The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Atla]

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

I didn't, idiot

[attofishpi]

I don't think one should consider Skeppy an idiot.



or this..

[Atla]

I don't think one should consider Skeppy an idiot.



or this..

I do

[attofishpi]

I do

I wasn't hinting at marriage!

[Atla]

I do

I wasn't hinting at marriage!

Neither was I, besides Skepdick claims to be married. I don't see how that's possible, but hey there are many strange things in this world.

[Atla]

Didn't want to be left out of the drawing competition

[attofishpi]

I like.

[VVilliam]

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.

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.

I can agree with that, if the universe made of the same stuff as the mind and did not form into functional clusters, then no beginning was had.
However, I have to acknowledge the reality of the shaping which has occurred with what we speak of as "the universe" - and why we observe that it began to do this.

The argument about experience is irrelevant because experience and existence are one and the same thing (nondual philosophy).

I have not argued that this isn't so. For example, a planet can exist and experience itself existing as a planet, but not if it is a mindless object.
My argument is that the (creator) Mind is that which does both the creating and the experiencing - not the object itself.

You just seem to be stuck in the broken Western philosophy where you link experiencing to minds.

What can experience anything without being mindful of either itself or the experience it is having?

[Atla]

I can agree with that, if the universe made of the same stuff as the mind and did not form into functional clusters, then no beginning was had.
However, I have to acknowledge the reality of the shaping which has occurred with what we speak of as "the universe" - and why we observe that it began to do this.

That's my favourite self-refuting argument. A creator-mind that had the capacity to create and shape our universe, should probably be even more complex and big than our universe, or at least live in such a superior world. So we try to postpone the problem of shaping by using even more prior shaping of the creator mind / its world. Again we can just cut that argument out.

I have not argued that this isn't so. For example, a planet can exist and experience itself existing as a planet, but not if it is a mindless object.
My argument is that the (creator) Mind is that which does both the creating and the experiencing - not the object itself.

Can also be cut out, the physical and mental are one and the same thing and we humans have also evolved minds within that. No need for a creator mind.

[VVilliam]

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.

Are you saying we (and our perceptions) in our experience as humans, are not part of "the universe"?
We know that the design of our human instruments prevent us from experiencing the universe in its entirety, so what exactly is your point here?

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).

That is the perception you are arguing is correct, right? So how do you explain a perception which cannot see the universe in all its detail, as being the correct perception?

How can you argue that the mindless "chaos" created a mindful entity which in turn made order from said chaos, is the correct way to interpret ones perceptions?

How can one even say that the period of "chaos" is actually the way it should be perceived, when - from a human perspective - it can be viewed as such, but wasn't really chaos at all?

[VVilliam]

A creator-mind that had the capacity to create and shape our universe, should probably be even more complex and big than our universe, or at least live in such a superior world.

The problem with this reasoning is that it supposed the Kalam is speaking of a supernatural thing, when all it is saying is that there must be an uncaused cause.
It is not making that assertion or any assertion about the nature of said uncaused, except to say that it was the cause of the universe.

For example the Kalam is not saying that what was caused, is (or is not) happening within the mind of the uncaused.

Thus, supernaturalism is hijacking the Kalam by superimposing its own beliefs onto what the Kalam is actually pointing out.

"Yes" there is an uncaused cause (Primary Creator Mind) and "No" - this does not mean we have to therefore believe said cause is "supernatural".

1. The Uncaused Cause of the universe, does not lead to the conclusion
2. "Therefore, the Uncaused Cause of the universe must be "supernatural".

And analogy which comes to mind re that has to do with the experience of Lucid Dreams.

When one realizes that they are within their dream this realization allows them some power to shape the experience to suit their particular desires and while they may regard their power as being "superhuman" primarily because the dream is no less real than the experience of being awake in their "normal" or "dominant" reality is, but within the Lucid Dream their abilities to shape their reality take on a superhuman quality.

However, within that state, such is "normal" and would not be regarded as "super" anything, but simply natural.

Key to this analogy, is the consciousness itself...that which is doing the experiencing.

