The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Sculptor]

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.

Apparetly and according to you, the universe before the big bang. THough how you know this is beyind a joke

[Age]

What signs would you expect to see?

1.Umm the known universe would need to show signs that it was intentionally created. Like looking somewhat artificial, unnatural, having a purpose, so on. 1.1 Would also help if our creator would introduce itself to us.

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

2.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.

Re 1. We only have the one Universe so cannot compare such things or assume that somehow it should look artificial.
Also the premise is that it was created therefore implying a creative purposeful mind.
The question re that is whether such a mind is necessarily Supernatural.

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

WHY do 'you' ASSUME there is a so-called 'individual mind'?

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

This is AN EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY 'thing' TO DO.

[Age]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

Well, there are two scenarios when it comes to the beginning of the universe: 1) The universe existed at the beginning of time and 2) The universe started to exist at the beginning of time. I will discuss (2) first and then return to (1).

Well considering the term or phrase 'the beginning of time' is Truly ABSURD and ILLOGICAL, in the 'sense' of what you are pertaining to here, MAKES what you SAY and ALLEGE here is just False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

There are FAR MORE scenarios when it comes to the so-called 'beginning of time'. And, there is ONLY one that FITS IN WITH the ACTUAL Truth, PERFECTLY. Which, by the way, is NEITHER of YOUR two ONLY scenarios here.

To discuss this further I have to make a distinction between two options namely, time is an element of the universe, and time is not an element of the universe. I can show the first case leads to a regress so it is not acceptable.

Are you STILL following this Truly ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, and False 'line'?

How does it lead to regress? Well, we have to note that time is needed for any change.

BUT 'time' itself is NOT 'needed' for ANY 'change'. However, while 'you' CONTINUE TO BELIEVE otherwise "bahman" 'you' will NEVER LEARN and BECOME WISER here regarding 'this'.

It then follows that time is needed for time to begin whether there is a creator or not.

This is your type of 'arguing style' "bahman":

'Time' is needed for change.
Therefore, 'time' is needed for 'time to begin'.

Have 'you' EVER considered INFORMING 'us' of what 'time', itself, IS, EXACTLY, FIRST?

This obviously leads to regress. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the universe cannot begin to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, time is not an element of the universe. This leaves us with the second option which is, time is not an element of the universe. Time however in this picture has to have a beginning otherwise we are dealing with eternal time which is logically unacceptable.

'you' STILL REALLY BELIEVE that what is NOT 'acceptable' TO "bahman" is NOT 'logically acceptable'. Which is just FURTHER PROOF of how BELIEFS DISTORT, PREVENT, and/or STOP the ACTUAL Truth being RECOGNIZED, SEEN, and UNDERSTAND.

This is against the first premise of the Kalam argument.

The so-called "kalam argument" is NOT even a 'sound AND valid argument', and thus NOT even really worthy of being repeated.

The stuff that exists then either brought to existence by the act of creation or existed since the beginning of time. The second case is nothing but (1). I personally don't have any argument against these two cases. Therefore, God cannot be proved or disproved.

False, AND Wrong, AGAIN.

[Age]

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.

OBVIOUSLY you do NOT YET KNOW HOW 'beginning', 'now', AND 'eternal past' FIT IN, TOGETHER.

[Age]

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.

BUT while one is HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING A BELIEF, then even the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth can NOT be SEEN, nor HEARD, TO 'that one', if 'the Truth' OPPOSES 'the BELIEF'.

[bahman]

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?

Yes. I was.

Yet you can't come up with something better than an eternal past?

Well, if time does not have a beginning then it exists eternally. I think that is obvious.

[bahman]

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'.

The event cannot have existed. The reason is that it takes an infinite time to reach from an event at a point in the eternal past to now. Infinity by definition unreachable. Therefore, there is the first event that existed in the finite past.

[bahman]

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

Well, there are two scenarios when it comes to the beginning of the universe: 1) The universe existed at the beginning of time and 2) The universe started to exist at the beginning of time. I will discuss (2) first and then return to (1).

