying to make sense out of your panentheism right now. You have to admit, that at least in MY lonely case, we are having a fair bit of trouble, aren't we?

As it stands, your panentheistic hypothesis doesn't make much sense to me at all.

I'm sorry that you don't choose to answer many of my questions. That would help things along. You can even refer to them by number. Or as some people do, quote the question, and then answer right below. That's probably the best way.

By the way, if you ever have any questions for ME.. don't hesitate. It's a pity, but I do make mistakes. Thank you for the clarifications you have already provided. Please find my current batch of questions below:

___________

Questions:

• 1. Could you explain to me why a perfectly IMMUNE god would care to create?
  2. Are you saying that "potentials" can only "exist" in minds?
  3. How is your "cake" example which would have to be created from already EXISTING material the same as the universe, or "God", who you say "self-creates"?
  4. Does a cake self create?
  5. Do the ingredients for the universe exist before the universe was created?
  6. From what material does "God" self-create?
  7. Do we have any examples of things that actually do self-create? ( Cakes don't )
  8. If something doesn't actually exist, but merely potentially exists, does it actually exist?
  9. You say that nothing comes from nowhere. Where does "God" come from?
  10. Do you believe that "God" exists before his self-creation?
  11. If "God" is potentially existing before self-creation, in whose divine imagination does "God" exist?
  12. You have stated that potentials don't actually exist. You also stated that "God" self-creates WITH the universe. Are you saying that "God" did in fact, actually exist before the creation, or did he not?
  13.How can something exist ( let's say "God" ) before being created?
  14. Why would someone bake a cake if perfectly IMMUNE to the idea?
  15. Are you saying that "that what potentially exists, actually exists"?
  16.Do you self-identify yourself as a Christian?
  

___________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 40 by hoghead1]


[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
The potentially potential yet actual God that is everything there is, and more.
Part Four: More than everything[/center]

P.S. I forgot to add this. God is more than just the world, just as I am more than just my body. I transcend my body.

Noted.
Questions below.

I am in charge.

You are in charge of you.
Not a very controversial idea.
Unless, of course you believe that "God" is actually in charge of you. Hard to tell... some say yes, and some say no.

I'd say that you are in charge to some extent.. maybe a big one.. maybe not. Hard to tell.. I think that the laws governing the universe may have something to say about who's the actual boss of you.. But I can at least accept your statement ... for the sake of the argument.

Also, there can be a big difference between my character and my body.

Well, maybe if you had a different body, you might not have the same character.. but how are we going to prove that? I wont even try. But let me agree that character and body are not synonymous.

My body may not reveal my character, my wishes and wants, etc., as when it doesn't cooperate or when I am sick, etc. So I am not synonomous with my body, though I am my body.

You are your body and you aren't synonymous with your body.
Maybe, just maybe, you have more than just a body, but also IDEAS...

Set theory isn't your friend right now.
___________

Questions:

• 1. Is "God" in the universe, or outside, or one foot in, one foot out.. where IS this "God"?
  2. The universe is synonymous with "everything". You say that "God" is the universe but also MORE than the universe. How can everything also be not everything?
  3. When you transcend your body.. where do you transcend it.. in the universe or out of it?
  4. Is your transcendent self part of the universe or not?
  5. Does a cake transcend itself?
  6. Where does a rock ( or a cake ) transcend itself?
  7. Is a cake in charge of itself?
  8. Are your character and your body understood as "parts of you"?
  9. If you are not synonymous with "your body" how are you not synonymous with "your body"?
  10. Are your wishes part of you?
  11. Are you illnesses part of your body?
  12. How can a part of you be something MORE than you?
  13. How do you define "the universe"?
  

___________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

I'm trying to answer your questions as best I can. You asked a number of them. However, I am limited by time and space. If I don't address something you asked, it's probably because I ran out of time. Also, I am trying to keep my responses succinct, indenting them to answer several of your questions. So please be patient.

No, I don't think God is immune. Classical theism claimed that. Process or pan-en-theism is critical of classical theism for so doing. Immutable goes with immune. Immutable means without any change. Hence, a wholly immutable God is wholly immune, unaffected by the world, as nothing can make any real difference in God. Again, process is against that idea.

