Featured The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[William]

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.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Are you saying that you refer to physical as "real" and non-physical as "unreal"?

Not quite. All unreal things are nonphysical but not all nonphysical things are unreal. Hallucinations are non-physical but also unreal, whereas consciousness is both non-physical and real.

Are you saying that "supernatural" (unreal) is a place-holder of some type - until more information is found?

I'm trying to avoid the supernatural and stick with what I believe is necessary to explain the universe. I don't believe the supernatural is necessary unless it's simply means existing outside the physical universe like Purple Knight suggested in one of his responses to you.

Or, I could think that the experience being had by the one experiencing it, (and reporting it) is really happening because the one experiencing it (as real) is not completely under the influence of his/her human form, which we know - limits what the person is able to experience.

I'm thinking that you are referring to something like an OBE?

.So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?

I don't even pretend to know the answer to that. At most, I think it's a perspective that is worth exploring.

I would say that consciousness is nonphysical and real. My points about the unreal are a separate example.

Why would you say that? Please explain how a (supposed) nonphysical thing can influence a physical thing. Why not suppose that consciousness is physical?

You are bringin up two issues and I don't see that one takes away from the other. What's needed for the existence of the non-physical is something that can't be observed. We're in luck with that when it comes to consciousness since it cannot be observed but it's the one thing that everyone experiences, and that alone confirms its existence. Just because we don't know anything beyond just knowing it exists doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I would say we need to study that issue more, from both ends (like putting it to physicalists to also explain that issue).

Consciousness is invisible to our senses, and I don't even believe that we can perceive our own consciousness using our senses. But we can perceive our own consciousness in other ways via experience or through introspection and meditation. Not only can we not observe someone else's consciousness but we can't even experience it.

Why suppose that? Do we not observe each others consciousness through what we do with it?
Isn't it the case that it is NOT our human sensory system which is doing any "observing" whatsoever, but the conscious self (consciousness) which is doing the observing through the device of the human experience (sensory system) and reacting et al? That which is actually having the human experience?

I don't see any room for subjectivity in your point, and although many deny the non-physical, but few would deny subjectivity. Reacting or expressing some conscious experience is one thing, but when such actions are limited to the mind, then they are not observable by others. The best scientists have done in that regard is to predict mental activity based off of brain activity which is more of an indirect observation.

If one were to argue that the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix) please agree with me that the only explanation for that would have to be "what makes something "appear to be real" has to itself be REAL.

Agreed!

And since it is consciousness which makes something "appear to be real" (re Simulation theory) then would we not be mistaken in believing that our human senses are what makes consciousness real?

Yes, I would say that consciousness can exists without the human senses. Another way to explain it is that the experience is always real even if the object of the experience is not real.

I view the unreal as just one example of nonphysical. I've also explained earlier how it could "observe" itself even without the senses

This is where you appear to be contradictory within your argument as you agree that consciousness is REAL yet argue that consciousness is also "unreal" (nonphysical) and since you have also argued that consciousness could observe (be aware of) itself "without human senses", why would you argue we cannot "observe" consciousness with human senses and thus should refer to consciousness as "nonphysical" on account of that?

In my view, just because something is nonphysical does not make it unreal. As I explained earlier in this reply, hallucinations are just one example of the non-physical.

As for your other point, I don't recall stating that we are aware of consciousness via our human senses. I brought up introspection and meditation. Consciousness can definitely be observed by not through the third-person pov nor through our senses.

I think we both agree about the "real", but we differ on the issue about the nonphysical.

Indeed. I see no reason to refer to consciousness as "nonphysical" since even if our our human senses can't know or not know that it exists and that there are other physical things which exist which cannot be directly "seen" directly through our physical sensory systems, but have been proven to exist physically through devices enabling us to do so - we need not jump the gun in assuming of all the physical things we cannot see with the naked eye - consciousness has to be the exception and thought of as "super-to-natural" rather than actually natural and thus physical for that.

Here's why I still have some doubts about that... In the example you brought up, I would think scientists would at least know how the visible physical process leads to the unobserved process. In the case of consciousness, scientists would not be able to tell that someone were conscious just by studying neural activity. The main way they know is based on their own experience and the experiences of others.

So it seems we don't agree on the nonphysical reality and perhaps the real vs. unreal. Given your natural philosophy, would you say that consciousness, (you've also called it the Universal Mind in your article) existed before the physical Universe?

