The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[VVilliam]

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.

[VVilliam]

...along the lines of being it being "self created" but mindfully so...

Aristoteliean cosmology, or Hindu cosmology, or Buddhist cosmology would hold that this is how things are. There's just one problem: science.

We know that the universe is running down, tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and on a track for an eventual end called "heat death." That's observable, measurable and as certain as any scientific fact can be. We know, for example, that there is no known force in the universe that could reverse the escape velocity of the expanding universe, and recollapse the universe into a cyclical condition: there simply isn't enough mass per space in the universe to achieve that by any physical law. Or we can measure the decay-rate of various items and isotopes...things are all running down there, too, tending from a state of higher order to a lower order. And so on.

So this universe that we know is a contingent entity. If anything eternal exists, it's not within this universe and subject to its regularities. It has to transcend that...as does whatever First Cause we come to believe has generated the universe. And there's really no escaping that, without denying the very existence of the material world, and the coherence of causality and mathematical sequences.

The "running down" (as argument) is a type of semantics, given the enormous amount of time and space IT has allocated Itself to have the whole the experience.

It may be the case that the ultimate end is a perfect universe and then IT can "pull the plug" and revert to ITs natural Quintessential Frequency (mentioned in my last post) within that Eternal Posture, device the next creation - so on and so forth - never-ending said process. "Make a beginning a middle and and perfect end" Rinse and Repeat (but with something "new" - a twist - perhaps based upon what was revealed in the last couple (or so) of created "universes".

This idea is not new - a similar one is noted in the short story by Isaac Asimov which is called "The Last Question" (YouTube Reading)

These word-strings have a fundamental relationship with "each other". Can you say what that fundamental thing is?

Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self
We humans really made our beds with this one
God/Source/Home Why is this a Requirement?
A Sturdy Place Within that which is unseen
ITs natural Quintessential Frequency

(You Have That Gleam In Your Eye
Yep - That's What I'm Talking About...
A Teacher cannot LEARN for a Student.
It requires corrective action
Big Spirituality Conviction
Within that Eternal Posture)

[VVilliam]

Sculptor,

Those answers to your questions can be found in my previous replies to Immanuel Can.

If anything the "Heat Death" suggests that "perfection" is only relative to the end point and perfection may well have already occurred and been "done and dusted" so "on with the next" but what I also find interesting is how anyone can argue for the idea that the universe has always existed and in the same breath appear to claim that this once enteral thing is going to die, rather than be perfect forevermore.

The answer must be that the universe was designed to have a use-by date and eventually "puff" out of existence and then - that which is eternal (and not supernatural for that) will get about planning the next exciting adventure it is going create and have for Itself.

But anyway, the bulk of that I have explained in my prior posts.

Joy to You.

[iambiguous]

Then of course: "the cause must be outside of the universe."

Which would have it fit under the heading of being "supernatural".

But this doesn't appear to be the only possible conclusion one can draw. It may be the case that the universe would not have begun or have developed into what it current is, without its creator being within it - creating from the "inside out" so to speak...along the lines of being it being "self created" but mindfully so.

If so, then there would be no "outside" of the universe and thus the whole thing - including its mind, can be viewed as "natural" - completely.

Which would mean that the answer to the question "Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?" would be "no".

It may be the case?

Sure, I'm all for speculating about how and why the "human condition" fits into the existence of existence itself.

And lots of others are as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Still, what you believe is one thing, what you are actually able to demonstrate is fact true for all rational men and women another thing altogether.

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave, are you convinced as IC is that these videos do demonstrate scientifically and historically that the Christian God is the real deal?

If so, note the segments that you believe come the closest to establishing this.

[Atla]

"Heat Death"

And that's also just fantasy, not a fact.

Personally I find it ludicrous that humans, beings that can only exist in a direction of increasing entropy, go on to assume that the increase in entropy must be universal. They even command black holes to have increasing entropy, when there is no reason to do that.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That's what "necessary" would imply, of course. But it's really the beginning that is the part that has to do with our deduction from causality, since time flows forward.

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.