The fact that something potentially exists does not mean it actually exists.

If you are going to think of God alone, without a world, then yes, God exists, but not as whole or complete, just as unconscious imagination seeing to self-actualize itself, no character, pattern, personality, or consciousness. But God has never been merely potential, purely unconscious. God's creativity was never idle. There has always been some sort of created order, a somewhere. Before this universe, there was another one and so on, ad infinitum. The priority of the unconscious is logical, not temporal.

God works from within out, not from without in. God lives and dwells in the universe, not in some nowhere land, above, beyond, outside the universe.

God doesn't come out of nowhere. God is a social-relational being. God arises out of God's relationships with the universe.

Yes, the cake does self-create. Every entity has some real degree of freedom, choice as to what it will become. God makes this possible because God provides new-found creative possibilities that lift us out of the tyranny of the given. Every "self," every momentary unity of experience is a self-creation. There is initially the inrush of the big, booming, buzzing world, a chaos of feelings teeming to be heard. The birthing subject or self feels all this chaos, but has to get its act together, so to speak, organize this chaos into a unity if there is to be a "self" in the strict sense of the word. We all weave ourselves together.

My body is me. I identify with my body. If you tickle my big toe, you tickle me. However, I do not make a blanket equation between myself and my body. If I become sick, yes, there is illness in me. But it doesn't represent my character. After all, I didn't want to get sick. There can be a world of difference between what I want and what my body may deliver. So me and my body are not synonymous terms. I transcend my body because I am in charge and can entertain hopes and dreams beyond the limitations of my body.

That is all I have time for now. There is a lot of material and ideas being covered here; so I want to make sure you are clear on these points before moving to other questions.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to hoghead1]

"God works from within out, not from without in. God lives and dwells in the universe, not in some nowhere land, above, beyond, outside the universe. "

Q: How do you know?

Q: By which mechanism did you made that determination?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 44 by hoghead1]

[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
The potentially potential yet actual God that is everything there is, and more.
Part Five: The whole cake and nothing but the cake[/center]

I'm trying to answer your questions as best I can. You asked a number of them.

I thank you for that, and I do realize that I ask a whole lot of questions.
In my defense... I would say that the more questions I ask, the less I understand what you have written to me.

If I don't understand something, I HAVE to ask what you mean.
Otherwise... understanding doesn't happen.

I can't debate if I don't understand my opponent's position.
Thanks for your patience in that regard, as well.

The more you answer my questions, the better I can understand you.
And it's perfectly acceptable if you take all the time that you need.

This isn't a race.
I truly enjoy our discussion.

However, I am limited by time and space. If I don't address something you asked, it's probably because I ran out of time. Also, I am trying to keep my responses succinct, indenting them to answer several of your questions. So please be patient.

I thank you for every minute of your precious time.

I try to be patient.
Debating in here.. helps me learn how to be that.

I have a lot of trouble keeping what I write succinct, but find, ironically, that editing takes more even more of my time.. and in order for me to be spiffy... succinct.. I need a lot of editing time.

Hence, Blastcat be long winded.
( and in grammar not good )

No, I don't think God is immune. Classical theism claimed that.

Ahhh good to know.
Thank you.

Process or pan-en-theism is critical of classical theism for so doing. Immutable goes with immune. Immutable means without any change. Hence, a wholly immutable God is wholly immune, unaffected by the world, as nothing can make any real difference in God. Again, process is against that idea.

It seems that you are saying your panentheistic god is caring and can change.

The fact that something potentially exists does not mean it actually exists.

I'd go further than that.. I'd say that something that merely potentially exists necessarily does not exist.

If you are going to think of God alone, without a world, then yes, God exists, but not as whole or complete, just as unconscious imagination seeing to self-actualize itself, no character, pattern, personality, or consciousness.

You seem to be saying that before creation, "God" is incomplete and unconscious.

But God has never been merely potential, purely unconscious.

Now you seem to be saying that "God" has never been unconscious or merely potential. You have to admit that this might be a little bit confusing to the readers.

God's creativity was never idle. There has always been some sort of created order, a somewhere. Before this universe, there was another one and so on, ad infinitum. The priority of the unconscious is logical, not temporal.

You seem to have decided that there is an infinite regress of universes.
Interesting.