 

[William]

Are you saying that you refer to physical as "real" and non-physical as "unreal"?

Not quite. All unreal things are nonphysical but not all nonphysical things are unreal. Hallucinations are non-physical but also unreal, whereas consciousness is both non-physical and real.

This is where I think differently. If something is experienced as real, why should we think it is not real, just because we are not the ones experiencing it?

Are you saying that "supernatural" (unreal) is a place-holder of some type - until more information is found?

I'm trying to avoid the supernatural and stick with what I believe is necessary to explain the universe. I don't believe the supernatural is necessary unless it's simply means existing outside the physical universe like Purple Knight suggested in one of his responses to you.

Why is something existing out this universe "necessary"?

Or, I could think that the experience being had by the one experiencing it, (and reporting it) is really happening because the one experiencing it (as real) is not completely under the influence of his/her human form, which we know - limits what the person is able to experience.

I'm thinking that you are referring to something like an OBE?

Yes. More graphically (re experience) - NDE's
By your argument, (if I am understanding it correctly) you would consider such to being "hallucination".

.So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?

I don't even pretend to know the answer to that. At most, I think it's a perspective that is worth exploring.

The answer is simple. "Myself" as a (somewhat) self-aware entity. Further to that, I do not require a human form in order to think of myself as being "real".

I would say that consciousness is nonphysical and real. My points about the unreal are a separate example.

Why would you say that? Please explain how a (supposed) nonphysical thing can influence a physical thing. Why not suppose that consciousness is physical?

You are bringin up two issues and I don't see that one takes away from the other. What's needed for the existence of the non-physical is something that can't be observed. We're in luck with that when it comes to consciousness since it cannot be observed but it's the one thing that everyone experiences, and that alone confirms its existence. Just because we don't know anything beyond just knowing it exists doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I would say we need to study that issue more, from both ends (like putting it to physicalists to also explain that issue).

I have experienced OBE and from that realised that one can exist without a body and that such are invisible to us when we are limited to access of knowledge by the human form we predominantly occupy. Such are referred to as "Ghosts" or "Souls" et al, and are thought of as being "supernatural" when the reality is that such a no more unnatural than anything else we care to talk about.

Consciousness is invisible to our senses, and I don't even believe that we can perceive our own consciousness using our senses. But we can perceive our own consciousness in other ways via experience or through introspection and meditation. Not only can we not observe someone else's consciousness but we can't even experience it.

Why suppose that? Do we not observe each others consciousness through what we do with it?
Isn't it the case that it is NOT our human sensory system which is doing any "observing" whatsoever, but the conscious self (consciousness) which is doing the observing through the device of the human experience (sensory system) and reacting et al? That which is actually having the human experience?

I don't see any room for subjectivity in your point, and although many deny the non-physical, but few would deny subjectivity.

Consciousness can only ever be subjective. The object I "see" which provides me with information that you are a conscious self aware entity, is within the medium of the interaction had between us.

Reacting or expressing some conscious experience is one thing, but when such actions are limited to the mind, then they are not observable by others. The best scientists have done in that regard is to predict mental activity based off of brain activity which is more of an indirect observation.

This isn't entirely the case as we are able to empathize. We would not be able to do so, if we were unable to observe others minds, even that this is done primarily through the medium of our human forms.
Regardless of not knowing another's intimate details, we still get the gist.

If one were to argue that the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix) please agree with me that the only explanation for that would have to be "what makes something "appear to be real" has to itself be REAL.

Agreed!

And since it is consciousness which makes something "appear to be real" (re Simulation theory) then would we not be mistaken in believing that our human senses are what makes consciousness real?

Yes, I would say that consciousness can exists without the human senses. Another way to explain it is that the experience is always real even if the object of the experience is not real.

This is what I am pointing to with my argument.
Once we each understand that we are real, even if we are experiencing a grand holographic universe which - as a medium - allows us to experience it as being real, even if it really isn't (compared to consciousness) all experience is real by the determination of consciousness saying so.

I view the unreal as just one example of nonphysical. I've also explained earlier how it could "observe" itself even without the senses

This is where you appear to be contradictory within your argument as you agree that consciousness is REAL yet argue that consciousness is also "unreal" (nonphysical) and since you have also argued that consciousness could observe (be aware of) itself "without human senses", why would you argue we cannot "observe" consciousness with human senses and thus should refer to consciousness as "nonphysical" on account of that?

