The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Age]

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?

Is it also funny when you write statements and make claims but add a question mark to the end of 'them'?

And, it is ALSO VERY OBVIOUS that what you were CLAIMING depends EXACTLY on WHEN the word 'now' was REFERRING 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

If you BELIEVE that 'this' is true, then you also would have BELIEVED that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, among other things, just because you were TOLD that 'they' were true, and/or just because 'they' were written in a book.

[Age]

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.

I was wondering if you would want to CHANGE your view/s on 'things' when I HIGHLIGHTED what 'we' AGREE UPON.

[Age]

"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?

There is NO ACTUAL 'data' that the Universe began, is expanding, and/or will end, but here 'you' are "immanuel can" so-called 'floating', and 'backing', these ideas and theories.

[Age]

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."

So, WHY THEN are 'you' here 'trying to' USE 'scientific laws'?

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.

I suggest USING ONLY ACTUAL PROOF, then, as I CONTINUALLY INFORM, 'you' could NEVER make False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/nor Incorrect CLAIMS. Like 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE here.

But the Second Law is one of the very best attested, most data-rich, most easily discernable and most probable laws we have.

YET it is ALSO CLAIMED that energy can NOT be created NOR destroyed. Which, if true, then would OBVIOUSLY ALSO MEAN that the Universe exists ALWAYS.

And you have no countercases, since, as you admit, the Black Hole speculation has no data at all.

But 'you' are NOT YET OPEN to ANY nor ALL of the 'counter cases'. And, AGAIN, this is BECAUSE 'you' hare HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING A BELIEF here.

[Age]

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.

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did.

'you' are speaking here in 'past tense' and NOT 'present tense'. WHY are 'you' doing 'this'?

It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal. That which it creates to experience does not in and of itself make the fundamental Mind "cease to be" just because its creations cease to be eventually. (Are created as temporal).

WHY would ANY one even ASSUME that the so-called 'creation' here, that is; the Universe, Itself, is temporal?

In that, you are conflating the creation (almighty as it is) with the creator and then arguing against something I have not been arguing.

[Age]

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.

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did. It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal. That which it creates to experience does not in and of itself make the fundamental Mind "cease to be" just because its creations cease to be eventually. (Are created as temporal).

In that, you are conflating the creation (almighty as it is) with the creator and then arguing against something I have not been arguing.

Sounds like you are both confused.

Sounds like 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS here "sculptor". If this is correct, then what IS the ACTUAL Truth here?

[Age]

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.

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamental mind."

The only "mind" that created the universe was the First Cause.

Did 'you' NOT consider that what was meant by 'fundamental mind' was the 'first cause'?

And we're asking what the exact qualities of this First Cause would have to be.

Who does the 'we' were refer to here, EXACTLY?

It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal.

Yes. But that's because the First Cause is a necessary entity. We (and the universe) are contingent entities. We are not eternal. And what we are trying to explain is not the existence of the First Cause, the nature of which we have not yet established, but rather the sufficient cause for the existence of the universe, which is subject to causality and to decay.

WHY do 'you' PERSIST in BELIEVING that the Universe, Itself, is IN DECAY?

ONCE AGAIN, I would suggest that would be LOOKED AT here is just how OFTEN and AT how MUCH 'these people' BACK THEN would anthropomorphize. That is, BECAUSE 'these people' BELIEVED that 'they' began AND end, then so to does the ACTUAL Universe, Itself.

Which, REALLY IS Truly ABSURD considering what the IRREFUTABLE Truth and Facts are here, EXACTLY.

[Age]

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamental mind."

The only "mind" that created the universe was the First Cause.

Again, it is best to avoid semantics. We are speaking about the same Mind as the subject of the thread. We don't need to agree to a particular name in order for us to both agree we are speaking of the same thing.
My use of "fundamental mind" is in acknowledgment of all the incarnate mindfulness in the chain of contingency within which you (a mind) and I (also a mind), exist. I have also used other names, such as "the creator-mind".

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'these people' calling "themselves" 'minds' is WHY 'these people' took SO LONG to COME-TO LEARN, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct here.

It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal.

But that's because the First Cause is a necessary entity.

Necessary to explaining why this universe began to exist. (To that I am adding "Necessary to explaining why consciousness exists in said Universe." )

We (and the universe) are contingent entities.

This is based upon the premise that "We" are identified as being "the human form" rather than "the consciousness experiencing the human form."

We are not eternal.

If "We" are of the Source Consciousness, then we have always been eternal. Even if "We" are personalities grown through the experience of the human form, these can be "saved" by the mindfulness that is necessary for personalities to grow. Thus, the mindfulness can be considered necessary and eternal, even if the personalities grown are considered to being "created" and there is no reason to think that these have to go the same way as functional forms (also necessary in order to grow personalities).

And what we are trying to explain is not the existence of the First Cause, the nature of which we have not yet established, but rather the existence of the universe, which is subject to causality and to decay.

No. The subject of this thread is both the Nature of First Source (which has already been suggested and hasn't been seriously challenged) and whether that nature has to be (necessary) regarded as "supernatural" or not.

The apparent "decay" of the functional forms have already been explained as the natural and purposeful result of the temporal thing which the First Cause will then have no mindful use for, as the universe has served the intended purpose it was created to serve.