God works from within out, not from without in.

That's not as clear to me as it might be to you... I'm not sure what you mean by that.
"God" works?.. does that work include creation? "God" created the universe from within an already existing created universe?

This kind of ambiguous statement generates many questions.. see below.
I'd really like to understand you.

God lives and dwells in the universe, not in some nowhere land, above, beyond, outside the universe.

Ok, "God" lives IN the universe.
I was asking how can God be bigger than the set he is in.

Set theory doesn't allow for that.

And if "God" does not exist OUTSIDE the universe.. he must have existed inside the universe before it was created.. And that, my friend, just doesn't make a lick of sense.

God doesn't come out of nowhere. God is a social-relational being. God arises out of God's relationships with the universe.

"God" arises.. sounds like at some time, "God" didn't exist but "arose" out of "god" ingredients, in the same way that a cake "arises" out of it's ingredients.

I'm not sure you mean that.

Yes, the cake does self-create.

I've never actually seen that happen.

You must be using the term "self-create" ( or, indeed "cake" ) in a way that I really don't understand. When a cake "arises" in my kitchen, let me tell you.. I do the creating of it.

( and very creatively, clean up )

Every entity has some real degree of freedom, choice as to what it will become.

You just MIGHT want to demonstrate that cakes have freedom.. and that, even BEFORE they have "self-created" ( whatever "self-created" means )

God makes this possible because God provides new-found creative possibilities that lift us out of the tyranny of the given.

You might want to clarify what you mean by "the tyranny of the given" It sounds to me like the title of an awesome hard rock album.

Every "self," every momentary unity of experience is a self-creation.

I'm not too sure if you have yet demonstrated that cakes can experience anything.

There is initially the inrush of the big, booming, buzzing world, a chaos of feelings teeming to be heard.

I don't know how cakes hear anything.

The birthing subject or self feels all this chaos, but has to get its act together, so to speak, organize this chaos into a unity if there is to be a "self" in the strict sense of the word. We all weave ourselves together.

In actual "birthing centers", we don't see cakes coming out, we see "babies".
Cakes tend to come out of "ovens".

My body is me. I identify with my body. If you tickle my big toe, you tickle me.

You might be interested in taking a look at set theory.
Your TOE is a part of you, not the totality of you.

If you identify with your toe, you are identifying with a part of you.

Part≠whole

However, I do not make a blanket equation between myself and my body.

Right.
A part of your body ≠ the whole of your body.

Toe ≠ whole of you.

If I become sick, yes, there is illness in me. But it doesn't represent my character. After all, I didn't want to get sick. There can be a world of difference between what I want and what my body may deliver. So me and my body are not synonymous terms. I transcend my body because I am in charge and can entertain hopes and dreams beyond the limitations of my body.

Sickness ≠ whole of you, either.

You are making a distinction between your thoughts and your body.
But both are PARTS of you as a whole. I think that when you are speaking of your SELF, you are not just talking about your body, but also, perhaps, your mind.

You seem to be thinking that you are MORE than your whole self.
And that just doesn't make sense.

You can't be more than you are.
Set theory doesn't allow for that.

If there is something "more" to you.. that is a part of you.. you have to put it IN the set called "the whole of you". Otherwise, the world "whole" loses it's meaning.

And Blastcat no like.
( Blastcat also no like grammar )

That is all I have time for now. There is a lot of material and ideas being covered here; so I want to make sure you are clear on these points before moving to other questions.

One of my primary goals is to be as clear as possible.
So, I applaud your attempts.

Inevitably, I have:

___________

Questions:

