The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Atla]

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?

word salad

[Skepdick]

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?

word salad

Every time you reach for that phrase you have all the evidence you need that the conversation is above your level of understanding.

Cure your ignorance - ask questions. Throwing phrases like "word salad" around isn't making you any less ignorant than you already are.

[VVilliam]

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.

Speaking for myself, I am not confused. I understand the idea that the universe is eternal but the purpose of this thread topic is to critique the argument that a "supernatural" creator has to be responsible for the existence of a universe which (as premise) "had a beginning".

[Atla]

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?

word salad

Every time you reach for that phrase you have all the evidence you need that the conversation is above your level of understanding.

Cure your ignorance - ask questions. Throwing phrases like "word salad" around isn't making you any less ignorant than you already are.

Word salad. Quote me saying that the boundary of the whole universe is there, which was exactly what I doubted.

[VVilliam]

???? 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sculptor]

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 simply cannot know.

Speaking for myself, I am not confused. I understand the idea that the universe is eternal but the purpose of this thread topic is to critique the argument that a "supernatural" creator has to be responsible for the existence of a universe which (as premise) "had a beginning".

We cannot know if the universe is eternal, nor that it had a start. My thoughts on the notion that it had a start negates the existence of a creator every bit as much as a universe that is eternal.
A universe that had a beginning cannot have already had a god by definition.

The Big Bang would suggest a start point, but can only include a universe which we are capable of observing. This may well not be a helpful restriction.

[Sculptor]

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.

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

Yes the first statement is correct.
But the second is not.
The notion that the universe is not mindful is based on observation. The notion grew out of the late medeval period, especially with the French philsosophes. It has become clear that consciousness, midnfulness and clear evidences of intentionality are the the direct empirically observable consequences of the presence of healthy neural/cerebral tissue. The materialists universe is far from "mindless", but that the existence of minds can be inferred from the direct observation of living animals. The idea that the entire universe has a mind is absurd, and relagated to the primitive mind of the savage.

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

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

That is a contradiction. As I am sure you are aware.

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

No. That cannot be derived logically

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

ALL evidence of the existence of "minds" as I explain above requires a high level of evolved neural matter.
The idea that this pre-exists matter is absurd.

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

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

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

On that we agree.

[Immanuel Can]

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

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

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.

Um...no, sorry, not gonna play.

The Kalaam shows that whatever it is that created the universe certainly MUST be transcendent of that universe, not something within that universe. In other words, it must be a necessary being, and it must be supernatural by definition.

If you read and understood the Kalaam, there's no way you're going to miss that point. If you haven't, why are you talking about it?

[Immanuel Can]

Anyone who is familiar...

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

That's exactly right.

No it's not.

Great!

Then where's your countercase? Let's see it.

[VVilliam]

1: The notion that the universe is not mindful is based on observation. The notion grew out of the late medeval period, especially with the French philsosophes. It has become clear that consciousness, midnfulness and clear evidences of intentionality are the the direct empirically observable consequences of the presence of healthy neural/cerebral tissue. The materialists universe is far from "mindless", but that the existence of minds can be inferred from the direct observation of living animals. The idea that the entire universe has a mind is absurd, and relagated to the primitive mind of the savage.

2: ALL evidence of the existence of "minds" as I explain above requires a high level of evolved neural matter.
The idea that this pre-exists matter is absurd.

1: I have to remember that as a human being deep within the "rabbit hole" of the universe, to claim that "the universe is not mindful is based on observation" is to mislead myself with the limitations of the human instrument, which we know is only capable of experiencing a certain range of frequencies from the huge number of frequencies which the universe actually exhibits.
So to say that I cannot "see" these and proclaim "these do not exist" because of that, would be a mistake.

2: Even if the universe exhibits mindfulness through biological form alone, (at least according to consciousnesses experiencing biological forms) why should I believe that mindfulness is not a natural state of the universe as a whole, and was present within the physical singularity proposed by the Big Bang Theory or is not physical as everything else that the universe is? (as opposed to the idea that mind is "non-physical/supernatural" re the thread question.)
__________________

From another mirror-thread on another message board.

Kalam Cosmology: The universe began to exist.

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

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

_______________

[VVilliam]

If you read and understood the Kalaam, there's no way you're going to miss that point.

Rather, I am critiquing the validity of the premise (1) and the premise itself does not assume any "supernatural" or super-to-nature or unnatural or nonphysical "First Cause".
The assumption has been superimposed onto said premise through supernaturalist beliefs, as if somehow the premise is evidence that supernaturalism is therefore true.

[Age]

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.

In regards to what, EXACTLY?

If you are going to read posts then have the decency to read mine.

The ones I responded to, I have.

You writing and saying, 'Sounds like you are both confused', sounds like you think or believe that you know what the actual truth is.

THey are both confused since they are making assumptions about things they simly cannot know.