In my view, just because something is nonphysical does not make it unreal. As I explained earlier in this reply, hallucinations are just one example of the non-physical.

As for your other point, I don't recall stating that we are aware of consciousness via our human senses. I brought up introspection and meditation. Consciousness can definitely be observed by not through the third-person pov nor through our senses.

I think we both agree about the "real", but we differ on the issue about the nonphysical.

Indeed. I see no reason to refer to consciousness as "nonphysical" since even if our our human senses can't know or not know that it exists and that there are other physical things which exist which cannot be directly "seen" directly through our physical sensory systems, but have been proven to exist physically through devices enabling us to do so - we need not jump the gun in assuming of all the physical things we cannot see with the naked eye - consciousness has to be the exception and thought of as "super-to-natural" rather than actually natural and thus physical for that.

Here's why I still have some doubts about that... In the example you brought up, I would think scientists would at least know how the visible physical process leads to the unobserved process. In the case of consciousness, scientists would not be able to tell that someone were conscious just by studying neural activity. The main way they know is based on their own experience and the experiences of others.

So it seems we don't agree on the nonphysical reality and perhaps the real vs. unreal. Given your natural philosophy, would you say that consciousness, (you've also called it the Universal Mind in your article) existed before the physical Universe?

My natural philosophy makes a point of saying so, although it doesn't differentiate in the same manner. "Physical" still exists, and always has existed as the mind, as it is this mind which provides the physical stuff through which the universe was created.
The universal mind is the same mind, only it is within that which it creates from itself (re experiencing the universe.)
Between states (of a prior universe before another is created) said mind is "universal" unto itself and all of this is natural. Either way, "with other things" or "without other things", all is natural.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Just so the audience knows, William and I, mostly disagree on the existence of the non-physical. My claim is not only that the nonphysical exists, but also that it existed before Big Bang (although I'm willing to accept the emergence route if it came into existence after the Big Bang - bottom line, it exists). William does not accept the existence of the nonphysical.

Not quite. All unreal things are nonphysical but not all nonphysical things are unreal. Hallucinations are non-physical but also unreal, whereas consciousness is both non-physical and real.

This is where I think differently. If something is experienced as real, why should we think it is not real, just because we are not the ones experiencing it?

I was relying on how the medical field defines 'hallucinations'. They say it's not real. The criteria seems to be that if you're experiencing it in an objective way (perhaps seeing someone standing in your room), but it's not really objective (only you can see it), then that is not real. If you disagree, you'd have to come up with a criteria to distinguish between real and unreal.

Actually, just read your criteria because it was towards the end of your posts...

This is what I am pointing to with my argument.
Once we each understand that we are real, even if we are experiencing a grand holographic universe which - as a medium - allows us to experience it as being real, even if it really isn't (compared to consciousness) all experience is real by the determination of consciousness saying so.

And I agree. That's a very good observation. Ultimately, it seems that we decide.

I'm trying to avoid the supernatural and stick with what I believe is necessary to explain the universe. I don't believe the supernatural is necessary unless it's simply means existing outside the physical universe like Purple Knight suggested in one of his responses to you.

Why is something existing out this universe "necessary"?

Something or someone would've had to cause the Bang, that the Big Bang theory says happened. I thought you accepted that the Universe began to exist.

I'm thinking that you are referring to something like an OBE?

Yes. More graphically (re experience) - NDE's
By your argument, (if I am understanding it correctly) you would consider such to being "hallucination".

I wouldn't consider it hallucination because there is a key difference. I take into account when and how someone is claiming to experience something. The NDEr says that it occurs outside of the body. Those going through hallucinations will tell you that it's in the body, which if the case, everyone would see it the same way.

Of course, I wouldn't label mental images and dreams as hallucinations because of the way they are being experienced. If those are hallucinations then scientists would have to agree that everyone hallucinates most of their lives. I doubt they want to go to that conclusion.

.So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?

I don't even pretend to know the answer to that. At most, I think it's a perspective that is worth exploring.

The answer is simple. "Myself" as a (somewhat) self-aware entity. Further to that, I do not require a human form in order to think of myself as being "real".

