The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[bahman]

2. The universe began to exist.

And that's just fantasy, not a fact.

No, that is not a fantasy. It is correct. You cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Therefore, time has a beginning.

[Atla]

The question re that is whether such a mind is necessarily Supernatural.

Obviously not, so that's hardly a question.

Re 1.1 in what way would you suggest that the overall creator mind should introduce itself to the individual mind?

Re 2. Please describe for us what such a mind would look like?

Try to ask sensible questions. If there is a being far beyond us then it knows how to make itself known and how should I know how it looks like.

[Atla]

2. The universe began to exist.

And that's just fantasy, not a fact.

No, that is not a fantasy. It is correct. You cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Therefore, time has a beginning.

Weren't you a physicist once? Yet you can't come up with something better than an eternal past?

[VVilliam]

If there is a being far beyond us then it knows how to make itself known.

Yes and since it has not made itself know (at least to you) this could signify that the problem is with you knowledge, not its knowledge.

How should I know how it looks like?

Why would it look like anything other than perhaps looking like the whole universe?

[Atla]

Yes and since it has not made itself know (at least to you) this could signify that the problem is with you knowledge, not its knowledge.

Or more likely that it doesn't exist.

Why would it look like anything other than perhaps looking like the whole universe?

Or why wouldn't it?

[attofishpi]

2. The universe began to exist.

And that's just fantasy, not a fact.

No, that is not a fantasy. It is correct. You cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Therefore, time has a beginning.

If events always have existed, then time also has always existed, ergo no beginning. Just depends on how you view 'eternity'.

[Age]

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.

WHY?

What has led you to come to 'understand', (believe, and/or assume), that absolutely EVERY 'thing' that has been labelled 'non-physical' 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.

BUT 'they were YOUR WORDS.

you, literally, SAID and WROTE 'the words';

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.

I simply explained that my understanding of "nonphysical" means "does not exist".

Do you think it means something else?

That would ALL DEPEND ON IF 'nonphysical thing/s' exist, or NOT.

See, 'my understanding', unlike 'yours', is NOT SO SURE if 'nonphysical things' exist, or, do NOT exist, YET.

Either 'you' ARE 100% SURE of 'your understanding' here, or 'you' are just ASSUMING or BELIEVING that 'nonphysical things' do NOT exist.

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.

BUT 'the thing', in question, can NEVER be 'unnecessary'. AND, 'that thing' could ONLY EVER 'appear to be' 'unnecessary' only to those who do NOT YET KNOW what the IRREFUTABLE and ACTUAL Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

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.

But there can NEVER be a 'reasonable answer' to what IS NOT True, and Right.

There ARE NO 'reasonable answers' to what IS False, Wrong, ABSURD, and ILLOGICAL, like for example WHY ANY one would think or believe that is should be necessary to include so-called 'supernaturalism' as a logical conclusion to whey the universe exists. There ARE, however and OBVIOUSLY, 'reasonable reasons' WHY 'you', human beings, COME-TO False, Wrong, ABSURD, and ILLOGICAL answers/conclusions, like above here.

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]

What has led you to come to understand that absolutely everthing that has been labelled 'non-physical' does not exist?

Give me an example of a nonphysical thing.

[Age]

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.

I suggest that ALL CLAIMS are QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED. That is; until the IRREFUTABLE and ACTUAL Truth has been UNCOVERED.

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.

Are you ABLE TO PROVIDE PROOF for 'this CLAIM' here?

(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.

BUT, if an argument has been so-called 'debunked', then if that 'debunking argument' must be more sound and/or more valid, BUT if that 'debunking argument' is NOT a sound and logical argument, then 'it' can ALSO be 'debunked'.

Now, what is the sound one makes when they make a so-called 'debunking argument', but which is NOT an ACTUAL 'sound and logical argument', itself, and so 'itself' can ALSO BE DEBUNKED?

[Age]

What has led you to come to understand that absolutely everthing that has been labelled 'non-physical' does not exist?

Give me an example of a nonphysical thing.

So, you do NOT ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed, and ASKED you, YET, you DEMAND I provide you with an example of some 'thing'.

Which, by the way, if you ACTUALLY READ what I ACTUALLY WROTE, then you could have CLEARLY SEEN I am NOT YET SURE if 'nonphysical things' ACTUALLY EXIST, or NOT.