Because of the added experience - something different is had but the difference need not be attributed to anything "supernatural" because consciousness need not be regarded (or regard itself) as being supernatural. It is the most natural thing which exists, and even whatever it creates for itself to experience, cannot be regarded as "supernatural", since the Uncaused Cause could only ever create natural things.

If we consider the Uncaused Cause to being "supernatural", we would have to consider anything it creates as also being "Supernatural".

So the argument is reduced to "what to call it" either "natural" or "supernatural" but certainly not both.

[attofishpi]

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.

Are you saying we (and our perceptions) in our experience as humans, are not part of "the universe"?
We know that the design of our human instruments prevent us from experiencing the universe in its entirety, so what exactly is your point here?

More to the point, how can you think from what I am saying that I might be suggesting our perceptual experience is not part of the universe? Of course it is!

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).

That is the perception you are arguing is correct, right? So how do you explain a perception which cannot see the universe in all its detail, as being the correct perception?

What are you talking about? I don't think you are comprehending anything I am stating.

How can you argue that the mindless "chaos" created a mindful entity which in turn made order from said chaos, is the correct way to interpret ones perceptions?

How can you argue against: God forming from chaos, in the context of a place of no logic, no causality (by random chance initially) then forming a reality we can perceive as the universe.

How can one even say that the period of "chaos" is actually the way it should be perceived, when - from a human perspective - it can be viewed as such, but wasn't really chaos at all?

Wot?

[Atla]

A creator-mind that had the capacity to create and shape our universe, should probably be even more complex and big than our universe, or at least live in such a superior world.

The problem with this reasoning is that it supposed the Kalam is speaking of a supernatural thing, when all it is saying is that there must be an uncaused cause.
It is not making that assertion or any assertion about the nature of said uncaused, except to say that it was the cause of the universe.

For example the Kalam is not saying that what was caused, is (or is not) happening within the mind of the uncaused.

Thus, supernaturalism is hijacking the Kalam by superimposing its own beliefs onto what the Kalam is actually pointing out.

"Yes" there is an uncaused cause (Primary Creator Mind) and "No" - this does not mean we have to therefore believe said cause is "supernatural".

1. The Uncaused Cause of the universe, does not lead to the conclusion
2. "Therefore, the Uncaused Cause of the universe must be "supernatural".

And analogy which comes to mind re that has to do with the experience of Lucid Dreams.

When one realizes that they are within their dream this realization allows them some power to shape the experience to suit their particular desires and while they may regard their power as being "superhuman" primarily because the dream is no less real than the experience of being awake in their "normal" or "dominant" reality is, but within the Lucid Dream their abilities to shape their reality take on a superhuman quality.

However, within that state, such is "normal" and would not be regarded as "super" anything, but simply natural.

Key to this analogy, is the consciousness itself...that which is doing the experiencing.

Because of the added experience - something different is had but the difference need not be attributed to anything "supernatural" because consciousness need not be regarded (or regard itself) as being supernatural. It is the most natural thing which exists, and even whatever it creates for itself to experience, cannot be regarded as "supernatural", since the Uncaused Cause could only ever create natural things.

If we consider the Uncaused Cause to being "supernatural", we would have to consider anything it creates as also being "Supernatural".

So the argument is reduced to "what to call it" either "natural" or "supernatural" but certainly not both.

Err no, the above reasoning was exactly NOT assuming a supernatural thing.

There's no point in ever bringing the supernatural into any debate anyway. From then on, whatever warrants an explanation, "magic duh" will do perfectly.

[attofishpi]

Err no, the above reasoning was exactly NOT assuming a supernatural thing.

There's no point in ever bringing the supernatural into any debate anyway. From then on, whatever warrants an explanation, "magic duh" will do perfectly.

lol. How can this thread avoid talking about 'divinity'?

Also, why not look beyond consideration of 'magic' to what is plausible.

[VVilliam]

If I understand the diagram, it represents the piece of the universe that we can observe.

(It is also saying that stars appeared before galaxies?)



The universe is not "outside" the creator mind. The creator mind is not "outside" the universe.