• 1. The "God" you believe in cares and changes.. is that correct?
  2. I'd say that something that potentially exists necessarily does not exist. Do you agree with that statement?
  3. You stated above that: "If you are going to think of God alone, without a world, then yes, God exists, but not as whole or complete, just as unconscious imagination ..." Are you saying that, without a world, "God" isn't complete or conscious?
  4. If you answered "Yes" to question number 3, is "God" still perfect in that condition?
  5. When you stated that:" But God has never been merely potential, purely unconscious." Isn't that in contradiction to your previous statement that "If you are going to think of God alone, without a world, then yes, God exists, but not as whole or complete, just as unconscious imagination ..."
  6. How can "God" create the universe if it always existed?
  7. Are you saying that "God" did or did not exist before the universe was created?
  8. How did you determine that there are infinite universes?
  9. Could you clarify what you mean by " God works from within out, not from without in. " I'm not quite sure what you mean.
  10. When you state that: "God lives and dwells in the universe, not in some nowhere land, above, beyond, outside the universe. " Do you mean "exists"? Because that would mean "God" didn't exist before the universe did.. ( since the universe is the container of "God" ) Could you clarify WHEN "God" exists? I.E.. did "God" exist before the universe existed, or after it existed?
  11. How can something be bigger than it's container? Won't it overflow the container?
  12. You seem to say that God creates the universe, but needs to ARISE out of a relationship with the universe. How can one arise out of something that does not yet exist?
  13. Can you explain by what mechanism a cake self-creates?
  14. I'm getting the impression that you believe the universe is eternal in some way. If so, how do you mean that?
  15. How can some thing in the set of all things be bigger than "all things"?
  16. In what way can it be said that a cake has freedom?
  17. What do you mean by the phrase "the tyranny of the given"?
  18. Does something that potentially exists necessarily exists?
  19. How do cakes experience anything?
  20. How do potential cakes experience anything?
  21. How do cakes get to hear anything?
  22.Concerning your example "toe", do you believe that Part of the whole ≠ the totality of the whole?
  23. Is there more of you than the whole of you?
  

___________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 43 by Blastcat]

Yes, I definitely am saying that God cares and does change. That's the main point of neo-classical theism.

As I stressed in my previous post, God without a universe would be a most incomplete God. As I said, God would be void of all consciousness, personality, character, pattern.

I didn't say this universe always existed. I said there has always been some sort of universe. Each universe is something unique and different. Each universe has a beginning. I am willing to accept an infinite regress here because I am willing to accept the eternality of God's creativity.

I think you may have gotten confused here because you may have overlooked my previous point that at no time was God ever merely potential, purely unconscious. There has always been some sort of universe.

When I say God arises out of teh universe, I mean that God's specific character is shaped by God's experiences of the universe, just as we arise out of our encounters with others.

In classical theism God and the temporal-material world, spirit and matter, are assumed to be like oil and water. They don't mix. Hence, God was assumed to exist outside the world of time and space, in some nowhere land. God was assumed to work from without in. God was an alien intruder from some nowhere land where he resides. In my pan-en-theistic perspective, I think of the universe as the body of God. God lives and swells in the universe, just as I live and dwell in my body. Hence, God works from within out.

Everyone has their basic building blocks of reality. Science, for example, has its atoms. In my process perspective, the basic building blocks are momentary unities of subjective experience. All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds or souls. Even atoms have tiny minds. Hence, all things have some real degree of freedom and choice. Note: I am not saying all things are necessarily conscious or have sensory experiences. Except for higher organisms, most entities are unconscious. They feel, but they do not feel their feelings. Also, not all forms of experience are necessarily sensory. Unconscious feeling, not conscious sensation, is the most basic level of experience.

my big toe, yes, is part of me, but not the whole of me. My body is part of me, but not the whole of me. In my previous post, I pointed out key ways in which I can be said to transcend my body.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to hoghead1]


Q: Why are you avoiding my posts?

"So the potentials for the universe initially existed in God,"

Since potentials exist, they must exist somewhere, in some actuality; therefore God.

Gap in my knowledge, therefore God.(God of the gaps)


Again with argument from ignorance.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

What if the potentials for our universe existed initially in the actuality called: The Multiverse.

Q: Is the Multiverse not a viable hypothesis, huh? Cool

"God works from within out, not from without in. God lives and dwells in the universe, not in some nowhere land, above, beyond, outside the universe. "

Q: How do you know?

Q: By which mechanism did you made that determination?

[FarWanderer]

Hi BC. I'm in a time-wasting mood, so I will comment.

1. Right off the bat, I would have my skeptical spidey sense tingling by the sentence itself. It seems to imply that some things begin to exist, and that others may not begin to exist. I'm not too sure what that means... What does it MEAN to say that something has a "beginning" to it's existence? What does it MEAN to say that not all things begin to exist? Which kinds of things begin to exist, and which kinds of things don't begin to exist? Now, we need rigorous definitions, don't we? Anyone has those? I sure don't. The more that I look, the more confused I get.