BUT, there ARE, OBVIOUSLY, some 'things' that may well end up being NOT 'physical'.

(I just came to REMEMBER that there is 'one thing', which is NOT physical, but I will NOT remove what I just wrote above here so far.)

I will just TAKE BACK what I previously WROTE and SAID here in regards to NOT being SO SURE if 'nonphysical things exist'.

For now, to me, there IS 'one thing', at least, that IS NOT physical. As for the OTHER 'things', which I was thinking about, I AM STILL NOT YET SURE.

[Age]

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?

As can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum here, people would discuss, with "others", ABOUT what "another" was SAYING and MEANING, instead of just ASKING 'the one' who SAID and/or WROTE 'things', 'What did you ACTUALLY MEAN?'. BUT, as can now be VERY CLEARLY SEEN these people had 'evolved' to a stage, in the days when this was being written, to ASK A 'computer' what "another person" is SAYING and MEANING. Again, instead of just ASKING 'the one' who SAID and/or WROTE 'things'.

These people seem to REALLY BELIEVE that they could get a MORE SUFFICIENT ANSWER ABOUT what 'one' is ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING FROM "another", or 'now', when this was being written, FROM A 'computer' of 'all things', INSTEAD of FROM 'the, ACTUAL, one' who SAID and/or WROTE 'things'.

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.

[Age]

This from an interaction with GPT, yesterday.

There are a lot of alternative stories that don't need a "first cause", for example a few:

- The universe began with the Big Bang and spacetime began with it. So asking what caused it or what was before it is like asking what is north of the North pole. It makes no sense.
- The universe began with the Big Bang, but before it there was an endless cycle of preceding universes (cyclic cosmology, eternal return).
- The universe began with the Big Bang when two higher dimensional branes or whatever collided.
- The known universe comes from the Big Bang, but we simply can't see past the singularity. Maybe there was stuff before it, maybe there wasn't, maybe it was caused, maybe it wasn't.
- The universe simply began without a "first cause".
- The known universe coming from the Big Bang is not the entire universe. The entire universe may be much larger and there may have been multiple Big Bangs.
- There was no Big Bang, the universe has been here forever.

And all the above stories, including "first cause", are based on linear time which I disagree with because it's inherently illogical imo.

What does 'linear time' even mean or refer to, to 'you', "atla"?

As for being "mindful", I've seen no signs so far that the universe would have been intentionally created by a being natural or supernatural.

[Age]

There are a lot of alternative stories that don't need a "first cause", for example a few:

- The universe began with the Big Bang and spacetime began with it. So asking what caused it or what was before it is like asking what is north of the North pole. It makes no sense.

I tend to agree with this assessment. The more obvious answer is that the universe is a self contained thing which has always existed (in one form or another perhaps) but the singularity in and of itself is not a "first cause" in any other way except as a "starting point" to "a form" - the current one, being the one we are experiencing. (it matters not if it once was another form or will one day become another form).

WHY do you SAY and CLAIM that you AGREE WITH 'an assessment', but then, immediately, proceed to SAY and CLAIM that A MORE OBVIOUS ANSWER exists, and which TOTALLY COUNTERS, GOES AGAINST, or REFUTES the 'OTHER assessment', which you CLAIMED to AGREE WITH?

- The universe began with the Big Bang, but before it there was an endless cycle of preceding universes (cyclic cosmology, eternal return).

Yes. "One form or another" - but we are involved with nutting out our current situation in the current form the universe presents as.

And what do you ENVISION NEEDS TO BE 'nutted out' here, EXACTLY?

What the ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE, and ONLY REAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, has ALREADY BEEN so-called 'nutted out'. That is, IF absolutely ANY one is INTERESTED and/or READY to HEAR and/or SEE 'It'.

- The universe began with the Big Bang when two higher dimensional branes or whatever collided.

That sounds like supernaturalism - and is unnecessary in explaining how our universe (in current form) came to be.

1. Thee Universe is NOT 'your' NOR ' yours and "others" '.

2. The FORM that the Universe is IN NOW, IS AN EVER-CHANGING FORM, which, AGAIN, 'It' IS IN eternally.

3. The Universe IS IN AN ALWAYS EVOLVING-CREATING STATE of CONSTANT-CHANGE.

4. What ELSE would you like EXPLAINED in HOW THE Universe, ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY WORKS, EXACTLY?

