The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[William]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

[William]

I created a similar thread in another forum.

This is what I had to say on the subject there, in answer to the quoted.

So whatever it was, was an entity that was not contingent, but rather, necessary. It had to be a Causal Agent that did not itself need to be caused.

Thus it has to be eternal. Never having had a beginning and never to have an end.

Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see. So the creation of things like personhood, identity, soul, self, intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge, thought, awareness and moral conscience would all have to be derived from this Cause, ultimately.

Yes, and included in that is physical stuff. If matter can only derive from said source, then said source must be natural (material) made up of physical stuff. Therefore "natural" not "supernatural". Inside the nature of itself rather than outside of the nature of itself.

So I was just asking what sort of Entity would fit the logical entailments there. What could we reasonably posit as the First Cause in the chain of contingency within which you and I exist? And I'm leaving the field open to reasonable candidates, rather than dictating the answer.

If one were to consider that consciousness itself is a physical thing, and say while it appears to be "non-physical" it is simply invisible to human senses but nonetheless exists as a physical thing.

Being invisible to human senses does not equate to being "non-physical."

So a "picture" of said First Cause might be that IT is - in IT's natural or quintessential state, All That Exists in that IT has nothing else which IT has created, occupying IT's own existence.

That would not put anything "outside of Itself, nor would IT be "outside" of Itself.

IT "vibrates" at Its "frequency" in this timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.

When it choses to create (or per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.

This also goes some way to answering the observation "Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see. So the creation of things like personhood, identity, soul, self, intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge, thought, awareness and moral conscience would all have to be derived from this Cause, ultimately."

IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.

[William]

Again - from another (mirror) thread discussion being had on another message board.

William: We cannot (with human senses) see air, yet we know it is made matter.
We can see a limited range of light, and also know that light is made of matter.

I am not speaking of matter which has being created into functional form (rocks and human bodies as you mention) but matter which has no form, prior to being given form.

Reply: well put William.


cause and effect can only really exist if there is real separateness. This separateness is duality: me and you, before and after, this and that, cause and effect. In terms of duality, the mind applies reason and logic, believing that it can predict and control life. But dual separateness and chaos in the mind are illusions: every atom of a separate entity does not consist of thing, plant, animal or human, but of light. There is no separation in light. Where there is no separation, cause and effect are one and therefore not real. Life is light, non-dual


My Reply: Through the lens of human experience, light has been shown to also exhibit "dual" properties (wave and particle).

This observation would lead one to surmise that the human instrument was designed to "see" things in dualistic measures.

The question re that (and the thread subject) is "Why would the Source-Creator design these human instruments so that any consciousness experiencing the universe through these, would "see" (experience) things in a dualistic manner?"

Perhaps "cause and effect" can only be "seen" as "real separateness" through such medium, and an interesting property re that is that we can choose to "see" things as they actually are (non-separate) - while yet encased within a form which is designed to prevent such from at least being obvious to us which explains why Consciousness is actually (first and foremost) the REAL "thing" going on re any experience it might have, and while a medium-suit can inhibit that knowledge, it cannot completely block said knowledge altogether from the physical essence of "what consciousness is".

To explain that "in other words" - I just wrote this, in reply to another in a similar (mirrored) thread on another message board.

______________________
Other: And I agree with your perspective to a degree. I would add that it's possible for the first cause to have had both physical and non-physical traits.

Me: You wrote that in the past tense. Did you mean to do that?

Other: Some alternatives I can come up with is that things simply appear physical, but that might not be the reality -

Me: If "something which appears to be physical but isn't", then what is it and why even to say it exists (is real)?
Remember what the thread topic is arguing.
If you can explain how a mind which is not physical in nature can interact with and create functional forms which appear to exist and naturally so, I would be more inclined to follow such reasoning.

Other: The Matrix!

Me: Primarily (and perhaps the authors were unaware they were doing so) the story of The Matrix is telling the viewer-consciousness that one cannot believe their eyes - yet significantly - in the realms we have two main happenings, all participants within those realms not only believing what they consciously experience is "Real" but interacting and even killing each other...
...So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?

This thought-question then circles back to the idea (re the thread subject) of the Source of the Matrix in "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) and said "state of being" should be argued as being the "only REAL "thing" which exists" and the stuff which makes those "creations" appear and be experienced as "real" by the minds which are all related to the Source Mind (re "IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.") is "made real" through the process I mentioned ("When it choses to create (per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.")