Nothing "begins to exist" except in the sense that people ascribe labels wherein they hadn't before.

Labels are intersubjectively determined and are thus, strictly speaking, arbitrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

So, yes, you are quite right. While "begins to exist" works well enough in the context of everyday communication, it lacks definite meaning in the context of strict logic.

2. It doesn't say what hasn't begun to exist. But I suspect that the case is very well chosen. Some people might protest that there is a difference between saying that something doesn't begin to exist and saying that something hasn't yet begun to exist. We are now having to make a distinction that is very subtly grammatical.

Yes, this is another problem. "God" is often defined in such a way that everything but God must "begin to exist". Therefore, the phrase "Everything that begins to exist" is logically equivalent to "Everything but God".

That makes the argument a question beg, because it assumes the existence of God in the first premise.

Although technically it's only question begging if the final goal is to prove God's existence. If they just want to prove the universe has some "cause" then there isn't any question begging, but we all know it's God they want to prove.

That's the bait and switch. Make it look innocent and then shoehorn God in at the end.

3. Of course, if something has not yet begun to exist, it cannot yet exist. But if we are trying to prove that something has caused the universe, it at least has to exist in some way. Otherwise, the argument... is weird.

Your addition of the word "yet" is the cause of your confusion.

4. The Kalam is very old.. It wasn't always phrased the way that WLC does. In fact, WLC has introduced the word "begins to" ... because before we could ask "Who caused God?". So, it seems that Craig wants to save the argument by replacing "exists" by "begins to exist". If only GOD doesn't "begin to exist", then I see special pleading going on.

Yes. That's another way to frame the question begging issue I mentioned before.

5. Craig says this about the nature of "God's" infinity:

"God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on."

In other words, when Craig uses the term "infinite" to refer to a being who doesn't begin, he isn't talking about numbers, but characteristics. I "began to exist" in the middle 50's. See how that's a number? I could have started counting the years of my "existence" at 0, or 1, or some other NUMBER, but it's weird to think that we don't COUNT things without numbers.. but if there are no NUMBERS, to me, it's weird to say that something began or didn't begin. Time is a series of numbers, one after another.. seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, years.. eons.. we count those, because they are NUMBERED. If it can't be counted, I don't know how it can be called "time", and if it isn't "time" we are talking about.. causation seems a bit weird to be talking about.. and to begin.. implies "time"... so again.. very weird.

So, when I read "Whatever BEGINS to exist.." I think "What on earth is Craig talking about"? A quality or a measurable instance of time? If the word BEGINS is an instance of time that is measurable for everything ELSE but "God", this is special pleading once again.

Yes, again the same issue as #2 and #4. They are all the same issue, just being approached in a different way.

6. The second part.. "A CAUSE" ... this is the really REALLY weird part.. and I will keep it short. You see, Craig doesn't like infinite regresses.. so, the universe can't be it's own cause due to an infinite regress.. what cause the cause of the cause.. and so on.. Physical matter NOT of this universe can't be the cause because.. what's the cause of THAT.. and so on.. more infinite regress. The very ODD thing about Craig's solution, "God", is that it is eternal in the past.. In other words, it seems to "cause the cause of the cause of the cause.. " in an infinite regress. To me, and this is just preliminary thinking, he solves one infinity.. "Cause" with another infinity "God".

Being eternal in the past does not necessitate an infinite series of causes, as there is no necessity for God to have been causing anything before he created the universe.

Although there is a problem here, with the second Kalam premise. The Scientific Theory which compels us to accept that the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang Theory, also suggests that there is no time "before" the universe through which God could eternally exist.

1. Is it true that things that have a beginning have a cause?

It certainly serves us well to think so at times, but strictly speaking a thing's "beginning" is arbitrary.

Also, causes themselves are in part a matter of framing. An individual's choices are generally considered at least somewhat independent of external causes (i.e. free will), but they can also be framed as entirely caused by chemical processes in the brain.

In the case of the former (the free will frame), any human choice can start a causal chain without the choice itself having been 100% "caused". From this standpoint you can put up an argument to answer "not always" to your question. It's a pretty weak argument, though, since human free will (if we are to believe we even have it at all) is compromised by how the situations around us influence us, stealing some of causal credit from our otherwise free choices.

