The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Atla]

"May be?" What's your evidence it is?

I can produce a ton of evidence for the 2nd Law. I would think you should offer something more than a vague supposition in return, no?

It seems to be increasing in the observable universe outside black holes, the rest is unknown. Black holes may be decreasing entropy though because they are black holes.

"May be"? "May be" based on what data?

Or is that just an imagining of your own?

You don't know wtf you're talking about as usual. There is no "data" for either claim, have you ever been to a black hole and taken the measurements? We can only theorize, according to GR they are entropy sinks and according to QM it's dubious, may depend on how you interpret quantum fluctuations, for which again there isn't enough data nor can there ever be. It's just a fashion in physics to try to save the 2nd law.

[Age]

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

So let's imagine we don't know what such a cause could be: the right way to proceed, it seems to me, is to ask, "At minimum, what qualities would a purported Cause have to have, in order to be adequate to the ascribed effect of having generated this universe, with all its complexity and subtlety, it's organization and its laws, its spheres and dynamics, its social and animal entities, and all the phenomena that a universe entails?" And then, when we've got the list of those qualities that would make a proposed Cause adequate to that effect, we can ask, "What Entity would fit that description?"

Only then is the Cause we are thinking of adequate to the effect we're wanting to explain.

Candidates? Suggestions?

You appear to have offered some, when you wrote;
"All our experience is from the contingent perspective, so we have no ability to imagine what existence would be, if it were timeless."
and then proceed to contradict the above by writing;
"God doesn't "enter into" time, except in the Incarnation. Rather, the traditional view is that He transcends time. Past, present and future are all equally known to Him, and His "experience" of them (if we can borrow that word at all) is simultaneous and complete."

Can you explain this apparent contradiction? To clarify...the "traditional view" you offer is an imagined idea of what existence would be like for a timeless "entity".

There isn't a contradiction there that I can see.

The difficulty is from our perspective, not God's (assuming, for the moment, such exists). Being time-bound creatures ourselves, we have no experience of what being outside time would be like.

'you', beings, here, in the days when this is being written, can NOT even AGREE ON what 'time', itself, IS, EXACTLY, let alone being CLOSE to KNOWING, FOR SURE, if 'you' have 'experience' of 'time' of not.

It's like that you and I have no sense of what it would be like to breathe water, like a fish.

How come 'you', "immanel can", can, SUPPOSEDLY, 'sense' that 'you' have absolutely NO 'sense' AT ALL of what it would be like to breathe water, but CAN NOT 'sense', AT ALL, what it would be just LIKE to breathe water?

Like, how can 'you', personally, 'sense' what God CAN DO and KNOW, but 'you', supposedly, can NOT in ABSOLUTELY ANY way AT ALL just 'sense' what it is LIKE to just 'breathe water'?

We find ourselves relying on our own air-breathing experience of breathing, and have to use that as an analogy for an experience only a fish can have.

HOW does 'this' HELP in ANY WAY to explain the apparent contradiction?

If 'you' were a Truly OPEN and Honest adult human being "immanuel can", then 'you' would have just ASKED FOR what the 'apparent contradiction' IS, EXACTLY, FROM the "other's" perspective or point of view.

Of course, our limitation, in that regard, doesn't even remotely imply that fish do not pass water over their gills to breathe: it just means that having neither gills nor the means to extract oxygen from water, we don't know what that could be like. But we do know that fish do it: and there's nothing at all illogical or irrational about us knowing that they do. We can see that they do, though we can never actually understand that experience.

Are 'you' here 'trying to' suggest that if, for example, someone has been raped but 'you' have not, then 'you' can NEVER actually UNDERSTAND 'that experience'?

All "existing" as you and I know it is bound by time.

Would 'you' be ENLIGHTENED ENOUGH and/or BRAVE ENOUGH to INFORM 'us' of what the word 'time' MEANS and/or is REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY, "immanuel can"?

If no, then okay.

But if yes, then great. Now, will 'you' ENLIGHTEN 'us'?

It's all linear. It's all in a contingent and declining universe. It's as created beings, not as transcendent ones. Just as we have never breathed underwater, we have never been outside of time...so far.