Are you making an ASSUMPTION in regards to 'things' not being able to be known?

If no, then how do you KNOW that FOREVER MORE that 'those things' can NEVER be known?

[Age]

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?

But 'it' does NOT.

WHY do you ASSUME that 'it' does?

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

There is NO boundary condition in regards to the Universe, EVER.

[Age]

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.

Speaking for myself, I am not confused. I understand the idea that the universe is eternal but the purpose of this thread topic is to critique the argument that a "supernatural" creator has to be responsible for the existence of a universe which (as premise) "had a beginning".

1. The so-called 'premise' IS False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True. So, that is the END of 'that'.

2. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING beyond 'Nature' or 'Natural'. So, the word 'supernatural' IS SELF-REFUTING and/or just an OXYMORON. Those who USE that False word or term just do so when they ARE LOST and/or CONFUSED somewhat in regards to what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, or when they are just 'trying to' "justify" some position that they are HOLDING ONTO, which REALLY can NOT be 'justified' AT ALL.

3. What, EXACTLY, is responsible for the Universe can be EXPLAINED, and UNDERSTOOD, in VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY terms and words. That is; for those who ARE Truly INTERESTED in LEARNING and DISCOVERING.

[Age]

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.

I have noted how most Christians appear to have to believe in a supernatural creator - apparently because their whole philosophy is based upon that premise.

What those people BELIEVE IN may well be NOT 'supernatural', and/or True, however just at 'the moment' they OBVIOUSLY do NOT YET have the FULL and True UNDERSTANDING here. So, this is WHY they have MADE 'things' UP and REPEAT MISINTERPRETATIONS and Falsehoods.

I also acknowledge that most Materialists appear to have to believe that the universe is mindless - apparently because their whole philosophy is based upon that premise.

ONCE AGAIN, just a lack of FULL UNDERSTANDING has led these people to MAKE UP False CLAIMS and REPEAT MISINTERPRETATIONS.

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

As I have done MANY, MANY times throughout this forum. And as I just did in the post directly prior to this one.

The premise is "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning"

True, and IRREFUTABLE.

and this universe has plenty of evidence to support that indeed "things begin to exist"

SAYING, 'things begin to exist', in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY MEANS that ALL 'things' begin to exist', OBVIOUSLY. AND, one 'Thing' that did NOT begin to exist IS the Universe, Itself.

Also, 'evidence' is REALLY NOT that important, especially when laid against 'proof', itself.

For example there is plenty of 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth, BUT absolutely NONE of 'that evidence' WORKS AGAINST 'the proof', itself, that ACTUALLY it is the earth which revolves around the sun. Unless, OF COURSE, ANY one HAS 'proof' otherwise.

"and yes - things which begin to exist do have causes."

YES, 'they' OBVIOUSLY DO. And, just as OBVIOUS is that some 'things' do NOT BEGIN.

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

you CAN 'think' of 'this', just like you CAN 'think' 'unicorns' are living animals and pink, or blue if you like. BUT, what you 'think' does NOT necessarily have absolutely ANY bearing AT ALL on what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct. For example, you CAN 'think' that the sun revolves around the earth, and you CAN even base this conclusion/thought on DIRECT observation, and thus so-called 'evidence' if you like. BUT 'thinking' 'this' STILL NEVER HAS TO ALIGN WITH WHAT IS ACTUALLY the Truth of 'things'.

Now, you CAN KEEP 'thinking' that the WHOLE Universe as 'something', which had a beginning, BUT you ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT LOOKING AT 'things' FROM the Truly OPEN perspective. Which, OBVIOUSLY, IS what IS NEEDED in order to LEARN, FIND and DISCOVER what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, of 'things'.

The belief is that this therefore means that the universe is a mindfully created thing means that it has to have been created by a mind "outside" of itself.

Here is A PRIME example of HOW STARTING OUT WITH Wrong ASSUMPTIONS can LEAD one SO QUICKLY, SO SIMPLY, and SO EASILY ASTRAY.

I have argued against the belief and shown that such is not necessary at all. by offering an alternate explanation.

1. Is YOUR 'alternate explanation' though just YOUR 'alternate belief'?

2. An 'alternate explanation or belief' in NO way means that 'it' ALIGNS WITH the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

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

"immanuel can's" WHOLE BELIEF centers around and relies on 'the thing' that created the WHOLE Universe, from absolutely NOTHING, is a 'male gendered person like thing'. Which, more or less, by that OWN CLAIM RULES OUT, COMPLETELY, "immanuel can" being of ANY RELIABLE SOURCE of KNOWLEDGE here.

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

One could now ASK, 'Have 'you', "vvilliam", REALLY so-called 'thought things through here', "yourself"?

As your words ARE SHOWING OTHERWISE.

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

Just 'think' ABOUT 'it', 'How could absolutely ANY 'thing' be above, beyond, or apart from 'Nature', Itself?