Other: There's also the concept of emergence which involves new properties and substances coming into existence.

Me: Yes. This is explained re "When it choses to create (or per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience."

Other: Earlier you asked for evidence that consciousness is not physical. I view my claim more in terms of being the likely explanation as opposed to being a settled or proven

Me: I was specifically arguing so that you might think deeper about the question. Something about your thought-patterns have you leaning that way.
The path we are claiming to be on, is agnosticism and therein "most likely" is the bias preference, but is it an agnostic perspective?

Other: I think the strongest evidence for that comes from the nature of subjective experience.

Me: What is "subjective experience" IF the experience itself is not able to be experienced as REAL?

Should we suppose that in ITs natural quintessential state IT wonders if IT is "real?

Do any of us "children" of this Source-Consciousness think that we are "not real"?

Other: Not only is it invisible, but thus far, it has proven to be immeasurable to the point that even scientists eliminated it as a topic of inquiry in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, it has been bought back as a research topic.

Me: Would you also argue that we human consciousnesses are "invisible to our own conscious awareness?" Is the argument also that in ITs natural quintessential state the Source Consciousness creator (re the thread subject) is "invisible" to Its own awareness?
As to what is invisible to our human-form sensors, when we take into account the restrictive nature of that form we should not be surprised in understanding why human-scientists "turn a blind eye" re factoring in the thread subject...
(1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.)

...when they are "doing their science".

Other: I also brought up hallucinations earlier. The reason I think that serves as a example of the non-physical is because they are not real.

Me: If one were to argue that the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix) please agree with me that the only explanation for that would have to be "what makes something "appear to be real" has to itself be REAL.

Other: You can't observe or measure something that is not real so in that sense hallucinations are non-physical, by definition.

Me: This argument is debunked through the understanding that The Source Creator n "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) cannot "observe or measure" what IT is, and thus is an "hallucination" and "non-physical".

Specifically, my argument is that anything which can be created and experienced as REAL must therefore be made of the same stuff (physical). That incredible variation of physical stuff is the way it is due to what we call "vibration" of the original state of the particle before it is quantized into 'many things which can be experience by said mind as "real".

[Purple Knight]

Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

Only if you specifically define the natural as what came into being as a result of that first cause, thus defining the first cause as outside of that, and therefore supernatural, according the the exclusionary definition of supernatural that supernatural just means, outside of the natural, or not natural.

I don't see any other reason the first cause would have to be supernatural.

I also have a problem with supernatural being defined that way. People mean something very specific when they say supernatural. They mean ghosts, phenomenal cosmic power, psychic abilities, and things like that. They don't just mean something that could be totally mundane and happens to be defined as outside of nature because of where we draw the line.

There's also the problem with the timeless state you mention in the OP. If nothing happens in a timeless state, then nothing continues to happen. If water is frozen, it does not unfreeze. And you could say a being was there and conscious, but that wouldn't mean much since it couldn't think, or do anything. Thought involves change. Action involves change. If anything was there, frozen in time, it would have remained so. If it was sitting there so lazy that it never had a thought, until it did, and that blasted the universe into being, how? How could it suddenly have a thought when it never did before? Free will is a name for being able to spontaneously do this, but it does not explain it. That also, requires an explanation, by the very logic that things are all caused and need explanations.

We need an explanation for why Nature exists, so we posit a first cause. But that just avoids the issue because we now have something (the first cause) that simply always was, and takes the place of Nature because if we're being fair, we need an explanation for why that thing is there too. Having it exist before time starts turning does nothing to explain why there is something by default, rather than nothing, which is the whole problem we say we need the first cause for.

I can only conclude that the idea that the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, does not actually need an explanation or cause.

[William]

Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #4]

Only if you specifically define the natural as what came into being as a result of that first cause, thus defining the first cause as outside of that, and therefore supernatural, according the the exclusionary definition of supernatural that supernatural just means, outside of the natural, or not natural.

I don't see any other reason the first cause would have to be supernatural.

More to the point, what would be "a good reason" to "specifically define" the one as "specifically different" from the other, when we are specifically speaking of "states of being"?

"States of being" do not have to be defined as either "natural" or "supernatural" - do they?

