The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[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.

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.

This IS BECAUSE "Immanuel can" will NOT LOOK AT ANY 'thing', which does NOT ALIGN WITH what 'it', currently, is BELIEVING is true, unless, OF COURSE, it is LOOKING FOR A WAY to 'try to' RIDICULE and/or HUMILIATE the "other".

[Age]

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.

SO, IF the Universe REALLY IS eternal "atla", then what PROOF, or what EVIDENCE, are 'you' USING for 'this BELIEF and/or CLAIM' of 'yours' here?

[Age]

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?

The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth DEPENDS on what the 'now' word here is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

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 )

Could 'the words', in this link, be Wrong or Inaccurate in ANY way "skepdick"?

If yes, then COULD 'the universe' be OLDER than 50 billion years?

Oh, and by the way, were the words 'the universe' EVER even ACTUALLY DEFINED in that link there?

Does the. universe exist now? Yes.
The universe began to exist and is N<50 billion years old.

WHY do 'you' ASSUME or BELIEVE that 'the universe', (whatever those words REFER TO, EXACTLY), BEGAN?

[Age]

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.

BUT If and WHEN a human body with working procreating male organs has sex with a human body with working procreating female organs, then this 'effect' can 'cause' "ANOTHER" human body.

Now, although there is NO ACTUAL REAL 'separateness', NO one could REFUTE the EFFECT of what the coming-together of two SEPARATE/D working procreating human bodies can, and does, CAUSE.

This separateness is duality: me and you, before and after, this and that, cause and effect.

'you' can CALL 'it' WHATEVER 'you' like.

In terms of duality, the mind applies reason and logic, believing that it can predict and control life.

'you' are ALSO ABSOLUTELY FREE TO USE the 'mind' word. BUT, are 'you' YET ABLE ENOUGH to INFORM 'us' of what the 'mind' ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY, to 'you', 'it' could NOT be 'separate' FROM ANY of the OTHER MULTIPLE 'things' of which 'you' talk ABOUT and speak OF, correct?

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.

So, absolutely EVER, (inseparable), 'atom' in the WHOLE Universe has 'its' OWN 'light source', right?

There is no separation in light.

Okay. BUT, is there ANY 'separation' AT ALL among ANY or ALL of these EVERY 'atoms' of which 'you' speak OF and MENTION here?

Where there is no separation, cause and effect are one and therefore not real. Life is light, non-dual

Okay.

But, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' are NOT talking ABOUT the TOPIC, in question, here, but rather have just found ANOTHER topic to INTRODUCE 'your' OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS INTO.

By the way, WITHOUT doing 'it' in ANY Truly LOGICALLY FOLLOWED WAY.

[Age]

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

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.

'you', human beings, HAD TO 'mentally construct' a 'separation', and HAD TO name or label absolutely EVERY 'perceived' 'separated thing'. 'you' HAD/HAVE to do 'this' in order to MAKE SENSE, and UNDERSTAND, 'the world' or Universe in which 'you' have FOUND "yourselves" living IN.

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?"

In order to COME-TO LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and MAKE SENSE of ALL-THERE-IS.

SEE, although 'you', human beings, NEEDED thee Source-Creator to evolve INTO Existence, thee Source-Creator NEEDED 'you' to COME-TO-KNOW thy 'Self'.

As HOW and WHY WILL COME-TO-LIGHT, SOON ENOUGH for the rest of 'you'.

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".

There ONCE was a 'poster' here, in this forum, who went by the name and label "obvious leo". What 'this one' was CLAIMING and trying to ARGUE FOR here sheds MORE LIGHT here on HOW, and WHY, Consciousness, Itself, IS ACTUALLY (first and foremost) the REAL 'Thing', going on regarding any experience that 'It' does have.

(Which, by the way, what EACH individual 'poster' here is/was at the fundamental EACH CLAIMING, and trying to ARGUE FOR, sheds MORE LIGHT ON what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, which HELPED/HELPS in the CAUSING and CREATING of the continually EVOLVING 'eternally Peaceful and Harmonious world'. 'you', posters, literally, do NOT YET REALIZE just how Truly IMPORTANT ALL of 'your' WORDS ARE here.)