I agree with your answer and it's probably the one thing that you can confirm the most. I've only brought up the things appearing to be physical in a theoretical sense.

You are bringin up two issues and I don't see that one takes away from the other. What's needed for the existence of the non-physical is something that can't be observed. We're in luck with that when it comes to consciousness since it cannot be observed but it's the one thing that everyone experiences, and that alone confirms its existence. Just because we don't know anything beyond just knowing it exists doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I would say we need to study that issue more, from both ends (like putting it to physicalists to also explain that issue).

I have experienced OBE and from that realised that one can exist without a body and that such are invisible to us when we are limited to access of knowledge by the human form we predominantly occupy. Such are referred to as "Ghosts" or "Souls" et al, and are thought of as being "supernatural" when the reality is that such a no more unnatural than anything else we care to talk about.

Agreed. Found a better way to make my point... Not knowing how or why something works does not mean it doesn't exist. I started a thread about skepticism and I think a lot of skeptics dismiss claims because they can't use the current paradigm, or their preferred paradigm, to explain how it works.

Why suppose that? Do we not observe each others consciousness through what we do with it?
Isn't it the case that it is NOT our human sensory system which is doing any "observing" whatsoever, but the conscious self (consciousness) which is doing the observing through the device of the human experience (sensory system) and reacting et al? That which is actually having the human experience?

I don't see any room for subjectivity in your point, and although many deny the non-physical, but few would deny subjectivity.

Consciousness can only ever be subjective. The object I "see" which provides me with information that you are a conscious self aware entity, is within the medium of the interaction had between us.

Got it. If the focus is only on awareness than I agree. You can tell that I'm aware based on our interaction. But I addressed this point in a previous reply to you:

Reacting or expressing some conscious experience is one thing, but when such actions are limited to the mind, then they are not observable by others. The best scientists have done in that regard is to predict mental activity based off of brain activity which is more of an indirect observation.

This isn't entirely the case as we are able to empathize. We would not be able to do so, if we were unable to observe others minds, even that this is done primarily through the medium of our human forms.
Regardless of not knowing another's intimate details, we still get the gist.

Empath?! I think we probably disagree about the way we empathize. I think the one way we do it is when we've been in the situation ourselves. So when we see someone else in that same situation, we're able to more or less, experience the same feelings by remembering how we felt in that situation. I don't see that as being able to observe minds or as telepathy of some sort.

But then again, would the existence of telepathy show that thoughts and consciousness are physical?

Given your natural philosophy, would you say that consciousness, (you've also called it the Universal Mind in your article) existed before the physical Universe?

My natural philosophy makes a point of saying so, although it doesn't differentiate in the same manner. "Physical" still exists, and always has existed as the mind, as it is this mind which provides the physical stuff through which the universe was created.
The universal mind is the same mind, only it is within that which it creates from itself (re experiencing the universe.)
Between states (of a prior universe before another is created) said mind is "universal" unto itself and all of this is natural. Either way, "with other things" or "without other things", all is natural.

Got it!

 

[William]

From another thread in another forum

[Replying to The Tanager in post #139]

The first 3 premises of what I am arguing truly are:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning
2. The universe (i.e., all spatio-temporal matter/energy) began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

So, if you want to disagree with me, you have to disagree with those premises, not the ones you offered as what I’m arguing.

No. As I pointed out, while you claim you are auguring from those particular premises, you have had to change the wording.

In changing the wording, you have changed the premises and are now arguing from those changed premises.

You are correct that the non-natural nature of this cause isn’t in the first 3 premises. It does come prior to arguments for the personal nature of that cause, but for some reason in my head I formulated that as coming in the first 3 premises. That was wrong. However, it’s still not an assumption, but logical analysis. The cause of all natural things logically cannot be natural itself because self-causation is logically impossible.

No - as I pointed out, the material causation of functional forms is not "self caused" just because it was caused by the Uncaused.
The cause of the Uncaused material forming into any temporal universe is logically possible (as I have shown in many posts here in this message board, including those in this thread) if there is no distinction made between the mind and the matter. Since there is no necessity to treat mind as "non-physical", the distinction is fictional, and thus any logic derived from that path, has come about through a fictional assumption rather than from fact, and as such, only appears logical once the changes in the premises are made/once the premises are added to.

As to your explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural, you are just explaining what your conclusion is, not explaining the reasoning that gets one to that conclusion.