There's also the problem with the timeless state you mention in the OP. If nothing happens in a timeless state, then nothing continues to happen.

No there is not. The problem is in your equating imageless with form.
Something is indeed "happening" in that quintessential state mentioned. What isn't happening is the creation of other "things". "Mindfulness" is still happening.

If water is frozen, it does not unfreeze.

Water, and temperature do not yet exist.

The argument I am presenting is based upon the agreed necessary attributes of the Creator-Mind...(IT's natural or quintessential state) so perhaps we need to go over those and see where we may not be agreeing?

The "First Cause" attributes in ITs Quintessential State (prior to the creation of this universe/functional forms).

IT is "All That Exists" in that IT has nothing else which IT has created, occupying IT's own existence and there exists nothing else apart from IT.
That would not put anything "outside of Itself, nor would IT be "outside" of Itself.
ITs natural or quintessential state" is
timeless,
spaceless,
eternal,
imageless,
uncaused,
beginningless,
changeless,
and potentially powerful

(Lets focus on coming to agreement on these attributes of the Nature of The First Cause and see if we cannot determine from these whether it is necessary for us to think of IT as "supernatural".)

If we're being fair, we need an explanation for why that thing is there too.

Not if "that thing" is as natural as the Universe ("this thing") is. We only need an explanation if that thing is claimed to be something other than (supernatural to) nature.

Removing the claim-concept that the Creator Mind is "separate/supernatural" from the creation/natural means that we can understand the answer to the question "why is that thing there" is answered as being "It is natural...it is naturally "there" (here) and it is naturally (quiescently) eternal...in a state or period of inactivity or dormancy re "creating things" - essentially it is "Resting" from that "creating" mode and is simply being "alone" with Itself/undistracted by "other things" (the experience of).

Said another way, the eternal mind is the actual natural "thing", while what it creates can still be regarded as "natural" too, since whatever it creates comes from Itself - the "stuff" (material - think "quantum") of Itself.

Having it exist before time starts turning does nothing to explain why there is something by default, rather than nothing, which is the whole problem we say we need the first cause for.

No. The problem is that there is something which "began" and thus requires the solution of a First Cause.

If we accept that there was "nothing" by default, and this is where the Universe (something) came from, the acceptance of such a concept (as true) is clearly a logical inconsistency. A logical fallacy. An illogical concept-claim.

I can only conclude that the idea that the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, does not actually need an explanation or cause.

The "conclusions" William Lane Craig comes up with (re the opening post quote) assumes the Christian idea of God as the first cause and the Christian assumption is that "God" is "supernatural" which is why the question is being asked in the OP. (Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?)

I think he is correct to point out this (from the link also in the OP)

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

But one breaks that same rule in assuming a "supernatural cause". This is because it infers that The First Cause created the universe from "material outside of Itself" as well as assuming that consciousness within the universe (Us) is also "created" from something "other than" the consciousness of the First Cause.

Rather "We" are not a created thing, because "We" (consciousness) are imbued into the created thing (the human form in our case) and are essentially "aspects of First Cause Mind integrating with the created thing(s) for both the individual and the overall experience.

I can only conclude that the idea that the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, does not actually need an explanation or cause.

This conclusion is that of a weak agnostic (atheist) rather than a strong Agnostic (nether atheist or theist).

If you really believe that there is no necessity to explain why the universe exists, that such a question does not need to even be asked, because there does not actually need to be an explanation or cause, your opinion is noted, but I do not see why you would have any reason to continue making comment in this thread - unless anything I have since argued has piqued your interest re 'logical things" rather than "magical concepts" in which case, please continue to post here.

These users thanked the author Purple Knight for the post:
AgnosticBoy

Perhaps there is a requirement for a discussion of the difference between weak and strong Agnostics? (For another thread of course.)

[William]

More from another Message Board mirror-thread.

You are at the surface rather than acknowledging the undercurrent.

We cannot (with human senses) see air, yet we know it is made matter.
We can see a limited range of light, and also know that light is made of matter.

Is 'this' ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY True, and thus IRREFUTABLE AS WELL?

Maybe.
What do you think the answer to your question is...

WHY are 'you' UNDER some sort of ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that 'we' CAN IMAGINE, which has NO 'physical properties'?

Is that the impression you get re my argument?

I am not assuming or believing such at all. I am simply saying that my understanding of "non-physical" is that anything labelled as such, is telling me that such does not exist.