Well considering the term or phrase 'the beginning of time' is Truly ABSURD and ILLOGICAL, in the 'sense' of what you are pertaining to here, MAKES what you SAY and ALLEGE here is just False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

There are FAR MORE scenarios when it comes to the so-called 'beginning of time'. And, there is ONLY one that FITS IN WITH the ACTUAL Truth, PERFECTLY. Which, by the way, is NEITHER of YOUR two ONLY scenarios here.

To discuss this further I have to make a distinction between two options namely, time is an element of the universe, and time is not an element of the universe. I can show the first case leads to a regress so it is not acceptable.

Are you STILL following this Truly ILLOGICAL, ABSURD, and False 'line'?

How does it lead to regress? Well, we have to note that time is needed for any change.

BUT 'time' itself is NOT 'needed' for ANY 'change'. However, while 'you' CONTINUE TO BELIEVE otherwise "bahman" 'you' will NEVER LEARN and BECOME WISER here regarding 'this'.

It then follows that time is needed for time to begin whether there is a creator or not.

This is your type of 'arguing style' "bahman":

'Time' is needed for change.
Therefore, 'time' is needed for 'time to begin'.

Have 'you' EVER considered INFORMING 'us' of what 'time', itself, IS, EXACTLY, FIRST?

This obviously leads to regress. The regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the universe cannot begin to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, time is not an element of the universe. This leaves us with the second option which is, time is not an element of the universe. Time however in this picture has to have a beginning otherwise we are dealing with eternal time which is logically unacceptable.

'you' STILL REALLY BELIEVE that what is NOT 'acceptable' TO "bahman" is NOT 'logically acceptable'. Which is just FURTHER PROOF of how BELIEFS DISTORT, PREVENT, and/or STOP the ACTUAL Truth being RECOGNIZED, SEEN, and UNDERSTAND.

This is against the first premise of the Kalam argument.

The so-called "kalam argument" is NOT even a 'sound AND valid argument', and thus NOT even really worthy of being repeated.

The stuff that exists then either brought to existence by the act of creation or existed since the beginning of time. The second case is nothing but (1). I personally don't have any argument against these two cases. Therefore, God cannot be proved or disproved.

False, AND Wrong, AGAIN.

You again Age!? Just telling me that my arguments are wrong without providing any counterargument.

[Atla]

Well, if time does not have a beginning then it exists eternally. I think that is obvious.

If we include finite eternal time / finite timelessness, yes.

[bahman]

Well, if time does not have a beginning then it exists eternally. I think that is obvious.

If we include finite eternal time / finite timelessness, yes.

What do you mean by finite eternal time?

[Atla]

Well, if time does not have a beginning then it exists eternally. I think that is obvious.

If we include finite eternal time / finite timelessness, yes.

What do you mean by finite eternal time?

The universe could be boundless but finite in any dimension, including time. In fact I think it's nonsensical to use anything else as the default assumption.

[bahman]

If we include finite eternal time / finite timelessness, yes.

What do you mean by finite eternal time?

The universe could be boundless but finite in any dimension,

I agree. The universe is indeed boundless in space.

including time.

Not in time.

[Atla]

Not in time.

Why not? It's the only logical assumption as far as I can tell. (Besides as you know, there is only spacetime, it's one thing, you can't extract time from it.)

[bahman]

Not in time.

Why not? It's the only logical assumption as far as I can tell. (Besides as you know, there is only spacetime, it's one thing, you can't extract time from it.)

To be precise the spacetime is boundless. Time within spacetime has a beginning but no end.

[Atla]

Not in time.

Why not? It's the only logical assumption as far as I can tell. (Besides as you know, there is only spacetime, it's one thing, you can't extract time from it.)

To be precise the spacetime is boundless. Time within spacetime has a beginning but no end.

Ok, I disagree. Let's say the universe started with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch. The only logical view is that time is circular, one possibility is that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same point in time (no eternal return / no cyclic cosmology).

What justification is there for deviating from the above logical picture, as the default assumption?