The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[bahman]

Where is it objective, and from whose perspective?

Where? Could you please rephrase?

It's your game buddy

Spacetime is a substance, or in other words, exists and has properties. In this sense is objective.

[VVilliam]

I'm exactly not talking about cycles and spiralic time. Read back if you want. And no creation of course, if people are psychologically dependent on the idea of a Creator then they can just believe in it without trying to pretend to do so out of a need to be logical.

There is good logical reason for accepting that the universe is a mindful creation, but not so much that the mind which created it, has to be "supernatural".

What's the good logical reason? Imo logically the first cause argument just leads to infinite regress - who created the creator, and who created that, and so on.

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

[Atla]

There is good logical reason for accepting that the universe is a mindful creation, but not so much that the mind which created it, has to be "supernatural".

What's the good logical reason? Imo logically the first cause argument just leads to infinite regress - who created the creator, and who created that, and so on.

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

[Iwannaplato]

What's the good logical reason? Imo logically the first cause argument just leads to infinite regress - who created the creator, and who created that, and so on.

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

Of we could have many uncaused creator minds. Or the uncaused whatever has always been making this universe. It wouldn't need a beginning, it could always have had uncaused maintenance. Or, as you say it could be uncaused itself. Where in the rules does it say, it has to be a deity. The whole idea that some miracle happens. How could we in our limited knowledge say it only happened once or only conscious miracles can happen?

And anyone who says it must have been a deity, should they join the omnipotent club, why couldn't such a deity make a universe that always was?

Or why must it/they be conscious?

And so on. I mean, sure we can open to door, but once that door is open, let's not pretend we know what can and can't be on the other side, like these guys are.

[Atla]

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

Of we could have many uncaused creator minds. Or the uncaused whatever has always been making this universe. It wouldn't need a beginning, it could always have had uncaused maintenance. Or, as you say it could be uncaused itself. Where in the rules does it say, it has to be a deity. The whole idea that some miracle happens. How could we in our limited knowledge say it only happened once or only conscious miracles can happen?

And anyone who says it must have been a deity, should they join the omnipotent club, why couldn't such a deity make a universe that always was?

Or why must it/they be conscious?

And so on. I mean, sure we can open to door, but once that door is open, let's not pretend we know what can and can't be on the other side, like these guys are.

Exactly.

[VVilliam]

What's the good logical reason? Imo logically the first cause argument just leads to infinite regress - who created the creator, and who created that, and so on.

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

No we cannot because then we are stuck with thinking therefore that the universe didn't begin/have a beginning. It came forth from the stuff of itself, (physical) and always has been mindful, (the mind is physical) even that the functional forms themselves come and go, they are created by the creator-mind, are made of condensed material of the mind and beginnings and ends only signify the "universe" created and experience by the mind which created them is temporal, whereas the mind which created the universe is eternal.

In this way it can be acceptable that infinite regress (and infinite progress) consist of uncounted/uncountable creations (universes) which have beginnings and ends which the eternal creator-mind has, does and will always experience...one after the other...and this has been happening eternally and will continue to happen eternally...as it is the beginnings and ends which allow for said regress and progress to not be a contradiction.

iow - there has and will always exist the one creator mind, but there is no limit on the number of universes coming and going.

[Iwannaplato]

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

No we cannot because then we are stuck with thinking therefore that the universe didn't begin/have a beginning. It came forth from the stuff of itself, (physical) and always has been mindful, (the mind is physical) even that the functional forms themselves come and go, they are created by the creator-mind, are made of condensed material of the mind and beginnings and ends only signify the "universe" created and experience by the mind which created them is temporal, whereas the mind which created the universe is eternal.

In this way it can be acceptable that infinite regress (and infinite progress) consist of uncounted/uncountable creations (universes) which have beginnings and ends which the eternal creator-mind has, does and will always experience...one after the other...and this has been happening eternally and will continue to happen eternally...as it is the beginnings and ends which allow for said regress and progress to not be a contradiction.

iow - there has and will always exist the one creator mind, but there is no limit on the number of universes coming and going.

So, this creator mind has limited power?

[attofishpi]

What's the good logical reason? Imo logically the first cause argument just leads to infinite regress - who created the creator, and who created that, and so on.

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

I believe God not to be the creator of everything, but certainly our perceivable reality. To address the infiinite regress paradox for a creator God, I think God formed from chaos, in context of a place of no logic, ergo no causality. Eventually God formed from chaos it's own intelligence, which could be explained by the caveat of random chance, and from there formed the logic indeed, the physical properties of our perceivable reality.
Hence, one cannot infinitely regress through to the start of God, since that would require regressing through chaos, a place of no logic and thus no causality.

[VVilliam]

So, this creator mind has limited power?

No. Rather it limits its power for the purpose/in direct relationship to the universe it creates and experiences.