This is to do with my OP question re "Supernatural" as to "why" we have to include the concept (what we can imagine) of supernatural as "necessary".

My question is asking for a reasonable answer to be tabled re discussion. It is based in wanting logical answers about something which appears to be unnecessary re a Natural Universe and is asked from that perspective rather than from a perspective of belief or assumption.

The 'supernatural', by definition, does NOT and can NOT exist.

Is that your belief and assumption, or based in logic you have worked out and can show is the case?

Unless, OF COURSE, you could name ONE 'thing' which is NOT 'Natural', and SHOW or PROOF HOW.

Well I can name a "unicorn" as "not being natural to Earth"...even that it is imagined to "look like" a horse with a horn coming out from its forehead. It is easy enough to imagine such a being.
I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this natural universe.

I can name a "god" who "looks like" a human being but has wings which it can fly around "as not being natural to Earth"... It is easy enough to imagine such a being.
I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this Natural Universe.

Indeed, even using the word "Natural" with the word "Universe" seems illogical if indeed, everything which does exist, is only this Universe.
(Even if said Universe was Mindful...The God which has always existed.)

I can imagine both a "Supernatural God" and a "Natural God" and therein "see" no difference.

The OP question is essentially asking for any reason as to why I should "see" a "Supernatural God" ("First Cause Mind et all" re the cosmology being examined) rather than simply "see" a Natural God in the evidence of The (Almighty) Universe Itself?

As to your question on my use of the word "vibrations", it is apparent that not only is every individual object in the Universe Unique, but every object also has its own "signature" frequency.
Thus, IF the universe is Mindful, it may be the case that the evidence for this is the Existence of the Universe itself and how it behaves and why "forms" form (it has something to do with the frequency of the vibrations).

We see evidence of this happening in observing the form Galaxies can be seen have take on.

The questions are - is this because of a mindful thing happening and if so, is it necessary to refer to that mindful thing as "supernatural"?

[William]

Personality 1. We don't need to agree to a particular name in order for us to both agree we are speaking of the same thing.

Personality 2. I think we do. The characteristics of this "Mind" are exactly what is in question at the moment.

Personality 1. Indeed, the characteristics are in question. The label is not.

Personality 2. I can't even make sense of that rejoinder.


Personality 1. I can see you appear to be having difficulty comprehending what I am talking about. I do not think it is because I am not being clear.

I have clearly debunked your argument that a creator of this universe is necessarily "supernatural" but understand also that you do not comprehend that this has occurred, whether you are being honest about that or not.


Personality 3. Yes, the debunking was clear enough.
Personality 2 tends to have in common a feature of many of the Faithful. Like the Christian priest in "Eric the Viking" he cannot see things beyond his belief system.
If he believes swans to be white, then he will simply walk past a flock of black ones.


Personality 1. I have noted how most Christians appear to have to believe in a supernatural creator - apparently because their whole philosophy is based upon that premise.
I also acknowledge that most Materialists appear to have to believe that the universe is mindless - apparently because their whole philosophy is based upon that premise.

With philosophy, premises can be examined in an effort to critique these and find any type of contradiction therein.

The premise is "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" and this universe has plenty of evidence to support that indeed "things begin to exist and yes - things which begin to exist do have causes."

I understand that we can take from this observation that since this is how the goings on are happening everywhere we observe, that the whole universe can thus be thought of as "something which had a beginning".

The belief is that this therefore means that the universe is a mindfully created thing means that it has to have been created by a mind "outside" of itself. I have argued against the belief and shown that such is not necessary at all. by offering an alternate explanation.

Personality 2 - in order to prop up his belief in supernaturalism - has since had to argue that this "supernatural" creator-mind created an "unnecessary universe" which, not only further mistifies (sic) said alleged "supernatural" mind by shielding him (sic) behind a thick curtain of fog, but the idea makes said mind appear to be frivolous with its unnecessary undertakings.

When thinking along the lines that the universe is a mindful thing, in examining biological forms and their extremely complex and evolving designs, to claim such as "unnecessary" is a sign of desperation because clearly the claimant hasn't thought things through before blurting out the (handwaved) proclamation.

Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past (ways humans thought about things) which its accompanying superstitions (presented as philosophy) jealously cling to.