I have already written of this here in the thread. Have you read all of my arguments in my posts?

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".

[Age]

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamental mind."

The only "mind" that created the universe was the First Cause.

Again, it is best to avoid semantics.

I have no idea what you're talking about...nobody's doing mere "semantics" here. We're talking logic, are we not?

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

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

It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal.

But that's because the First Cause is a necessary entity.

Necessary to explaining why this universe began to exist.

Well, yes, but that's not the point being made. It's not merely "neccessary to explanation." It's "necessary" in the philosophical sense that it could not have not existed.

As Stanford puts it, "It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings."

But, BECAUSE OF the 'previous moment' there is NOT an existing 'one' that could have so-called 'failed to exist'. To BELIEVE otherwise is to BELIEVE the ABSURD.

So the First Cause is not merely a convenient way of explaining something.

Yes it IS, FOR 'you'. And this is BECAUSE 'you' have NO OTHER way of EXPLAINING 'your' VERY STUPID and VERY CLOSED notion of God.

Rather, when we say that the First Cause is a "necessary entity," we mean that it could not have failed to exist.

Which, by the way, in ABSOLUTE NO WAY HELPS in EXPLAINING who and what God IS, EXACTLY, which is SAID and CLAIMED to have CREATED the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

'you', "immanuel can", and "others", just SAY and CLAIM 'First Cause/God is necessary' BECAUSE 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE to SAY and CLAIM here.

By contrast, everything in the universe, including you and me, are contingent entities -- that is, it is very possible for them not to have existed at all -- and in most cases, there was a time when they did not exist, and very likely will be a time when they will fail to exist.

'This one' KEEPS RE-REPEATING the EXACT SAME 'things' here, BUT is NEVER ABLE TO ACTUALLY back up and support 'them'.

We (and the universe) are contingent entities.

This is based upon the premise that "We" are identified as being "the human form" rather than "the consciousness experiencing the human form."

That's Pantheism. Pantheism has many conceptual and practical problems...one of which is the existence of the natural world, and another is its complete detachment from science.

ONCE AGAIN, the LIES KEEP COMING FROM 'this one' here.

Now, HOW EXACTLY could the existence of the 'Natural world' be, SUPPOSEDLY, a 'conceptual and practical problem here', and/or COMPLETELY DETACHED from 'science'?

BUT, 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER this CLARIFYING QUESTION "immanual can" BECAUSE 'your' LACK of knowledge and/or BECAUSE of 'your' FEAR of being SHOWN and PROVEN Wrong here.

If "We" are of the Source Consciousness,

Manifestly, we are not. We are contingent, limited and fallible beings.

I suggest 'you' two SAY what 'you' two ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, when 'you' both USE the 'we' word. That way 'you' will NOT MISUNDERSTANDING "each other" SO OFTEN here.

The subject of this thread is both the Nature of First Source

No, the subject is the Kalaam.

The apparent "decay" of the functional forms have already been explained as the natural and purposeful result of the temporal thing which the First Cause will then have no mindful use for, as the universe has served the intended purpose it was created to serve.

Have you read all of my arguments in my posts?

I have. But I don't see evidence to back the statements.

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".

It could not possibly be otherwise. If the "effect" we're trying to explain is "the existence of the universe," then any explanation is going to have to come, by definition, from above and beyond the universe itself.

What a Truly STUPID and NONSENSICAL 'thing' to SAY and CLAIM here. But, this IS the ACTUAL ISSUE, which ARISES when people BELIEF 'things' that are False and NOT TRUE.

We can't possibly explain the existence of contingent things with reference to something contingent, or the existence of the natural world by something merely natural. To do so would commit us to an infinite causal regress, which is incoherent, and clearly cannot be the case, because of the causal chain.

So, 'this one' CLAIMS to KNOW WHAT the so-called 'causal chain' IS, EXACTLY, and HOW 'it' works, EXACTLY, but ALSO CLAIMS that 'it' is COMPLETELY UNABLE TO EXPLAIN 'these things'. Which is REALLY VERY CONVENIENT, considering.

[VVilliam]

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"?

[VVilliam]

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

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

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

???? I can't even make sense of that rejoinder.

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.

[Atla]

Yes, I do. But I'm still waiting for the "countercases" you insisted exist...but apparently don't.

Anyone who is familiar...

So no, you haven't got even a single countercase.

That's exactly right.

No it's not. Your ignorance and dishonesty is impressive. Even the wiki page is full of references to it.

[Sculptor]

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did. It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal. That which it creates to experience does not in and of itself make the fundamental Mind "cease to be" just because its creations cease to be eventually. (Are created as temporal).

In that, you are conflating the creation (almighty as it is) with the creator and then arguing against something I have not been arguing.

Sounds like you are both confused.

Sounds like 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS here "sculptor". If this is correct, then what IS the ACTUAL Truth here?

Do not be ridiculous. If you are going to read posts then have the decency to read mine.
THey are both confused since they are making assumptions about things they simly cannot know.

[Sculptor]

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

???? I can't even make sense of that rejoinder.

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.

Yes, the debunking was clear enough.
Immanuel Can't (do shit) 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.

[Skepdick]

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'.

Why does the “whole universe” have a boundary condition at 13.787±0.020 billion years counting back from now?

Why isn’t there a boundary condition yesterday; or 6 years from now?