Some would SAY that 'you' do NOT YET even KNOW what 'time' IS, EXACTLY, "immanuel can", so far, when this is being written.

If we can't even imagine what it's like to be a fish and get that right, then why would we expect ourselves to understand the "experience" of God beyond time?

But 'we' CAN IMAGINE what it is like to be a fish. What makes 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'we' can NOT even just IMAGINE 'this'?

Also, and get 'what' right, EXACTLY?

By the way, UNDERSTANDING the 'experience' of God, EXACTLY, is the MOST NATURAL 'thing' TO DO.

However, ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, like the ones that 'you' are CONVEYING here "immanuel can" COVER UP and DISGUISE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE 'experience/s' of God.

But, OBVIOUSLY, and as 'you' are PROVIDING examples OF, 'you' are NOT ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE this IRREFUTABLE Fact BECAUSE OF 'your' very OWN False, Wrong, and Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS here.

So we're thrown back, by our own limitations, on analogies drawn from time-boundedness, if we want to think any thoughts about such a state.

I suggest here 'you' QUESTION the 'thinking' of 'the thoughts' ABOUT 'time', itself, let alone ALL of the OTHER PRESUMPTIONS of 'yours' here.

BUT OBVIOUS BECAUSE 'you' BELIEVE that the 'thinking' and 'thoughts' within that head are ALL ABSOLUTELY TRUE and CORRECT, then 'you' WILL NOT QUESTION ANY 'thoughts' and 'thinking' there.

But just as we can use observation to see that fish do something we cannot really understand experientially ourselves, so too we can know by deduction that there has to be some Entity that is beyond a contingent universe.

Talk ABOUT CONVINCING "ones" OWN 'self' of some 'thing', which could ONLY EVER BE OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

Since the universe is manifestly not an eternal, self-generating entity, but rather a linear system proceeding toward what's called "heat death," when all the dissipated energies of the universe would reach a final and eternal stasis, we know it had a beginning and will not last forever.

Here IS the PRIMEST example of DELUSION and of SELF-DECEPTION.

We can see, scientifically, that that is where we are, and (all things left the same) that is where we are going...to heat death.

So, to "immanuel can" anyway, there is some male gendered person(al) thing, which created some 'thing' OUTSIDE of 'itself', called the Universe, with extremely inquisitive beings, for those beings to come-to the realization and 'conclusion' that EVERY 'thing', besides the 'male gendered thing', are going to some so-called 'heat death'.

This might make one wonder, WHY would 'that thing' WANT TO CREATE 'this' and/or WANT TO DO 'this' FOR, EXACTLY?

But because it is a contingent entity, one with a beginning, that is, we also know that it had to have a cause.

Here we have THE CONCLUSION being USED as A PREMISE. And, THE CONCLUSION being based upon NOTHING AT ALL other than this one's OWN PRESUMPTION and/or BELIEF.

Since the universe did not create itself, something must have created it.

Or, in other words, TO "immanuel can", 'Since God created the Universe, the Universe did not create itself. Therefore, God MUST OF created the Universe'.

'This', LAUGHABLY, WAS the type of so-called "logic" people 'TRIED TO' USE, BACK THEN.

To suppose it was simply another contingent entity would be irrational, because an infinite regression of contingent causes cannot exist -- such a chain never gets started in the first place, because the prerequisites for each causal stage are never met -- they "regress" infinitely, instead. 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.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE how Truly STUPID and ILLOGICAL 'this' REALLY IS "immanuel can"?

Since the universe is headed on a "downhill," as we can see from the Second Law of Thermodynamics in physics, or from the Red Shift effect in cosmology (or casual observation every day, for that matter) we can know for certain that whatever caused this universe to exist had to be capable of an immense injection of order.

IF, and WHEN, absolutely ANY one would like to have a DISCUSSION here ABOUT ANY 'thing' here, then let me know.

I AM SURE 'we' can get TO the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things', Which, by the way, probably could not be MORE OPPOSITE of what 'this one' is 'TRYING TO' CLAIM here to be true.

And from the interrelated dynamics of things like cosmological constants, biological complexity, and so forth, we can be astronomically certain (probabilistically speaking) that whatever it was was also capable of instantiating that sort of complexity.

Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see.

To only DIE of 'heat death', or to DIE BEFORE, right?

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.

And,what CAUSED the CREATION of 'things' like 'personhood', identity, et cetera, et cetera, of the 'thing', which you SAY and CLAIM is of male gender?

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.

[Skepdick]

the Big Bang may not be the entire universe.

By far not enough evidence to make your claim.

[Atla]

the Big Bang may not be the entire universe.

By far not enough evidence to make your claim.

Are you a retard that you didn't know these absolutely basic things?

[Age]

...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."

ONCE AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS INDOCTRINATION, AT PLAY and AT WORK.

But "immanuel can" has ALREADY PROVED True to be one who was VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY MANIPULATED.

That's observable, measurable and as certain as any scientific fact can be.

REALLY?

So, through 'science' 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written have CONCLUDED, FOR CERTAIN, that the WHOLE Universe, Itself, will just DIE OUT, in some so-called 'heat death', right?

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.

So, you want to CLAIM that there is some male gendered 'thing', known as God, which can and did create the WHOLE Universe, probably out of absolutely nothing AT ALL, YET you, ALSO, want to CLAIM that there is NO known force that could just reverse some PRESUMED 'escape velocity of some CLAIMED 'expanding universe', right?

If yes, then WHY could God just NOT reverse what 'it', supposedly, CREATED?

Sounds like you do not have to much faith in this God 'thing', which you talk about here.

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 what?

So this universe that we know is a contingent entity.

How, EXACTLY, does 'this conclusion' logically follow from the preceding claims?

If anything eternal exists, it's not within this universe and subject to its regularities.

ONCE AGAIN, 'your' OWN so-called "logic" here does NOT even FOLLOW.

It has to transcend that...as does whatever First Cause we come to believe has generated the universe.

First things FIRST, QUESTION if what you BELIEVE is even True and REAL, TO BEGIN WITH.

If you DID 'this', then what can be VERY CLEARLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN is that what you BELIEVE is true IS ACTUALLY False, FROM THE OUTSET.

BUT 'you' will NEVER come to LEARN, SEE, and UNDERSTAND while 'you' CONTINUE to HOLD and MAINTAIN 'your' OWN BELIEF here.

And there's really no escaping that, without denying the very existence of the material world, and the coherence of causality and mathematical sequences.

ONCE AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY IN the WAY 'these people', BACK THEN, would 'TRY' their absolute HARDEST for what they WERE BELIEVING WAS TRUE.

[Age]

Re the argument that the Universe has always existed, I see a problem.

IF
The Universe has always existed;
THEN
Why is it not perfect in every conceivable way?

WHO even thinks or BELIEVES that the Universe is NOT PERFECT in EVERY conceivable way?

What I am asking, is '"why is it constantly in the process of evolving?" and not in a steady state of timeless perfection?

BUT, the Universe evolving, HERE-NOW, IS the STEADY STATE of TIMELESS PERFECT, ITSELF.

WHY did you think or BELIEVE that 'it' is NOT?

It is within the nature of the universe to be constantly "improving" upon itself.

BUT WHO EVER thought or BELIEVED that the Universe, Itself, is constantly so-called 'improving' Itself?

Thus, how can it be eternal? (how can it have always existed?)

VERY EASILY. And,

VERY SIMPLY.

In Fact the Universe could NOT be in ANY OTHER WAY.

The Universe can ONLY EVER ALWAYS EXIST.

As can be, and HAS ALREADY BEEN, PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

[Age]

Re the argument that the Universe has always existed, I see a problem.

IF
The Universe has always existed;
THEN
Why is it not perfect in every conceivable way?

Where's the problem?
1) Why would it have to be perfect?
2) Why would you think it is not?
3) If it is created by a supernatural being ,then why is it not perfect? Even theists declaim such an obection with Theodicy.
4) There seems no reason why the universe would tend towards perfection. All the scientific evidence point to the heat death of the universe.

If ALL the so-called 'scientific evidence', in the days when this was being written, pointed to some so-called 'heat death of the universe', then that just SHOWS and PROVES how Wrong so-called 'evidence' CONTINUED TO BE hitherto 'those times'.