[William]

This from an interaction with GPT, yesterday.

Me: What is the person saying?

Person. “The universe began to exist.”
Ultimately this is the fault with the kalam argument. While it's true that that the universe had a beginning, the singularity prior to it does not technically have a beginning. If the singularity includes time-and-space, then there is no prior to the singularity. Because of this, there is a hard limit to material cosmology.

GPT: The person is discussing the Kalam cosmological argument, which posits that the universe had a beginning. However, they are pointing out a perceived flaw in the argument. They argue that while it is true the universe had a beginning, the singularity that existed prior to the universe's beginning does not technically have a beginning itself. They suggest that if the singularity includes time and space, then there is no "prior" to the singularity, leading to a limitation in material cosmology. The statement implies a nuanced perspective on the concept of the beginning of the universe and challenges the simplicity of the Kalam cosmological argument.

Me: It still doesn’t make sense to me. Can it be reworded without losing the context?

GPT: Certainly! The person is critiquing the Kalam cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe had a beginning. The critique focuses on the idea that while the universe had a starting point, the singularity that existed before it may not have a conventional "beginning" if it includes time and space. In other words, if the singularity is not distinct from time and space, there is no "prior" to the singularity. This perspective introduces a challenge to the Kalam argument by questioning the notion of a clear-cut starting point for the universe.

Me: Can time and space be measured without functional form?



GPT: The question of whether time and space can be measured without a functional form is a nuanced one. Let's break it down:

Time Measurement:
Time is often measured based on events or processes. In classical physics, time is considered a continuous parameter, and it can be measured using various methods such as clocks. In relativistic physics, time is more intricately connected to space in a four-dimensional spacetime framework.

However, your question seems to touch on the idea of whether time can be measured without some underlying functional form or reference. Time measurement typically involves comparing the duration of events, and these comparisons inherently involve some form of reference or functional representation.

Space Measurement:
Space is often measured in terms of distance or displacement. In classical physics, Euclidean geometry provides a framework for measuring space. In modern physics, especially with the advent of relativity, space is intertwined with time in a four-dimensional spacetime continuum.

Similar to time, measuring space usually involves some form of reference or coordinate system, which can be considered a kind of functional form.

Functional Form:
A functional form generally refers to a mathematical expression or model that represents a relationship between variables. In the context of measuring time and space, functional forms often arise from the need to quantify and describe these concepts.

It's challenging to conceive of a measurement system that completely divorces itself from some form of functional representation or reference. The very act of measurement implies a comparison or mapping against a standard or scale.

In summary, while the exact nature of time and space can be complex and may be described differently in various physical theories, the practical act of measurement often involves some form of functional representation or reference point.

Me: In the case of the argument, the “singularity” could be the functional form?



GPT: In the context of the argument you mentioned earlier about the singularity, it seems like the term "singularity" is not being used as a functional form in the sense of a mathematical expression or model.

In cosmology and astrophysics, a singularity often refers to a point or region in spacetime where certain physical quantities become infinite or undefined. For example, in the context of the Big Bang theory, the singularity is a hypothetical state of extremely high density and temperature at which the universe is thought to have originated.

In the argument, the person is discussing the idea that if the singularity includes time and space, then the conventional notion of a "beginning" might be challenging to define because there may not be a distinct "prior" to the singularity. The singularity, in this case, is more of a concept representing a state of the universe rather than a functional form or mathematical model.

The person is raising questions about the applicability of the Kalam cosmological argument in the presence of such a singularity, emphasizing the intricacies and challenges in understanding the nature of the universe's beginning.

Me: So, essentially the person is saying that the singularity represents not only a stating point but a physical thing?


GPT: Yes, that's a reasonable interpretation. The person in the argument is suggesting that the singularity is not merely a theoretical starting point or an abstract concept but a physical entity or state. In the context of cosmology, the singularity is often considered a point of extremely high density and temperature, representing the initial state of the universe in theories like the Big Bang.

By asserting that the singularity includes time and space, the person is emphasizing that it is not just a theoretical abstraction but a concrete part of the physical description of the universe. This perspective raises questions about how one defines a "beginning" in the presence of such a singularity, particularly if the singularity itself does not have a clear "prior" in terms of time and space. This nuanced view challenges simplistic interpretations of the universe having a straightforward beginning, as posited by some cosmological arguments.