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?

That thee 'I' EXISTS. Oh, and ALSO, the 'thoughts' EXISTING, which thee 'I' is AWARE or Conscious OF.

If what the 'thoughts/thinking' is OF, EXACTLY, however, is 'real' or not, then that is ANOTHER matter.

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.")

'you' are just OVER-COMPLICATING and CONFUSING what IS, ESSENTIALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, Truly SIMPLE. And, Truly EASY to UNDERSTAND, AS WELL.

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 'you' feel an urge that 'you' SHOULD 'suppose' such a 'thing'?

If yes, then do 'you' think or feel that 'IT' has CREATED/CAUSED 'you' to 'suppose' 'said thing'?

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.

When 'this one' speaks OF, 'thus far, 'it' has proven to be immeasurable', do 'you' envision that 'that one' is talking FOR absolutely EVERY one?

Me: Would you also argue that we human consciousnesses are "invisible to our own conscious awareness?"

Do 'you' UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCES in the 'see' word?

Is the argument also that in ITs natural quintessential state the Source Consciousness creator (re the thread subject) is "invisible" to Its own awareness?

'you', human beings, can 'understand' 'things' without necessarily 'seeing' 'them' with the 'physical eyes'. Do 'you', "vvilliam", 'see' what I MEAN?

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.

It would be FAR SIMPLER and EASIER for "others" to AGREE WITH 'you' here if 'you' did NOT USE Truly ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL WORDING like; ' the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix)'.

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".

BUT, 'IT' CAN 'observe and see' who AND what 'It' IS, EXACTLY, and thus SEE, and UNDERSTAND, Itself, AS WELL. And this IS BECAUSE 'It' IS, OBVIOUSLY, EXISTING. Remember what 'the creator' can be 'observed and created' through and by 'its' CREATION.

For examples, or for actual proof, like for ALL and EVERY 'thing' I SAY and CLAIM, then do NOT FORGET to JUST ASK FOR 'them'.

Specifically, my argument is that anything which can be created and experienced as REAL must therefore be made of the same stuff (physical).

Do 'you' HAVE a sound AND valid argument for this CLAIM of 'yours' here?

If yes, then will you provide 'it' here for 'us' to take a LOOK AT 'it' and to DISCUSS 'it'?

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".

1. WHY do 'you' persist with the 'vibration' word here?

2. WHY do 'you' presume or believe that there was some so-called 'original state', which has changed?

3. WHY do 'you' presume or believe that is the 'mind' that perceives what is 'real' or not?

[Age]

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 isn't, actually.

It's a known and widely-recognized scientific law, one observable to all of us in multiple ways. In fact, it might be the most securely established scientific law that science has.

If 'it' might be the MOST 'securely established scientific law', in which 'you', people, in the days when this was being written, HAD, then 'this' EXPLAINS FURTHER WHY 'you' WERE SO LOST and CONFUSED, BACK THEN.

By the way, 'science', itself, does NOT 'have' 'laws', and SAYING that 'science' DOES is just FURTHER PROOF of just how MUCH 'you', people, were ACTUALLY FOOLING and DECEIVING "your" OWN 'selves'.

There's certainly a vast amount of data to support it.

Do 'you' have the KNOWLEDGE and/or COURAGE to PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY of the ALLEGED CERTAIN 'vast amount' of data to support what 'you' are 'TRYING TO' CLAIM here is true?

If yes, then WILL 'you'?

Now, if 'you' EVER DO, then, and ONLY THEN, I can START to SHOW WHERE and WHY 'these people' BECAME SO LOST and CONFUSED.

Until THEN I will LEAVE 'you' WITH 'your' OWN BELIEF here.

Maybe only the Law of Gravity has an equivalent amount of scientific support. Maybe not even that one.

Did 'you' or did 'you' NOT talk ABOUT an EXPANDING UNIVERSE before "immanuel can"?

And let me explain why appealing to "enormous amounts of time" doesn't just not help the contrary argument, it actually cripples it.

Sure, I will LET 'you'.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is evident when you park your car in the driveway and leave it there for a year. When you come back, is the car a better or a worse car than when you left it? It's obvious, isn't it? It will be worse. It will be rusted, seized, flat-tired, dented, discoloured...or any other of dozens of things, because over time, cars get worse, not better.