As an interesting side thought:
Our existence lies somewhere between puppet and self-determining agent, whereas God, being conceived as having no limitations, is fully self-determining. I do believe it is for this reason more than any other that God is so admired.

2. How something hasn't begun to exist, continue to exist?

Did existence begin to exist?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 47 by hoghead1]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
The potentially potential yet actual God that is everything there is, and more.
Part Six: Defining terms[/center]

Yes, I definitely am saying that God cares and does change. That's the main point of neo-classical theism.

Ok good.
Couple of things about that:

I am way more interested in what you happen to believe is true than what you believe is true of neo-classical theism. It's YOUR beliefs that I am interested in.. not some hypothetical group of believers somewhere out there.

I don't really care about the labels that people attach to their beliefs that much, other than if I want to refer to yours.. But then I would simply write "your beliefs", as it's shorter than "your take on neo-classical theism".

I write already too long.. I need to find shortcuts when I can.

Thanks for the clarification.
And I make a point of stressing that gratitude, because in these debates, I find that clarity is a RARE commodity worthy of APPLAUSE.

I hope that others will follow your lead in that regard.

As I stressed in my previous post, God without a universe would be a most incomplete God. As I said, God would be void of all consciousness, personality, character, pattern.

Ok.
"God" without the universe, just aint what you mean by "God".

"God" has to have a universe to exist.
Maybe I should really frame that as a question: See below.

I didn't say this universe always existed. I said there has always been some sort of universe. Each universe is something unique and different. Each universe has a beginning. I am willing to accept an infinite regress here because I am willing to accept the eternality of God's creativity.

Ok, since God is eternal, other things can be eternal.
Why not?
But also, why?

Some apologists ( I'm thinking mostly of William Lane Craig ) are opposed to infinite regresses. Look for the question about IR below.

I think you may have gotten confused here because you may have overlooked my previous point that at no time was God ever merely potential, purely unconscious. There has always been some sort of universe.

I get confused a lot.. that's why I have to ask so many darn questions.
Ok.. there has always been some sort of universe, and there has always been some sort of "God".

Now, I have a few questions about what kinds of other things have "always been". Look below.

When I say God arises out of teh universe, I mean that God's specific character is shaped by God's experiences of the universe, just as we arise out of our encounters with others.

You don't seem to be using the word "arise" to mean "become existent".
I'm confused again.

In classical theism God and the temporal-material world, spirit and matter, are assumed to be like oil and water. They don't mix.

And I suppose, by implication, in your take on classical theism, spirit is a thing that can even possibly exist. Do any classical or neo-classical theists give a reason why outsiders should think that spirits exist? Because outsiders don't seem to have a difficulty accepting that MATTER exists.. just the "spirit".

I will ask a question about that "existence".. and also.. why spirit would not be mixable with matter. It seems to me that the usual answer is somewhat like this: "Because".

Hence, God was assumed to exist outside the world of time and space, in some nowhere land. God was assumed to work from without in. God was an alien intruder from some nowhere land where he resides.

Oh sheesh, I don't CARE about what some people USED to think.. In this here debate about what you think, I care about what YOU yourself, personally think. People USED to think that illness was caused by demons, and that the sun revolved around the earth. I think that in the past, there were MANY beliefs. How about we talk about yours, and stick to that one?

I'm having enough trouble as it is understanding just yours.. I can hardly ask people in the past what they believe and why. I'm stuck here, in the present with THOU.

In my pan-en-theistic perspective, I think of the universe as the body of God. God lives and swells in the universe, just as I live and dwell in my body. Hence, God works from within out.

LOL.. "swells"

Not going to say ONE WORD about how "God" swells in the universe, except to say that if "God" swells, he swells big.

( And that's funny because quite ironically, I have said one word about it )

MIGHT have been a typo.. moving on.

You say that "God" dwells in the universe, like you dwell in your house.
Hmmm body as empty shell.. non important .. what's important in a house are the DWELLERS... right?

