The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Immanuel Can]

You've already proven yourself wrong, there isn't much to add.

Just the evidence -- which you have not done.

No gaslighting, Sam. Nobody's getting fooled here.

You could read the Wiki page...

No, no...you do it. I want to see if YOU know what you're talking about.

I told you: gaslighting isn't going to fool anybody here.

[Atla]

Just the evidence -- which you have not done.

No gaslighting, Sam. Nobody's getting fooled here.

You could read the Wiki page...

No, no...you do it. I want to see if YOU know what you're talking about.

I told you: gaslighting isn't going to fool anybody here.

Even Skepdick knows that entropy change isn't 100% one-sided

[Atla]

Just the evidence -- which you have not done.

No gaslighting, Sam. Nobody's getting fooled here.

You could read the Wiki page...

No, no...you do it. I want to see if YOU know what you're talking about.

I told you: gaslighting isn't going to fool anybody here.

Here, I'll help you because I'm a nice guy, this is from ChatGPT but I removed most of the text. Let's see if you are able to find the missing parts:

...
can temporarily result in a decrease in entropy
...
second law is a statistical
...

[Immanuel Can]

...this is from ChatGPT but I removed most of the text.

I know why. No evidence.

Sorry... just not buying until I see a countercase. So far, you've showed nothing.

[Atla]

...this is from ChatGPT but I removed most of the text.

I know why. No evidence.

Sorry... just not buying until I see a countercase. So far, you've showed nothing.

If you knew what the 2nd law even is, you would also know what the countercases are. Until then you'll remain more ignorant than Skepdick. Heh

[Immanuel Can]

...this is from ChatGPT but I removed most of the text.

I know why. No evidence.

Sorry... just not buying until I see a countercase. So far, you've showed nothing.

If you knew what the 2nd law even is,...

That's a mere distractor. Not responsive.

Have a nice day, I guess.

[Atla]

I know why. No evidence.

Sorry... just not buying until I see a countercase. So far, you've showed nothing.

If you knew what the 2nd law even is,...

That's a mere distractor. Not responsive.

Have a nice day, I guess.

Bye

[VVilliam]

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.

I argued no such thing. I simply explained that my understanding of "nonphysical" means "does not exist".

Do you think it means something else?

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?

The word was prefixed with "appears to be" which makes your question, besides the point and your commentary on Immanuel Can even less appropriate to the thread topic.
The thread topic was created in order to see if there was a reasonable answer as to why it should be necessary to include supernaturalism as a logical conclusion to why the universe exists.

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?

Exactly.

[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".

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.

You appear to be arguing that the singularity is a non-physical non-natural thing.

How did you come to such a conclusion?

(To my thinking, this is like saying that a seed compared to what comes from the seed is unnatural.)

[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.

“whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent” Wittgenstein
Unless you want to make a fool of yourself and live in a fantasy world.
Which is exactly what Theists do.

And Materialists too, which is what I was speaking about re observation.
If a theist claims that the cause of the universe is a supernatural one, or a materialist claims that the universe is mindless, I think Wittgenstein's advice is inappropriate as both claims should be questioned.

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,

Because we know through science what generates consciousness.

The universe is the reason why consciousness exists. To assume it is simply an accident of a mindless thing, is a rubbish philosophy.

(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.)

Gibber

I see - Your mind cannot comprehend? It may be a case that the "gibber" is the result of "will not" comprehend..."prefers Materialist philosophy" no different from how supernaturalists defend their own philosophy...different philosophies, same defense mechanisms.
__________________

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.

_______________

More gibber

"Gibber". The sound someone makes when their argument is debunked but they refuse to see that as being the case.

[VVilliam]

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

What?

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

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"

Not sure why you added this dictionary definition of supernatural. It does not appear to disagree with my stating "Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past (ways humans thought about things) which its accompanying superstitions (presented as philosophy) jealously cling to."

Can you explain morality in terms of; or attribute it to the laws of nature? No you can't.

Morality is easily explained as something which is a product of mindfulness.

Therefore morality is supernatural. By definition.

Neither mindfulness nor its products have to be defined as "supernatural" - certainly you have not shown why this has to be the case and certainly quoting a dictionary definition hasn't helped your claim here.

[Skepdick]

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

What?

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

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"

Not sure why you added this dictionary definition of supernatural. It does not appear to disagree with my stating "Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past (ways humans thought about things) which its accompanying superstitions (presented as philosophy) jealously cling to."

Can you explain morality in terms of; or attribute it to the laws of nature? No you can't.

Morality is easily explained as something which is a product of mindfulness.

Therefore morality is supernatural. By definition.

Neither mindfulness nor its products have to be defined as "supernatural" - certainly you have not shown why this has to be the case and certainly quoting a dictionary definition hasn't helped your claim here.

You seem to have misunderstood....

Can you explain "mindfulness" in terms of; or attribute it to the laws of nature? No you can't.

Therefore mindfulness is supernatural. By definition.

[Skepdick]

You appear to be arguing that the singularity is a non-physical non-natural thing.

How did you come to such a conclusion?

(To my thinking, this is like saying that a seed compared to what comes from the seed is unnatural.)

You appear to be missing the forrest for the trees.