'Worse' AND 'better' are RELATIVE.

So would you argue that if we left that car in the driveway for an "enormous amount of time" that it would be a better car? Would it be an equivalent car? Or would it be a much worse car than the car you left for only a year?

You see, the principle's so obvious we can't escape it.

'This' is BEYOND A JOKE "immanuel can".

A car is, considered, to get 'worse', to 'you'.
Therefore, to 'you', the WHOLE Universe, Itself, STOPS EXISTING, COMPLETELY, in a so-called 'heat death'.

[Age]

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...

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

I can produce a ton of evidence for the 2nd Law.

But, WILL 'you', is ANOTHER matter.

I would think you should offer something more than a vague supposition in return, no?

Some would think 'you' WOULD HAVE ALREADY offered some 'thing' of SUBSTANCE, by 'now'.

And, a car in a subjective 'worse' state, after a year, is NOT ANY 'thing' of SUBSTANCE.

[Age]

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...

"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.

'you' OBVIOUSLY can NOT REFUTE 'this' "immanuel can".

[Skepdick]

The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth DEPENDS on what the 'now' word here is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

You don't know what the English word "now" refers to?

WHY do 'you' ASSUME or BELIEVE that 'the universe', (whatever those words REFER TO, EXACTLY), BEGAN?

Because it's 13.787±0.020 billion years old.

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

[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.

'you' OBVIOUSLY can NOT REFUTE 'this' "immanuel can".

Hey stop agreeing with me on a few things, it makes me look bad.

[Atla]

WHY do 'you' ASSUME or BELIEVE that 'the universe', (whatever those words REFER TO, EXACTLY), BEGAN?

Because it's 13.787±0.020 billion years old.

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

That's just sophistry, if you use the word 'universe' in the sense that the Wiki article is using it, then you must also introduce something like the 'wider universe' or 'whole universe' which may or may not be the same as 'universe'.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

There is no "data" for either claim,

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of our most absolute scientific laws, actually. And entropy is readily available to observe on any side.

But if, as you seem to admit, there's "no data" for the Black Holes exception, then why are you even floating it? Why would somebody want to back a theory for which there is no data?

[Atla]

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

Or is that just an imagining of your own?

There is no "data" for either claim,

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of our most absolute scientific laws, actually. And entropy is readily available to observe on any side.

But if, as you seem to admit, there's "no data" for the Black Holes exception, then why are you even floating it? Why would somebody want to back a theory for which there is no data?

It's the one physical law that's not absolute, so it may not be a law at all. And the black hole exception could be all that's needed to turn entropy around. So why are you backing a theory for which there is no data?

[Immanuel Can]

There is no "data" for either claim,

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of our most absolute scientific laws, actually. And entropy is readily available to observe on any side.

But if, as you seem to admit, there's "no data" for the Black Holes exception, then why are you even floating it? Why would somebody want to back a theory for which there is no data?

It's the one physical law that's not absolute,

That's not actually correct. No scientific law is ever "absolute." They're all probabilistic. That's because the complete set of possible experiments for any particular scientific postulate have never been done. We are never more than "convinced with extreme probability" that any of them are true.

But the Second Law is one of the very best attested, most data-rich, most easily discernable and most probable laws we have. And you have no countercases, since, as you admit, the Black Hole speculation has no data at all.

[Atla]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of our most absolute scientific laws, actually. And entropy is readily available to observe on any side.

But if, as you seem to admit, there's "no data" for the Black Holes exception, then why are you even floating it? Why would somebody want to back a theory for which there is no data?

It's the one physical law that's not absolute,

That's not actually correct. No scientific law is ever "absolute." They're all probabilistic. That's because the complete set of possible experiments for any particular scientific postulate have never been done. We are never more than "convinced with extreme probability" that any of them are true.

But the Second Law is one of the very best attested, most data-rich, most easily discernable and most probable laws we have. And you have no countercases, since, as you admit, the Black Hole speculation has no data at all.

Nice speech but that's not the sense in which the second law is not absolute. That's why it always has countercases on small scales.