No, that doesn't follow. Matter is contingent, not necessary. The cause has to be adequate to account for the effect, but that doesn't imply it's made up of the same stuff as the effect. An adequate cause of a pile of rocks is a human builder; that doesn't mean the builder was made of rocks.

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.

If that were something one wanted to suppose, one would have to be able to list the physical properties of such things...but how much does a soul weigh? How much space is required to store a self? How many cups, yards or tons of conscience can fit in a small house?

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

But not having physical properties does.

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

Well, "vibration" is a physical descriptor. And so far as I know, we don't have any entities other than God that can fit this sort of list of descriptors. And there are some missing, too: the entity in question would also have to be intelligent -- capable of design, of intention, of moral awareness, and so on.

When it choses to create...

"Choose" is a word that requires the Entity in question to have intention.

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.

But "we" are contingent beings. So we don't fit the required criteria: we aren't an adequate explanation for our own existence. The purported cause is not up to the posited effect.

It makes sense that we, as contingent beings, have to "attempt to understand" what we are: it wouldn't make sense for an eternal, timeless, spaceless, causeless, intelligent, creative, hugely powerful Cause of all things...which is what we're looking for.

[Immanuel Can]

"Heat Death"

And that's also just fantasy, not a fact.

Not a "fantasy."

It's a scientific calculation based on the assumption that the entropy of the universe will continue. If nothing interrupts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it becomes an inevitability.

But it's certainly nobody's "fantasy," since nobody wants it, and it would serve nobody's interests.

[VVilliam]

Then of course: "the cause must be outside of the universe."

Which would have it fit under the heading of being "supernatural".

But this doesn't appear to be the only possible conclusion one can draw. It may be the case that the universe would not have begun or have developed into what it current is, without its creator being within it - creating from the "inside out" so to speak...along the lines of being it being "self created" but mindfully so.

If so, then there would be no "outside" of the universe and thus the whole thing - including its mind, can be viewed as "natural" - completely.

Which would mean that the answer to the question "Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?" would be "no".

It may be the case?

Sure, I'm all for speculating about how and why the "human condition" fits into the existence of existence itself.

And lots of others are as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Still, what you believe is one thing, what you are actually able to demonstrate is fact true for all rational men and women another thing altogether.

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave, are you convinced as IC is that these videos do demonstrate scientifically and historically that the Christian God is the real deal?

If so, note the segments that you believe come the closest to establishing this.

At this point I nether believe or don't believe. I am currently examining the arguments and offering some of my own.
As for evidence that the mind is a physical thing, my reasoning is that it must be the case otherwise how do we explain how mind effects matter?
Until scientific instrument's are invented which can measure consciousness in a manner which allows us to view the evidence as "evidence", we only have philosophies in which to engage with as part of logical arguments put forth.

[Immanuel Can]

The "running down" (as argument) is a type of semantics, given the enormous amount of time and space IT has allocated Itself to have the whole the experience.

No, it's a scientific postulate.

We simply do not have enough mass in the universe any longer to produce a cycle or "Big Crunch" to recycle the universe. So we're on a linear track now, for sure. And adding more time will make that situation worse for the cyclical view, not help resolve it, since the mass in the universe is continually spreading out farther and farther, still with no known physical dynamic to reverse the process.

[VVilliam]

No, that doesn't follow. Matter is contingent, not necessary. The cause has to be adequate to account for the effect, but that doesn't imply it's made up of the same stuff as the effect. An adequate cause of a pile of rocks is a human builder; that doesn't mean the builder was made of rocks.

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.

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.

If that were something one wanted to suppose, one would have to be able to list the physical properties of such things...but how much does a soul weigh? How much space is required to store a self? How many cups, yards or tons of conscience can fit in a small house?

This of course is ITs natural Quintessential Frequency within that Eternal Posture. Such would "weigh" at least as much as the whole universe now weighs. The same goes for "how big".

IT appears to be able to support ITs own weight and size, regardless.

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

But not having physical properties does.

My argument is that there is nothing we can imagine which has no "physical properties" except for anything which does not exist.

