The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Age]

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.

YES 'we' CAN, and 'we' ALREADY DO.

BELIEVING that 'we' can NOT, FOREVER MORE, KNOW whether the Universe is eternal or began, SHOWS and PROVES just how BLIND and CLOSED some people REALLY WERE, BACK in the days when this was being written.

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.

How, EXACTLY, would the notion that the Universe had a start negate the existence of some 'thing' that CREATED 'that start' and BEGINNING?

Do you think or BELIEVE that some 'things' can just APPEAR out of NOTHING all by themselves?

A universe that had a beginning cannot have already had a god by definition.

WHY? 'What is 'a god', by definition? Which LED you to PRESUME, BELIEVE, and/or CLAIM what you just did here?

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.

BUT 'what' CREATED/CAUSED that so-called 'start point', that is; IF there EVER COULD BE, and EVER WAS, one? Some, OBVIOUSLY, have just named and labelled 'that Creator' God.

While "others" are NOT FOOLISH NOR STUPID enough to BEGIN TO think NOR BELIEVE these sorts of 'things'.

[Immanuel Can]

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)

Then please state what you regard as Premise 1, and on what grounds you question it.

[Age]

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.

So, to the so-called "materialists", which can NOT see a 'mind' made out of 'matter' 'these mind' things' still exist based upon NOTHING AT ALL but 'an inference' MADE, based SOLELY UPON the direct observation of living animals, right?

Also, and by the way, let us NOT FORGET that the 'inference' made in regards to the BELIEF and CLAIM that it is the sun that revolves around the earth was based upon NOTHING AT ALL other than DIRECT OBSERVATIONS, AS WELL.

The idea that the entire universe has a mind is absurd, and relagated to the primitive mind of the savage.

But the idea that so-called "savages" have 'minds' is NOT ABSURD, right "sculptor"?

Also, do 'you' REALLY BELIEVE that by SAYING and CLAIMING that, 'The idea that the entire universe has a mind is absurd, and relagated to the primitive mind of the savage', gives YOUR CLAIM here more weight and/or more credence?

For those who are Truly INTERESTED, 'you' SAYING and CLAIMING 'that' "sculptor", to 'me', makes 'you' appear as though 'you' REALLY have NOTHING of ANY ACTUAL SUBSTANCE to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here.

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.

[Age]

???? 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.

1. But what "kalaam" shows does NOT SHOW that the Universe was created from some OTHER 'thing'.

2. If some 'thing' created the Universe, then that does NOT necessarily mean AT ALL that 'that thing' is a necessary being. Because, OBVIOUSLY, 'that thing' could have been created by some OTHER 'thing', which also MAY or MAY NOT of been so-called 'necessary'.

3. If ANY 'thing' created the Universe, or created ANY pre-existing 'thing', which created the Universe, then this on its own does NOT mean that ANY 'thing' MUST BE so-called 'supernatural' by definition.

4. How are 'you' defining the 'supernatural' word here "Immanuel can"?

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?

'you', "yourself", "immanuel can", have appeared to MISS quite A LOT here, as well as having INTERPRETED what was written to FIT IN WITH and SUIT 'your' OWN AGENDA and BELIEFS here.

But 'this' was a VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE among the adult population, in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

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.

What are some of these 'frequencies', from the HUGE number of frequencies', which the Universe ACTUALLY exhibits, but which 'you', human beings, are NOT capable of experiencing "vvilliam"?

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.

_______________

For those of 'you' who think or BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN,

1. WHY do 'you' HOLD and MAINTAIN 'this view', especially when there ARE OBVIOUSLY SO MANY FAULTS and FLAWS WITH 'it'?

2. WHY NOT just consider JUST MAYBE the Universe IS ETERNAL, and for those that do, then PLEASE feel FREE to let us KNOW what FAULTS and/or FLAWS 'you' consider might, or do, exist WITH 'this view'?

[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"?

[Atla]

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.

I already told where. Which is common knowledge. The hole you're digging is a thousand miles deep at this point.

[Age]

I guess the irony is that if we take a strong belief in "heat death" and an always increasing universal entropy, then all logic flies out the window. So then a logical argument like Kalam also flies out the window.

Beginning and heat death? Okay, but then anything goes, without God too.

Let's assume the universe has always existed and will always exist.

This would of course invalidate the The Kalam Cosmological Argument - (with William Lane Craig commentary)

But it would not provide evidence that the Universe is Mindless...

For those of 'you', adult human beings, who SAY and CLAIM that 'you' HAVE 'minds', that 'you' ARE 'minds', or that there ARE 'minds', then how could ANY of 'you' also 'try to' CLAIM that the Universe is 'mindless'?

