The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hello, gang

This is my long-awaited thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). There will be a series of threads related to this argument. Why? Because there will more than likely be topics/sub-topics which relates to it, and I don't want things to get conflated.

The Cosmological argument has taken many forms over the past few centuries. I'd like to focus on the most popular formulation of the argument, namely, the Kalam version..which is Christian apologist William Lane Craig's version (or at least the one that he champions).

The argument goes a little something like this..

1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

And just so we take it one step at a time, I'd like this thread to focus on P1 of the argument..

P1: Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause

I really hope we don't get too bogged down with the truth value of P1, because the meat and potatoes is in P2. Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause? As tempting as it is to just jump to P2, I have to refrain..as I don't want to assume that everyone here agrees with P1.

That being said; I am here to defend the TRUTH value of P1, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

In other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING. We can sum it up these 3 ways..our common sense intuition tells us that..

Intuition
1. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
2. Nothing cannot create something.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.

Those three, in a nut shell, is ALL that is being stated in P1 of the argument. I'd like to know the wise guy who disagrees with any of the above 3.

If we can all agree to P1, then we can move to P2, where things tend to get a little ugly...not ugly for me, but for you guys.

[Divine Insight]

2: Consciousness is GOD.

If this is true then GOD cannot be eternal. Consciousness requires entropy change.

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by Divine Insight]

Only in this universe DI. Only in this universe.

Consciousness is only exploring and experiencing this universe. It isn't able to understand itself as the Wholeness of GOD. But as aspects, that is certainly good enough to get the gist, and that too depends on the particular form the consciousness is experiencing - as to how much of a gist one gets.



We are experiencing time in a space. Our own experience is that of 'human' and this has a use-by date, which compared to the age the universe is presently - not to forget how long it is predicted it has to go - that is a mere blink of an eye.

Once that is over, we return to the eternal experience. No time. No particular space.

A conscious entity which exists in the form of the universe, could experience the universe for the length of the universe's use-by date. A very long 'time' in relation to the time a human being walks the Earth, but in relation to the eternal timelessness, merely a blink of the eye.

We have numbers here in this universe. The numbers show us clearly that infinity exists, at least in the numbers. They also tell us that such numbers are not much use in a finite setting, albeit a rather huge and seemingly endless setting such as it is.

There are an infinite number of 'real' numbers between 0 and 1 (as well as between 0 and -1) and the same applies to each set of numbers (1 and 2 - 2 and 3...)

In a timeless situation, numbers would have no meaning. They only mean something in terms of the finite, and in the case of expressing the idea of the infinite from within that finite experience.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 41 by Divine Insight]

Only in this universe DI. Only in this universe.

No, you are wrong. Entropy is not placing a limitation on consciousness. Entropy is what makes consciousness possible.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

[FarWanderer]

Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause

If you mean everything that begins to exist has a material cause, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Material or otherwise.

OK. An argument:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a material cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a material cause.

I assume you, being a theist, disagree with this argument. And since you already have implied that you believe P2 is true, then it must be P1 with which you disagree.

So, on what grounds should we not believe "everything that begins to exist has a material cause"?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 4 by For_The_Kingdom]

Began to exist: an entity whose existence comes in to being, from a "state" (for lack of better term) of non being and/or non existence.

This has never been observed to have occurred in all of human history.

So if the standard is solely based on what humans have/haven't observed, then we shouldn't believe in abiogenesis either...and abiogenesis is the default position of anyone who rejects theism.

Abiogenesis (a.k.a. non-biological genesis) is the default position, period. Even theists believe that life came from something non-biological. Unless they define God as "biological"

The only problem with that is, one of them have to be right, and the other one wrong (necessarily right/wrong).

There are both logical/scientific problems with the naturalistic worldview...in other words, neither logic nor science supports it...therefore, supernaturalism wins by default.

Law of excluded middle.

Any worldview that assumes causality will have "logical problems".

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by FarWanderer]

Abiogenesis (a.k.a. non-biological genesis) is the default position, period. Even theists believe that life came from something non-biological. Unless they define God as "biological"

I think of myself as a theist but I also think GOD = Consciousness, and it is consciousness which is life. Matter is dead - has no life without consciousness.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 46 by FarWanderer]

Abiogenesis (a.k.a. non-biological genesis) is the default position, period. Even theists believe that life came from something non-biological. Unless they define God as "biological"

I think of myself as a theist but I also think GOD = Consciousness, and it is consciousness which is life. Matter is dead - has no life without consciousness.

But then if non-conscious material evolved to become conscious, then both "life" and "GOD" arose from non-living matter. So your definition of GOD=Consciousness wouldn't conflict with materialism anyway. By that definition your God couldn't exist until consciousness arose from non-conscious matter.

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]

But then if non-conscious material evolved to become conscious, then both "life" and "GOD" arose from non-living matter.

Only in terms of the overall Universal Entity Consciousness relative to this particular universe and again, only in relation to our particular perspective as that consciousness in human form.

So your definition of GOD=Consciousness wouldn't conflict with materialism anyway.

I have never said that it did.

By that definition your God couldn't exist until consciousness arose from non-conscious matter.

My definition as an aspect of that consciousness experiencing being human, from that perspective, yes.
The materialist theory of evolution doesn't conflict with that at all.
Indeed - when I was young I never thought about it. Then I went through the Abrahamic rendition of 'how life became' which was impressive in relation to 'a GOD created it all' then I moved beyond that rather limited idea and engaged with the theory of evolution WITH a creative mind involved with that process, which super-impressed me, as if I wasn't impressed enough at the idea of mindful creation to begin with.



Now I understand the process (re this particular universe) as One Being - an aspect of First Source Consciousness GOD - having a thought which created what we call the big bang, and entering that thought as the consciousness which experienced it as a reality.

As a metaphor, one aspect of the universe is no less than any other aspect or for that matter, the whole universe.

So 'GOD' (in relation to this universe) is the Universal Entity, the Galactic Entities, the Earth Entity and every entity on the planet.

And the Universal Entity is one aspect of infinite 'Universal Entities', all aspects of The One First Source Entity, GOD undivided... even that those aspects might believe otherwise, in their individuate experiences of perception

All consciousness is connected in an undivided chain of experience into countless thought-created realities, from the perspective of The First Source.

But GOD The First Source always existed and always will, and so too all Its aspects of consciousness, including you and I.

[Bust Nak]

I don't believe that those particles come from nothing...

Hence the word "vacuum" instead of "nothing." This whole section about "nothing" is moot.

How can a quantum vacuum (something), be interchangeable with "nothingness" (nothing). Makes no sense.

You tell me, I said "vacuum" and you went off on and on about "nothing." Why would you do that if the terms are not interchangeable?

So to answer your question, no, I am not using the concepts interchangeably.

Okay, so care to address what I said then? What about things that pop into being, uncaused, out of a vacuum? Would you suggest there are no pre-conditions in a vacuum that will only allow X to pop in to being, and not Y or Z?