What "explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural"? Why make a comment about what I supposedly explained is simply a conclusion without explanation as to why the conclusion was made? Why not use the "quote" function provided to show the reader what it is you are otherwise simply implying I am doing/have done?

As to your explanation of why natural things can’t have non-natural effects (or vice versa), your reasoning simply isn’t good. Your statement that human beings have no non-natural effects, even if true, doesn’t prove this because there could be non-human natural things that could have non-natural effects.

My statement is true. If you believe my argument isn't true, on what basis and what counter-argument do you base your critique on? There cannot be a basis for prioritizing an unknown non-human natural thing which "could" have "non natural effects", because - as was pointed out - human beings are a sufficient example of that which is part of the universe (natural) and what they produce naturally from natural resources without ever having to resort to being enabled doing such "because of Santa's little helpers" or any such other thing which "could" have happened.

Even if we accept that "God and the Angels" are mythological metaphor for Aliens, (Extraterrestrial not extra-natural/supernatural) we still have to assume the natural logic that whatever amazing evidence they could show us, would necessarily have to be considered natural/naturally devised or otherwise prove that they are not.

Therefore, until such evidence for the existence of a supernatural First Cause is shown, it is logical to assume that the Uncaused First Cause, is natural, and everything which derives from said source is also natural.

Now, of course, this isn’t an argument for natural things definitely being able to have non-natural effects (or vice versa), but that doesn’t mean the default is that they don’t.

Yes it does. That is exactly what it means. The default has to be that the Uncaused Cause has to be Primarily Natural. Fundamentally so. The Primary Natural Source of all else that is (also) natural, even if such creations are only temporary.

One might argue that since a temporal universe is - by its nature - temporary and "therefore" "natural" and from this premise declare that this means the Uncaused Cause is therefore "supernatural" (because it is eternal) such reasoning is cart before the horse and thus not logical.

Even that one argues that a temporal creation must be referred to as a "natural creation" in order to then declare that a supernatural creator must have created it, one has to avoid admitting the referring to an temporal thing as "natural" is misplaced/illogical because the better argument is that IF the Uncaused is Natural (and it must be since it has always existed) THEN anything the
Uncaused creates which is temporal (not eternal) would at least first have to be seen (in comparison) as "unnatural or non natural", so there is still no requirement to conjure any fictional concept as "super" natural and claim it is the logical conclusion which flows from the 3 premises being discussed.

To shift the burden on your opponent to prove your view wrong is just that: shifting the burden, which is fallacious reasoning. You have claimed that the effect must be the same ‘stuff’ as the cause. Support that positive claim.

I have not shifted any burden as I am simply pointing out how supernaturalists have superimposed their fictional beliefs onto the premises. I am proving through logic that my view is correct in relation to the premises and it is up to you to critique what I offer with the same requirement re burden for your own reasoning.

If you cannot or will not do so, then just say so. There is no need for you to fallaciously argue that I am expecting you to prove my view wrong when in actuality, the burden is on you to show - in comparison - why your view is right and if you cannot do so - then just say so.

I have shown that my view is better than the view of supernaturalists. Therefore there is no burden on you to show it for me, but to show logically that your view is the better and the one which should be accepted.

SOURCE

 

[AgnosticBoy]

@William

That was a good exchange dealing with the nature of the Universe. You definitely did a good job exposing an assumption made regarding the supernatural being imposed on Kalam's argument. Here's more context I can provide to the audience regarding your view:

No - as I pointed out, the material causation of functional forms is not "self caused" just because it was caused by the Uncaused.
The cause of the Uncaused material forming into any temporal universe is logically possible (as I have shown in many posts here in this message board, including those in this thread) if there is no distinction made between the mind and the matter.

[emphasis added]

Here's where William gives his reasoning:

[Replying to The Tanager in post #134]
Why must things that are not caused be natural, i.e., made of natural 'stuff' like atoms and the like?

This has been explained. In short, it must be the case that the stuff of the universe we know about (atoms and the like) derive from the uncaused being, have always existed and - in the case of our current universe - are organized (mindfully) to create those particular forms and related function of said universe.

The material doesn't "disappear" at the conclusion of a universe. It is reconstituted and from that stuff, another universe is created.