By the way, is there ANY one LOOKING FOR or WANTING evidence that the Universe IS 'mindless'?

[Skepdick]

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

OK, so what was going on 25 billion years ago?

[Skepdick]

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.

I doubt your doubt.

Tell me a story about what was going on in the universe 25 billion years ago.

[Age]

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...

I do NOT YET KNOW as NO ACTUAL 'proof' has been presented before me, YET.

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?

Yes.

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.

But you SAID and WROTE, VERY CLEARLY, that your ARGUMENT is that there is nothing we can imagine which has no "physical properties" except for anything which does not exist.

So, if you are NOT ASSUMING NOR BELIEVING such a 'thing' is true, then WHY did you bother formulating an ARGUMENT for such a 'thing'?

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".

But 'we' do NOT 'have to'. And for ANY one to PRESUME or BELIEVE that 'we' HAVE TO, is JUST FOOLING "themselves".

Now, the Fact that there can NOT be ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which is NOT natural, APART FROM Nature, and/or is BEYOND Nature, Itself, is JUST IRREFUTABLE. As has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True and as WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVED True.

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.

But WHY even bring up the word 'unnecessary' in relation to the Universe, Itself?

If the ONLY reason you are doing 'this' is because "immanuel can" USES 'that word' here, in relation to discussions about the Universe and God, then just be WARNED that you are being FOOLED INTO thinking and talking ABOUT some 'thing', which could NEVER BE INCLUDED in what IS ACTUALLY True here.

"immanuel can" IS an EXPERT in FOOLING and DECEIVING "others" BECAUSE 'it' has been SO WELL DECEIVED and FOOLED 'itself'.

Just so you ARE AWARE "immanuel can" is NOT 'purposely' trying to DECEIVE and FOOL ANY one here. "immanuel can" is JUST SHARING what 'it', "itself", has be DECEIVED and FOOLED INTO ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING is true.

"immanuel can" is, literally, just NONE THE WISER here.

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?

What has been so-called 'worked out', based up on logical and empirical Facts, and thus is an IRREFUTABLE Truth, which CAN BE and WILL BE SHOWN and/or REVEALED. AGAIN, that is for those who ARE Truly INTERESTED, in LEARNING and BECOMING WISER.

Now, OF COURSE, someone might CLAIM that the 'supernatural', by definition, is just 'an adult human being', for example. Of which 'we' would then HAVE TO AGREE and ACCEPT, ACTUALLY CAN and DOES EXIST.

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"

you COULD, BUT 'this' would be a Truly SILLY WAY to proceed and TALK from here.

...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.

So, now, it IS EASY for you to imagine a 'NON-physical' animal/being, but previously you CLAIMED that you were just SIMPLY SAYING that YOUR understanding of "non-physical" is that anything labelled as such, is telling me that such does not exist.

I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this natural universe.

'This' does NOT matter ONE IOTA. However, what REALLY matters IS, IF a 'physical thing' exists in the Universe, and 'it' has been given the name and/or label 'unicorn', then 'that thing' is NOT 'non-natural', right?

If you agree with and accept 'this', and if the word 'supernatural', by definition, is referring to ANY 'thing' that is NOT Natural, BEYOND Nature, and/or APART FROM Nature, then there is NO 'thing' that is 'supernatural'. And, 'this' will HOLD True UNTIL someone can PROVIDE the name/label of ONE, ACTUAL, 'thing', which is NOT Natural, by Nature.

Now, for example, 'unicorn' in ANY way, shape, or form CAME-TO-EXIST through Nature and/or through A Natural WAY, SHAPE, or FORM. As there is NO OTHER WAY to come about or evolve INTO Creation, or Existence.

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"

What has the Truly INSIGNIFICANT and MINUSCULE, TINY 'earth' got to do with the WHOLE of the Universe.

Is this MADE UP 'god' of which you speak NOT Natural to the Universe, AS WELL? Or, ONLY to 'earth'?

... It is easy enough to imagine such a being.

I NEVER even THOUGHT that it would be 'hard' to IMAGINE ANY 'thing' like 'this'.

I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this Natural Universe.

If 'it' did, then would you THEN SAY and CLAIM that 'it' CAME FROM 'Nature' OR the 'supernatural'?

And, WHY?

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.)

WHY would ANY one think or BELIEVE that God and/or the Universe did NOT ALWAYS EXIST?

I can imagine both a "Supernatural God" and a "Natural God" and therein "see" no difference.

Okay, then 'this' MIGHT HELP IN OBTAINING the ACTUAL ANSWER, which you are SEARCHING and LOOKING FOR here in regards to THE QUESTION/S proposed.