Maybe you would like to LEARN and COME-TO-UNDERSTAND that 'matter' and 'non-matter/space' ALWAYS EXISTS, (and HAS TO), and it is through the absolutely FREE-BARRIER of 'space', (or 'anti-matter' if one likes), that 'matter' is ALLOWED to MOVE FREELY and BUMP, or INTERACT, with 'it-self', which is what CAUSES 'energy' to NEVER be created NOR destroyed, but just BE ALWAYS TRANSFERRED. AGAIN, ALWAYS, or ETERNALLY.

This IS, more or less, HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS. But, AGAIN, if you would like to LEARN and KNOW MORE, then just let me know.

- The known universe comes from the Big Bang, but we simply can't see past the singularity. Maybe there was stuff before it, maybe there wasn't, maybe it was caused, maybe it wasn't.

All of which comes under the heading of "philosophy" (cosmology) and in that we can define what can be accepted as necessary re "maybe" and what is unnecessary.
Re the thread question - "supernaturalism" appears to be an unnecessary addition - iow - not a suitable candidate as a "maybe".

If ANY one, and I will SAY 'it' AGAIN, IF, absolutely, ANY one could just SHOW or EXPLAIN how absolutely ANY 'thing' can COME-FROM absolutely NOT 'thing', then PLEASE GO AHEAD.

- The universe simply began without a "first cause".

Something cannot "begin" without a cause. However, if the singularity is mindful, then what comes from that, can be regarded as "cause enough".

But then you are left to EXPLAIN what 'mindfulness' CAME-FROM, EXACTLY.

- The known universe coming from the Big Bang is not the entire universe. The entire universe may be much larger and there may have been multiple Big Bangs.

Even so, it is all "One Thing" and natural enough for that.

- There was no Big Bang, the universe has been here forever.

According to a well known astrophysicist, science has shown that a "Big Bang" did occur and that is something which cannot be denied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSgvoKJoDcE
(The Big Bang Dilemma with Neil deGrasse Tyson)

A so-called 'big bang' is NOT necessarily A 'beginning'. In fact the so-called 'big bang' could be just one out of ANY number of 'bangs', 'big' or 'small'.

If a PRESUMED, or BELIEVED, 'beginning' was given the name/label 'big bang', then 'this' is ANOTHER matter.

And all the above stories, including "first cause", are based on linear time which I disagree with because it's inherently illogical imo.

Please elaborate re your opinion on this, and explain how it might change the argument.

As for being "mindful", I've seen no signs so far that the universe would have been intentionally created by a being natural or supernatural.

Unless "maybe" the singularity was mindful and thus purposeful (intentional) re creating this particular universe we are investigating.

[Age]

Something cannot "begin" without a cause.

True, according to everything we know. But this possibility still can't be 100% dismissed.

Is there actually absolutely ANY information AT ALL absolutely ANYWHERE that explains HOW it could be even POSSIBLE for absolutely ANY 'thing' to BEGIN, WITHOUT A CAUSE, let alone ANY information of HOW 'this' could ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

Please elaborate re your opinion on this, and explain how it might change the argument.

As far as I can tell, circular time is the only completely logical story. It's very simple but at the same time mind-bendingly counterintuitive, very difficult to see first.
There is a point in time where our future and past meet. (One possible story is that the Big Bang in our past and the Big Crunch in our future are one and the same point in time. This isn't eternal return.) All change is an illusion. The chain of causality is an unchanging circle. There is no beginning and end and there is no Kalam argument.

WHY NOT the PERCEPTION of 'time' is AN ILLUSION, and there is NOT ONLY just HERE-NOW, ETERNALLY?

Unless "maybe" the singularity was mindful and thus purposeful (intentional) re creating this particular universe we are investigating.

I've seen no signs of that either. I don't see how the Big Bang singularity would be some kind of mind.

[Age]

What signs would you expect to see?

Umm the known universe would need to show signs that it was intentionally created. Like looking somewhat artificial, unnatural, having a purpose, so on.

But WHY would the Universe need to look somewhat like what 'you', human beings, create and/or do?

Would also help if our creator would introduce itself to us.

Just maybe 'you' have NOT been HEARING, and/nor SEEING?

Why would you exclude from the properties of the singularity, the aspect of mindfulness?

I don't, but it's thought to be just a blob of high density, high temperature, fairly structureless and homogeneous thing. Doesn't look like a mind with near-omnipotent powers.