Therein;

IF the supposed supernatural has no physical properties THEN the supernatural does not exist.

IF the Cosmological Argument being discussed here posits that the Source has to be mindful (intelligent et all) THEN we ought consider that the Mind which organizes the matter into functional forms could only do so IF said mind was physical itself. (Even the use of "hugely powerful" denotes a physical connotation.)

"Choose" is a word that requires the Entity in question to have intention.

This would be the case, if we are to argue that such an entity created such a universe and did so mindfully rather than through some accident.

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

But "we" are contingent beings. So we don't fit the required criteria: we aren't an adequate explanation for our own existence. The purported cause is not up to the posited effect.

Not if WE are aspects of that Eternal Mind, which is what my argument is pointing out.
(This would mean that whatever you think we humans are - separate from the source consciousness - would be a false "reading" or understanding leading to a misinformed "self identification".)

It makes sense that we, as contingent beings, have to "attempt to understand" what we are: it wouldn't make sense for an eternal, timeless, spaceless, causeless, intelligent, creative, hugely powerful Cause of all things...

Add to that "imageless".
Any "sense" is reliant upon sensory perception, but not that alone.

IF we are mis-identifying ourselves/each other, THEN we would "see" ourselves very separate from the Source-Mind.
Nonetheless, IF we (consciousness having human experience) are indeed "from The Source" THEN - regardless of how we see ourselves/each other - The Source would know that we are IT.




Which is what we're may well be looking for

[VVilliam]

The "running down" (as argument) is a type of semantics, given the enormous amount of time and space IT has allocated Itself to have the whole the experience.

No, it's a scientific postulate.

We simply do not have enough mass in the universe any longer to produce a cycle or "Big Crunch" to recycle the universe. So we're on a linear track now, for sure. And adding more time will make that situation worse for the cyclical view, not help resolve it, since the mass in the universe is continually spreading out farther and farther, still with no known physical dynamic to reverse the process.

Somehow, you missed the point which has been made.

[Atla]

"Heat Death"

And that's also just fantasy, not a fact.

Not a "fantasy."

It's a scientific calculation based on the assumption that the entropy of the universe will continue. If nothing interrupts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it becomes an inevitability.

But it's certainly nobody's "fantasy," since nobody wants it, and it would serve nobody's interests.

Contrary to popular belief, it's not a scientific fact that the entropy of the universe is increasing. It's increasing here. It may be decreasing in black holes but they wanted to save the 2nd law for a reason I don't understand, so they came up with pseudoscience about black hole entropy.

The trick is to treat quantum fluctuations as real at black holes and as unreal elsewhere, which is a contradiction.

[Skepdick]

2. The universe began to exist.

And that's just fantasy, not a fact.

It's common-sense English; as well as the most plausible scientific theory given the available evidence.

Did Atla exist 200 years ago? No.
Does Atla exist now? Yes.
Atla began to exist and is N<200 years old

Did Earth exist 8 billion years ago? No.
Does Earth exist now? Yes.
Earth Began to exist and is N<8 billion years old.

Did the universe exist 50 billion years ago? No ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2% ... in_theorem )
Does the. universe exist now? Yes.
The universe began to exist and is N<50 billion years old.

[Dontaskme]

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.

well put VV


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

[Atla]

2. The universe began to exist.

And that's just fantasy, not a fact.

It's common-sense English; as well as the most plausible scientific theory given the available evidence.

Did Atla exist 200 years ago? No.
Does Atla exist now? Yes.
Atla began to exist and is N<200 years old

Did Earth exist 8 billion years ago? No.
Does Earth exist now? Yes.
Earth Began to exist and is N<8 billion years old.

Did the universe exist 50 billion years ago? No ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2% ... in_theorem )
Does the. universe exist now? Yes.
The universe began to exist and is N<50 billion years old.

By far not enough evidence to make your claim. The Big Bang is just a transition theory, and the expansion rate changed at least 3-4 times so it may have changed and even reversed before that too / will probably change again in the future.

And there's the wider problem that the part that came from the Big Bang may not be the entire universe.