Even so, by the look of things, the power could be regarded as almighty in the same way as the universe can be regarded as almighty...from a human perspective at least.

[VVilliam]

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

I believe God not to be the creator of everything, but certainly our perceivable reality. To address the infiinite regress paradox for a creator God, I think God formed from chaos, in context of a place of no logic, ergo no causality. Eventually God formed from chaos it's own intelligence, which could be explained by the caveat of random chance, and from there formed the logic indeed, the physical properties of our perceivable reality.
Hence, one cannot infinitely regress through to the start of God, since that would require regressing through chaos, a place of no logic and thus no causality.

The God-idea you believe in and describe would be how the uncaused mind inhabits a thing it creates. It has always been eternally mindful, whereas each universe it chooses to create and experience (through the act of creation itself) have not only never existed before, but have never been mindfully experienced.

The impression we (from our point of observation) would be that "eventually God formed from chaos it's own intelligence", but we would be incorrect about that, as it still does not explain how the universe was caused - by nothing more than the magic of supposed/assumed "random chance" - a mindful God mindlessly created by a mindless thing, which in turn mindfully created this universe.

[Atla]

Your opinion is skewered because the Uncaused Cause (argument) is logical and does not fall down the rabbit hole of infinite regression, since the argument posits an uncaused creator-mind.

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

No we cannot because then we are stuck with thinking therefore that the universe didn't begin/have a beginning. It came forth from the stuff of itself, (physical) and always has been mindful, (the mind is physical) even that the functional forms themselves come and go, they are created by the creator-mind, are made of condensed material of the mind and beginnings and ends only signify the "universe" created and experience by the mind which created them is temporal, whereas the mind which created the universe is eternal.

In this way it can be acceptable that infinite regress (and infinite progress) consist of uncounted/uncountable creations (universes) which have beginnings and ends which the eternal creator-mind has, does and will always experience...one after the other...and this has been happening eternally and will continue to happen eternally...as it is the beginnings and ends which allow for said regress and progress to not be a contradiction.

iow - there has and will always exist the one creator mind, but there is no limit on the number of universes coming and going.

Again an illogical, self-refuting argument. If the creator mind is allowed to not begin / not have a beginning, then so can the universe be allowed. Same thing.

The argument about experience is irrelevant because experience and existence are one and the same thing (nondual philosophy). You just seem to be stuck in the broken Western philosophy where you link experiencing to minds.

[Iwannaplato]

So, this creator mind has limited power?

No. Rather it limits its power for the purpose/in direct relationship to the universe it creates and experiences.

If you don't limit its power, then you cannot know 1) what it could have made as the rules 2) if the universe has always been here or not - since it could have made it any way it wanted 3) the limits that deity has placed on what you can imagine is possible.

There can be a lack of humility on the side of scientists and their faith in induction and the knowledge it has produced, when they estimate what they can rule out.

There can be a lack of humility on the side of theists and their faith in deduction and the knowledge it can produce, when they estimate what they can rule out.

And you and IC are ruling things out with precisely the same kind of lack of humility those scientists show when - those who do - they rule out the possiblity of a deity.

Ontology may be much weirder, harder to comprehend then those with a lack of humility realize.

[attofishpi]

Which is a self-refuting illogical argument because if something uncaused is allowed, then we can just cut out the creator part and say that the universe is uncaused.

I believe God not to be the creator of everything, but certainly our perceivable reality. To address the infiinite regress paradox for a creator God, I think God formed from chaos, in context of a place of no logic, ergo no causality. Eventually God formed from chaos it's own intelligence, which could be explained by the caveat of random chance, and from there formed the logic indeed, the physical properties of our perceivable reality.
Hence, one cannot infinitely regress through to the start of God, since that would require regressing through chaos, a place of no logic and thus no causality.

The God-idea you believe in and describe would be how the uncaused mind inhabits a thing it creates. It has always been eternally mindful, whereas each universe it chooses to create and experience (through the act of creation itself) have not only never existed before, but have never been mindfully experienced.

However, I didn't I state it (God) created a universe, I said it created our perceivable reality and I certainly don't think we can perceive the entire universe.

The impression we (from our point of observation) would be that "eventually God formed from chaos it's own intelligence", but we would be incorrect about that, as it still does not explain how the universe was caused - by nothing more than the magic of supposed/assumed "random chance" - a mindful God mindlessly created by a mindless thing, which in turn mindfully created this universe.

..no, which in turn mindfully created what we perceive of the universe, not necessarily that this entity created the universe, but that it formed from the early chaos of it (the universe).

[Skepdick]

Again an illogical, self-refuting argument. If the creator mind is allowed to not begin / not have a beginning, then so can the universe be allowed. Same thing.

Don't you get dizzy going round and round in circle, re-defining the bounadries of "the universe" to fit your reasoning?

universe.jpg

god-universe.jpg

[attofishpi]

..Or, it could be this:-->

-