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?

If 'this' is WHAT 'you' WERE, ESSENTIALLY, ASKING in the opening post, then are 'these words' here the EXACT SAME WORDS IN the opening post?

By the way 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO SEE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' 'you' LIKE and/or WANT TO.

'I', however, just prefer to REMAIN ALWAYS OPEN so that 'I' am then LOOKING AT, and SEEING, what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, INSTEAD.

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.

Okay, if 'this' is what you want to SAY and CLAIM here, then all well and good.

But, and by the way, what was the ACTUAL QUESTION I, ACTUALLY, ASKED in relation to your USE of the 'vibration' word, EXACTLY?

And, did you KNOW that EVERY individual object, besides two 'things' OF COURSE, are made up of the EXACT SAME two 'things'?

Thus, IF the universe is Mindful,

Would you like to ELABORATE ON what the words 'universe is Mindful' even MEANS or REFERS TO, to you, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

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).

But the reasons WHY the Universe IS, EXACTLY, 'the way 'It' IS', and, HOW the Universe, ACTUALLY, WORKS is ALREADY KNOWN.

We see evidence of this happening in observing the form Galaxies can be seen have take on.

WHO CARES?

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"?

WHEN, and IF, you ALSO COME-TO-LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, who AND what God IS, EXACTLY, then you WILL ALSO be ABLE TO ELABORATE ON, and EXPLAIN, what the 'mindful' word here MEANS and IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. Until then 'you' are on 'your OWN', as some have SAID.

Now,

1. Have 'you', human beings, evolved TO SHARE thoughts, and/or language, and to 'now' even be ABLE TO SHARE 'these thoughts' around the earth, almost instantaneously, through an IMAGINED UP, INVENTED, and then CREATED 'internet' of computers and a 'thought' PASSING/SHARING SYSTEM?

If yes, then some SAY and CLAIM that 'this' IS BECAUSE of a so-called 'mindful thing' HAPPENING. If 'this' HAPPENS because of some 'frequency of vibrations' or NOT is of NO REALLY matter NOR concern here, right?

If yes, then WHY are you wanting to JUMP MORE 'steps' AHEAD?

I suggest just LOOKING AT, ONLY, what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True ALONE, and then PROCEED FROM 'there'.

2. So, 'we' can ALL AGREE ON and ACCEPT that there is some 'thing', which has been given the name, title, and/or label 'mind' IS EXISTING here. But, if there is ANY one who can NOT AGREE WITH and ACCEPT 'this', then PLEASE EXPLAIN SO 'now'.

Until then, 'we' ARE AGREEING and ACCEPTING that the reason 'things' are CREATED human-ONLY, at least, IS BECAUSE of the ABILITY TO IMAGINE, INVENT, and CREATE, which comes from A 'mind'. So, WHY human created 'forms', at least, are 'forming' IS BECAUSE of some so-called 'mindful thing' HAPPENING.

Now, if ANY one of 'you', human beings, WANTS to REFER TO 'this mindful thing' as 'supernatural', then by all means go on right ahead.

BUT, would ANY of 'you' like to EXPLAIN WHY ALL of human created creations, which have OBVIOUSLY COME FROM IMAGINATION, ITSELF, which OBVIOUSLY COMES FROM an OPEN MIND, WITHIN 'you', human beings, is, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT Natural, BEYOND Nature, and/or NOT A PART OF Nature, Itself?

[Age]

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

OK, so what was going on 25 billion years ago?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' which is going ON HERE-NOW, ETERNALLY, EVERYWHERE.

That is; the Universe is in A STATE of CONSTANT-CHANGE.

[Walker]

That is; the Universe is in A STATE of CONSTANT-CHANGE.

So they say, but does that account for CONSTANT ANTI-CHANGE?

[Skepdick]

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

OK, so what was going on 25 billion years ago?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' which is going ON HERE-NOW, ETERNALLY, EVERYWHERE.

That is; the Universe is in A STATE of CONSTANT-CHANGE.

Oh yeah? So what changed 13.8 billion years ago?

[Skepdick]

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".

That which we call the natural/physical world is a consequence of the singularity colloquially referred to as The Big Bang; or if you want to be more contemporary - the quantum fluctuations.

The antecedent of the quantum fluctuations (of which the natural/physical is a consequence) is non-natural and non-physical by definition.
If what you get beyond nature is more nature; or what you get beyond physics is more physics - that's just definition-stretching.
Or you can do like Atla is doing: stretch the definition of "the universe".

Such definitions appear to be unlike elastic bands - they seem to stretch infinitely without snapping.