But if "God" is IN the house called the "universe", I would say that "God" is INCLUDED in the house. If "God" can be said to BE the universe, then it cannot be MORE than what it is.. "God" cannot be MORE than the universe, even though "God" might have spirit and body... BOTH separate parts would have to be IN the universe.
Otherwise, you would have to say that "God" has one foot IN the universe, but also has another, perhaps spiritual foot OUTSIDE the universe.

So, what's it gonna be.. two feet IN or one foot in and one foot out?

( maybe there's like a door to this house.. don't you love metaphors? )

Everyone has their basic building blocks of reality. Science, for example, has its atoms.

Wow.. that's quite the statement.. you are generating questions. See below in the question portion of this post.

In my process perspective, the basic building blocks are momentary unities of subjective experience.

Won't even PRETEND to know what that might mean.
Look for the question.

All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds or souls.

Quite the claim.
Question below.

Even atoms have tiny minds.

Atomic minds, I suppose.
My atomic mind has a question about that.. see below.

Hence, all things have some real degree of freedom and choice.

Atomic freedoms and atomic choices, too...maybe.
Look for the question below.

Note: I am not saying all things are necessarily conscious or have sensory experiences.

More atomic theory, perhaps.
I'll ask questions about how things ( like cakes, for example ) can be said to make CHOICES if they aren't CONSCIOUS.

Except for higher organisms, most entities are unconscious. They feel, but they do not feel their feelings.

To feel or not to feel, that is the question below.

Also, not all forms of experience are necessarily sensory. Unconscious feeling, not conscious sensation, is the most basic level of experience.

I would agree if you were only talking about organisms that have BRAINS.. I am NOT so sure that .. atoms have those. I also don't know what you mean by unconscious experience. Below be questions.

my big toe, yes, is part of me, but not the whole of me. My body is part of me, but not the whole of me. In my previous post, I pointed out key ways in which I can be said to transcend my body.

Good.
That's pretty clear.

Your body isn't the whole of YOU.
When I talk about the totality of you, I usually tend to include your mind.

Just the way that Blastcat are.
( Blastcat though, are not good grammar be )

So, as promised many many times, right below THIS find my:

___________

Questions:

• 1. Can "God" exist WITHOUT a universe to exist in?
  2. Does "God" create the universe he is in?
  3. Where would "God" create FROM ?
  4. What about that infinite regress? Craig says that: "2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. Why do you disagree?
  5. I find that the talk about "classical theism vs. neo-classical theism" quite confusing. Could you please talk about YOUR beliefs?
  6. In your opinion, has there always been some sort of "creation"?
  7. If there was always some sort of universe, why do we need some sort of "God" to create them?
  8. When is it that "God" creates a universe?
  9. Where does a god create a universe FROM?
  10. When you use the term "arise", do you mean "has been created"?
  11. How did you determine that a) spirits exist and b) that it is separate from matter?
  12. You stated that "God" dwells IN the universe.. doesn't that include his MIND?
  13. You also stated that : "Everyone has their basic building blocks of reality. Science, for example, has its atoms. " In your opinion, do atoms also exist for EVERYONE in the universe, including "God"?
  14. How do momentary unities of subjective experience work as the basic building blocks of reality?
  15. You stated that:" All things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds or souls." How, may I ask, have you determined that to be the case?
  16. PLEASE explain what you mean by "tiny atomic minds"
  17. Explain, if you will, how all things have choice. Take for example, a cake. Please describe what kinds of choices that it has.
  18. I only know that I'm making a choice when I become CONSCIOUS of it. How do I determine if something ( how about that cake again ) has made a choice or not?
  19. You have to admit that the phrase : "They feel, but they do not feel their feelings." is a little bit ambiguous. If they don't feel their feelings, what ARE they feeling?
  20. You also stated that:" Unconscious feeling, not conscious sensation, is the most basic level of experience. " Could you make the distinction between "unconscious feeling and "conscious sensation"?
  21. This is a little repetitious, perhaps, but are you saying that a cake can unconsciously feel things in some way? I've eaten a lot of cake in my day.. have to tell you, never suspected for a second that they had any kind of consciousness on any level that I could detect. Could you elaborate on that a bit?
  22. When you talk about the totality of YOU.. aren't you also including your mind? You stated that you had one of those AND a body, both. Are they both a part of you, or not?
  

___________