Put the boundary/limit wherever you feel like. At the Big Bang; or the instant after the Big Bang.

Then address the antecedent of The Big Bang.

[VVilliam]

What?

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

supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"

Not sure why you added this dictionary definition of supernatural. It does not appear to disagree with my stating "Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past (ways humans thought about things) which its accompanying superstitions (presented as philosophy) jealously cling to."

Can you explain morality in terms of; or attribute it to the laws of nature? No you can't.

Morality is easily explained as something which is a product of mindfulness.

Therefore morality is supernatural. By definition.

Neither mindfulness nor its products have to be defined as "supernatural" - certainly you have not shown why this has to be the case and certainly quoting a dictionary definition hasn't helped your claim here.

You seem to have misunderstood....

Can you explain "mindfulness" in terms of; or attribute it to the laws of nature? No you can't.

Therefore mindfulness is supernatural. By definition.

Can you explain "mindfulness" in terms of; or attribute it to the laws of nature?
(I can and I have)
You appear not to be able to do so.

Therefore mindfulness is supernatural. By definition.

Thus, you defer to the superstition of supernaturalism.

[VVilliam]

You've already proven yourself wrong, there isn't much to add.

Just the evidence -- which you have not done.

No gaslighting, Sam. Nobody's getting fooled here.

You could read the Wiki page or ask ChatGPT, open any physics book, or read an article on entropy. Let's see if you are able to do it.

This from an interaction with GPT, yesterday.

Me: What is the person saying?

Person. “The universe began to exist.”
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.

GPT: The person is discussing the Kalam cosmological argument, which posits that the universe had a beginning. However, they are pointing out a perceived flaw in the argument. They argue that while it is true the universe had a beginning, the singularity that existed prior to the universe's beginning does not technically have a beginning itself. They suggest that if the singularity includes time and space, then there is no "prior" to the singularity, leading to a limitation in material cosmology. The statement implies a nuanced perspective on the concept of the beginning of the universe and challenges the simplicity of the Kalam cosmological argument.

Me: It still doesn’t make sense to me. Can it be reworded without losing the context?

GPT: Certainly! The person is critiquing the Kalam cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe had a beginning. The critique focuses on the idea that while the universe had a starting point, the singularity that existed before it may not have a conventional "beginning" if it includes time and space. In other words, if the singularity is not distinct from time and space, there is no "prior" to the singularity. This perspective introduces a challenge to the Kalam argument by questioning the notion of a clear-cut starting point for the universe.

Me: Can time and space be measured without functional form?



GPT: The question of whether time and space can be measured without a functional form is a nuanced one. Let's break it down:

Time Measurement:
Time is often measured based on events or processes. In classical physics, time is considered a continuous parameter, and it can be measured using various methods such as clocks. In relativistic physics, time is more intricately connected to space in a four-dimensional spacetime framework.

However, your question seems to touch on the idea of whether time can be measured without some underlying functional form or reference. Time measurement typically involves comparing the duration of events, and these comparisons inherently involve some form of reference or functional representation.

Space Measurement:
Space is often measured in terms of distance or displacement. In classical physics, Euclidean geometry provides a framework for measuring space. In modern physics, especially with the advent of relativity, space is intertwined with time in a four-dimensional spacetime continuum.

Similar to time, measuring space usually involves some form of reference or coordinate system, which can be considered a kind of functional form.

Functional Form:
A functional form generally refers to a mathematical expression or model that represents a relationship between variables. In the context of measuring time and space, functional forms often arise from the need to quantify and describe these concepts.

It's challenging to conceive of a measurement system that completely divorces itself from some form of functional representation or reference. The very act of measurement implies a comparison or mapping against a standard or scale.

In summary, while the exact nature of time and space can be complex and may be described differently in various physical theories, the practical act of measurement often involves some form of functional representation or reference point.

Me: In the case of the argument, the “singularity” could be the functional form?



GPT: In the context of the argument you mentioned earlier about the singularity, it seems like the term "singularity" is not being used as a functional form in the sense of a mathematical expression or model.

In cosmology and astrophysics, a singularity often refers to a point or region in spacetime where certain physical quantities become infinite or undefined. For example, in the context of the Big Bang theory, the singularity is a hypothetical state of extremely high density and temperature at which the universe is thought to have originated.

In the argument, the person is discussing the idea that if the singularity includes time and space, then the conventional notion of a "beginning" might be challenging to define because there may not be a distinct "prior" to the singularity. The singularity, in this case, is more of a concept representing a state of the universe rather than a functional form or mathematical model.

The person is raising questions about the applicability of the Kalam cosmological argument in the presence of such a singularity, emphasizing the intricacies and challenges in understanding the nature of the universe's beginning.

Me: So, essentially the person is saying that the singularity represents not only a stating point but a physical thing?


GPT: Yes, that's a reasonable interpretation. The person in the argument is suggesting that the singularity is not merely a theoretical starting point or an abstract concept but a physical entity or state. In the context of cosmology, the singularity is often considered a point of extremely high density and temperature, representing the initial state of the universe in theories like the Big Bang.

By asserting that the singularity includes time and space, the person is emphasizing that it is not just a theoretical abstraction but a concrete part of the physical description of the universe. 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.