[Purple Knight]

More to the point, what would be "a good reason" to "specifically define" the one as "specifically different" from the other, when we are specifically speaking of "states of being"?

"States of being" do not have to be defined as either "natural" or "supernatural" - do they?

Again there's the problem that we're working with a shaky definition of supernatural. As far as I know all states of being are natural and supernatural is just used when people can't explain something. I have used the most accepted-to-be-supernatural thing I can think of (ghosts) and asked people to imagine a world where ghosts are floating around ubiquitously and everyone accepts them, and there is evidence for them, and they are supernatural, and no one can do that. Thus supernatural has just become another word for baloney.

If I walked up to you, and levitated your sandwich toward myself and ate it, you wouldn't have a good natural explanation for how I did that, but I hope you'd try to find one. Most likely, it would have been some kind of a trick; me using some known phenomenon to seem like I had telekinesis. But if you'd explored that already, I hope you'd at least consider that it is a phenomenon which you do not yet understand, then go about trying to understand it, rather than write it off as supernatural.

Trying to understand is what people used to do when they were confronted with things they did not understand every day.

Now we think we understand everything and supernatural-believer is just a hateful label for people who disagree.

No there is not. The problem is in your equating imageless with form.
Something is indeed "happening" in that quintessential state mentioned. What isn't happening is the creation of other "things". "Mindfulness" is still happening.

Not as we know it. Timelessness would prevent all thought as we know it. If there can be some form of thought without time, it would be difficult for us to put a fine enough point on it to have any meaningful understanding of what it is or how it works.

If water is frozen, it does not unfreeze.

Water, and temperature do not yet exist.

The argument I am presenting is based upon the agreed necessary attributes of the Creator-Mind...(IT's natural or quintessential state) so perhaps we need to go over those and see where we may not be agreeing?

The "First Cause" attributes in ITs Quintessential State (prior to the creation of this universe/functional forms).

IT is "All That Exists" in that IT has nothing else which IT has created, occupying IT's own existence and there exists nothing else apart from IT.
That would not put anything "outside of Itself, nor would IT be "outside" of Itself.
ITs natural or quintessential state" is
timeless,
spaceless,
eternal,
imageless,
uncaused,
beginningless,
changeless,
and potentially powerful

(Lets focus on coming to agreement on these attributes of the Nature of The First Cause and see if we cannot determine from these whether it is necessary for us to think of IT as "supernatural".)

Some of those follow from what we have presupposed as it being the first cause. That it, itself, did not have a cause (because it was the first) means it would not have a beginning and be uncaused, but that doesn't mean it won't have an end, so eternal is probably not quite necessary. Because it did not have a beginning, that seems to imply timeless, but I would like to posit that it simply existed forever. If it created the universe it's powerful, but perhaps not in the sense we would say which implies a will. It's powerful the way a supernova is powerful.

Changeless, yes, in a sense. It can't have ever changed into something else entirely, because the thing that was there first, then would be the first cause. If it was a star-nosed mole and its first act was to change itself into God, then God was not the first cause - the star-nosed mole was. So whatever is the first cause, from pure presupposition, would be changeless in the sense that it always was what it was.

Imageless you've mentioned but I'm not sure in what sense you're saying it's imageless.

If we're being fair, we need an explanation for why that thing is there too.

Not if "that thing" is as natural as the Universe ("this thing") is. We only need an explanation if that thing is claimed to be something other than (supernatural to) nature.

Removing the claim-concept that the Creator Mind is "separate/supernatural" from the creation/natural means that we can understand the answer to the question "why is that thing there" is answered as being "It is natural...it is naturally "there" (here) and it is naturally (quiescently) eternal...in a state or period of inactivity or dormancy re "creating things" - essentially it is "Resting" from that "creating" mode and is simply being "alone" with Itself/undistracted by "other things" (the experience of).

Said another way, the eternal mind is the actual natural "thing", while what it creates can still be regarded as "natural" too, since whatever it creates comes from Itself - the "stuff" (material - think "quantum") of Itself.

I've said in other threads I don't have a problem with seeing the universe this way at all. You're simply saying, the universe is mindful. Okay, it might be. And this cosmological argument probably boils down to this if you take it to its natural conclusion. The problem is, it wants an unnatural conclusion. It's put forward by people who say that the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, requires an explanation. Then they say God always was. If we accept that the presupposition of the cosmological argument is valid, we can't just pass the buck and say God made the universe and God does not require an explanation.