Also, and let us NOT FORGET 'evidence' is NOT ACTUAL PROOF. And, 'proof' is REALLY FAR MORE VALUABLE than 'evidence' EVER WAS.

Furthermore, 'these people', BACK THEN, REALLY thought that by adding the word 'scientific' before the word 'evidence' provided more truth to their BELIEFS and CLAIMS. Which is FURTHER PROOF of just how SIMPLY and EASILY 'they' REALLY WERE FOOLING and DECEIVING "themselves", BACK THEN.

What I am asking, is '"why is it constantly in the process of evolving?" and not in a steady state of timeless perfection?

It is within the nature of the universe to be constantly "improving" upon itself. Thus, how can it be eternal? (how can it have always existed?)

Evolution does not imply improvement.

GREAT POINT.

Just LOOK AT 'human beings' for instance. 'Human beings', through evolution, evolved into Existence, and at the current days of when this was being written 'they' had CERTAINLY NOT YET anyway made ANY improvement AT ALL in regards to the earth NOR to even 'Life', Itself.

[Age]

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.

Why could 'this' just NOT be happening ALWAYS, anyway?

Why does there HAVE TO BE some sort of BEGINNING, or "altered state"?

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.

AND, ONCE 'you', people, here ALSO COME-TO-KNOW thee Truth and thy 'Self', THEN 'you' CAN and WILL STOP 'attempting' TO UNDERSTAND 'the connection'.

[Age]

...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.

ALL of which would and DOES happen HERE-NOW in this One and ONLY 'place'.

"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".

By definition there can NOT be 'universes'. So, ANY thought of there being 'universes' comes about FROM False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect thinking, OR from just CHANGING 'the definition' of the 'universe' word.

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)

[Age]

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 'the answer' must NOT necessarily be 'this' AT ALL.

And, considering the Fact of what the ACTUAL ANSWER REALLY IS, 'the answer' you provided here FAILS. Although 'you' are probably CLOSER in some ways here than most people have ever been "vvilliam".

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

Joy to You.

[Age]

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?

Now, and OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO INFORM "others" of what the so-called "christian God" REALLY IS, or INFORM 'us' of what those two words REFER TO, EXACTLY, BEFORE ABSOLUTELY ANY one could Truly INFORM 'you' if the so-called "christian God" is the so-labelled 'real deal' or not.

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

[Age]

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.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' goes on to talk ABOUT 'time', as though 'it' knows what 'it' is ACTUALLY talking ABOUT.

But, as I will, ONCE MORE, PROVE IRREFUTABLY True, if and when 'this one' is ASKED to ELABORATE ON and speak ABOUT what 'time', itself, ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY IS, EXACTLY, 'this one' WILL FAIL ABSOLUTELY TO PROVIDE ANY 'thing' even RESEMBLING the ACTUAL Truth.

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.

'Matter' is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'contingent' on 'what', EXACTLY?

A male gendered 'thing', which 'you' call 'God', "immanuel can"?

If yes, then are 'you' even REMOTELY AWARE that to BELIEVE that some 'male gendered thing' CREATED the WHOLE Universe, out of 'whatever', is about as STUPID as BELIEVING that 'you' ACTUALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking ABOUT here.

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.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, BOTH were made up OF 'matter', (and OF 'space' ALSO and by the way).

Also, name one 'thing' that was NOT made up OF AT LEAST TWO OTHER 'things'.

And, if 'you' are going to 'TRY' and SAY and CLAIM that the WHOLE Universe, Itself, was made up BY 'one male gendered thing', then PLEASE ALSO proceed in INFORMING 'us' of 'what' that 'one thing' made the WHOLE Universe UP FROM or OUT OF, EXACTLY.

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?

Are you under some sort of DELUSION that the ACTUAL ANSWERS to these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS HELPS 'your' OWN position here "immanuel can"?

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

But not having physical properties does.

Can you name ONE 'thing' that does NOT have 'physical properties'?

If no, then okay.

But if yes, then WILL you NAME that 'one thing'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

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.

So what?

When it choses to create...

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

So what?

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.

When 'you' two, human beings, talk ABOUT 'we' here, then who and/or what are 'you' two REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

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.

WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

It makes sense that we, as contingent beings, have to "attempt to understand" what we are:

So, in other words, 'you' STILL do NOT YET UNDERSTAND what 'you' ARE, right?

it wouldn't make sense for an eternal, timeless, spaceless, causeless, intelligent, creative, hugely powerful Cause of all things...

WHY do 'you' PRESUPPOSE that 'it would NOT make sense for thee ETERNAL Being?

And, 'what' are 'you' REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

which is what we're looking for.

WHY are 'you' LOOKING FOR what 'you' ARE?

As an adult human being, in the days when this is being written, SURELY even 'you', "immanuel can", would ALREADY KNOW what 'you' ARE, correct?

But if NO, then WHY do 'you' SUPPOSE that is?

[Age]

"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.

SO, the ASSUMPTION about 'heat death' is based on the ASSUMPTION that the universe is 'dying'.

SURELY, the ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY here SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, right?

AND, the ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY of CLAIMING that 'it' is NOT a 'fantasy', BECAUSE 'it' is 'assumed' to be true, HOPEFULLY is NOT being MISSED ALSO.

If nothing interrupts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it becomes an inevitability.

Just OUT OF CURIOSITY "immanuel can" could the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' be MISINTERPRETED or MISUNDERSTOOD in ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY AT ALL?

If no, then God REALLY DID CREATE ALL of 'you' and 'this' to JUST DIE OUT. Which, OBVIOUSLY, DEFEATS the notion that ANY REAL INTENTION or PURPOSE was BEHIND ANY of 'this'.

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

Even Gods.

What would be the PURPOSE of CREATING 'things', and PROMISING 'a life living in eternal peace and harmony' if absolutely EVERY 'thing' was CREATED, TO JUST DIE anyway?

[Age]

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.

'Postulates', like 'assumptions' are NOT necessarily ACTUAL Truths, and by definition NEVER will be.

So, a so-called 'scientific postulate' is NOT necessarily closer to the ACTUAL Truth as a so-called 'religious postulate' is.

BUT, if 'you' want to CONTINUE TO USE so-called 'scientific postulates or assumptions' to 'TRY TO' back up and support 'your' OWN 'religious postulates and assumptions', then by all means PLEASE KEEP "TRYING TO'.

So far 'you' have ACTUALLY BEEN REFUTING 'your' OWN positions and BELIEFS here.

We simply do not have enough mass in the universe any longer to produce a cycle or "Big Crunch" to recycle the universe.

But 'we' could just ASK 'your' 'male gendered God' to CREATE a WHOLE 'new Universe' FOR 'us', right?

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.

As I have SAID PREVIOUSLY, 'these people' WITH BELIEFS will 'TRY TO' SAY and USE just about ANY 'thing' AT ALL when 'trying to' 'justify' and/or back up and support their CURRENTLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. As can be ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN.

[Age]

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.

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

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.

How can 'matter' have NO form?

And, who and/or what gives this ALLEGED 'NO form matter' 'form', EXACTLY?

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.

But there ARE 'things' that 'we' CAN IMAGINE, which 'we' CAN IMAGINE have NO 'physical properties'. If, HOWEVER, 'these things' have 'physical properties' or NOT is YET to be UNCOVERED.

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'?

Therein;

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

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

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

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.

'you' COULD 'consider' 'this'. BUT, there is REALLY NO need to, and especially considering what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

(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".)

WHEN 'you' FIND OUT what the ACTUAL Truth IS here "vvilliam" I think 'you' WILL BE rather SURPRISED at just HOW CLOSE 'you' REALLY WERE BEING, BACK THEN, here.

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.

I will SPEED 'things' up a bit here, and HELP 'you' ALONG. 'we', COLLECTIVELY, are 'It', BUT 'we', individual human beings, are NOT 'I', NOR 'It'.

Which is what we're may well be looking for

But 'you' are ALL just 'ALONG FOR THE RIDE', as some might say. It has been 'I' who WAS, unintentionally, LOOKING FOR the ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?', and thus ALSO, unintentionally, LOOKING FOR the ANSWER OF H.O.W. 'I' can COME-TO-KNOW thy 'Self'.