In other words, your version of the cosmological argument, fine, I don't see any obvious flaws. The version that necessitates God because the universe needs to be explained, but then doesn't explain God, is just passing the buck. You might as well say the universe just exists and doesn't need to be explained. Which, to be fair, is what you do. You just think it's conscious.

Having it exist before time starts turning does nothing to explain why there is something by default, rather than nothing, which is the whole problem we say we need the first cause for.

No. The problem is that there is something which "began" and thus requires the solution of a First Cause.

We don't know that anything began. We begin and end, animals, plants, stars, things like that, but it's possible it's a cycle and it's just causes all the way down. It's possible you couldn't reach a beginning. It's possible that with a time machine that could go back at any speed, you would never come to such a thing as a true beginning.

If we accept that there was "nothing" by default, and this is where the Universe (something) came from, the acceptance of such a concept (as true) is clearly a logical inconsistency. A logical fallacy. An illogical concept-claim.

I agree.

I can only conclude that the idea that the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, does not actually need an explanation or cause.

The "conclusions" William Lane Craig comes up with (re the opening post quote) assumes the Christian idea of God as the first cause and the Christian assumption is that "God" is "supernatural" which is why the question is being asked in the OP. (Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?)

I think he is correct to point out this (from the link also in the OP)

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

But one breaks that same rule in assuming a "supernatural cause". This is because it infers that The First Cause created the universe from "material outside of Itself" as well as assuming that consciousness within the universe (Us) is also "created" from something "other than" the consciousness of the First Cause.

I agree. And if nothing ever popped into being, it's just turtles all the way down and that's fine.

The Christian version isn't a rabbit out of a hat - it's a shell game. The magician is trying to hide the fact that he's still saying things don't pop into being.

Rather "We" are not a created thing, because "We" (consciousness) are imbued into the created thing (the human form in our case) and are essentially "aspects of First Cause Mind integrating with the created thing(s) for both the individual and the overall experience.

No strong disagreement here. I don't think the universe is conscious but it's in the same way I don't think there's a dolphin in my can of tuna. If there is I'll be surprised, because it says it's dolphin safe and because I didn't think a whole dolphin won't fit in a tiny can, but if there ends up being a whole tiny dolphin inside, or even an obvious piece of a dolphin, well, I don't trust those label people anyway, so if you're asking if I would put money on it, sure, some, but not more than I could afford to easily lose.

I can only conclude that the idea that the fact that there is something, rather than nothing, does not actually need an explanation or cause.

This conclusion is that of a weak agnostic (atheist) rather than a strong Agnostic (nether atheist or theist).

If you really believe that there is no necessity to explain why the universe exists, that such a question does not need to even be asked, because there does not actually need to be an explanation or cause, your opinion is noted, but I do not see why you would have any reason to continue making comment in this thread - unless anything I have since argued has piqued your interest re 'logical things" rather than "magical concepts" in which case, please continue to post here.

These users thanked the author Purple Knight for the post:
AgnosticBoy

Perhaps there is a requirement for a discussion of the difference between weak and strong Agnostics? (For another thread of course.)

I don't think there's a need to explain why there is something, rather than nothing. Any time anyone tries, they just go back further but still assume that at first, there was something, rather than nothing, so at this point I think it's futile. There probably is a need to explain why the universe exists as it does, how there is intelligent life, and things like that.

I would like to go into weak vs strong agnostic however.

There's a reason I call myself an atheist, and it has nothing to do with whether God exists. It has to do with whether God, if it exists, has moral authority, and I think that's impossible because any moral authority, of anyone, over anyone else, without their consent, can't be moral. So if you define a god to have moral authority, then I say gods cannot exist by definition. If you don't define them that way I don't care whether they exist or not but I'm not bowing to them unless they make sense. It's like saying Q from Star Trek exists. Maybe he does. What does that mean for me and my life? Nothing. If he comes around and threatens me I might accede to his wishes. But if he claims he's god and his wishes are moral and that's why I have to do them, I will probably spit in his face.

[William]

I have a story which can expain the existence of ghosts (re your/the generic interpretation) without invoking supernaturalism.

Presently I am changing IPs and the process is snail-paced so I will wait until that is up and running before replying in detail.