Whatever Cause we select would also have to be capable of creating conscious agents...for that is what we are, as we can see. So the creation of things like personhood, identity, soul, self, intelligence, rationality, science, knowledge, thought, awareness and moral conscience would all have to be derived from this Cause, ultimately.

Yes, and included in that is physical stuff. If matter can only derive from said source, then said source must be natural (material) made up of physical stuff. Therefore "natural" not "supernatural". Inside the nature of itself rather than outside of the nature of itself.

A slight difference in my view is that I don't believe that non-physical has to be associated with the supernatural. For instance, I think hallucinations are non-physical but aren't supernatural. However, I tend to agree with William that a non-physical consciousness poses problems when it comes to explaining the mind-brain interaction. I remain agnostic on that issue, but William has formulated his own view, Bridging Natural Philosophy.

 

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #141]

Let me reverse the second question: If a universe could come into being from God, why doesn't it happen today? It's the same set of answers. It's the same set of objections.

No, it’s not the same. A personal cause (which we eventually connect with our label God) has free will and can choose whether to create new energy/matter or not. There is no property about nothingness and no constraint on nothingness to explain why it only happened once and never again.

Personality 1: Interesting reversal. So, the suggestion is that a personal cause, like God, has the freedom to choose when to create a universe, and that's why it doesn't happen repeatedly. But couldn't we argue that if a personal cause has the freedom to choose, then it could have chosen to create universes continuously? What constrains or guides this decision?

Personality 2: It seems you're implying a certain level of unpredictability or lack of constraints on the actions of a personal cause. But wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God, by definition, have complete knowledge and control over every aspect of creation? If so, why would such a being choose to create a universe only once and not repeatedly?

Personality 3: Good point. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, the idea of a one-time creation event raises questions about the motivations and intentions behind that choice. It also brings up the issue of why an omnipotent being would create a universe with specific properties and laws, rather than in a more varied or frequent manner.

Personality 4: Perhaps the constraints on God's actions are inherent in the nature of God itself. If God is defined by certain attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, then maybe there are inherent limitations that guide the decisions of this being. But it still leaves us with the question of why those particular limitations and why a singular act of creation.

Personality 5: Agreed. The nature of God and the reasons behind a singular act of creation remain complex and open to interpretation. It seems like we're delving into the realms of theology, philosophy, and metaphysics, where answers might not be readily available or universally agreed upon.

Personality 6: True. These are age-old questions that have puzzled thinkers for centuries, and perhaps the mystery and ambiguity surrounding the nature of God and creation are inherent to the human experience.

Personality 7:. Perhaps the problem is in the initial definitions of matter mind and energy. Perhaps if God were reconstituted as being made up of matter mind and energy, we could answer these questions better?

Personality 8: That's an intriguing perspective. If we redefine God as being composed of matter, mind, and energy, it might provide a different framework for understanding the questions surrounding creation. How would this reinterpretation alter our understanding of God's actions and the nature of the universe?

Personality 9: It could potentially address the issue of why God might choose to create a universe only once. If God is comprised of matter, mind, and energy, then the act of creation might be an inherent and continuous aspect of God's nature. The limitations or constraints we brought up earlier could be redefined within the context of God's own composition.

Personality 10: This redefinition could also offer a way to explain the specific properties and laws of the universe. If God is made up of matter, mind, and energy, perhaps the characteristics of our universe are reflections of the inherent qualities of God's composition.

Personality 11: However, it still leaves us with the question of why God, in this redefined form, would create a universe with these particular attributes and not others. What drives the choices made by a God composed of matter, mind, and energy, and how do these choices align with the experiences and perceptions of sentient beings within the created universe?

Personality 12: It's an interesting avenue to explore, and it brings us back to the fundamental questions about the nature of God and creation. Redefining God's composition may open new possibilities for understanding, but it also introduces a new set of complexities and mysteries.

Personality 13: Perhaps our exploration of these questions will always be limited by the inherent ambiguity of the subject matter. The nature of God, the origin of the universe, and the purpose behind it all may remain elusive, inviting continued contemplation and philosophical inquiry.

Personality 14: Indeed, the reconstitution of God's nature as matter, mind, and energy offers a fresh perspective, but it also underscores the profound depth of the mysteries we're attempting to unravel. As we navigate these questions, we may find that the quest for understanding leads us to even more profound and intricate inquiries.

Personality 15:. Since we now have an object - The Universe - as a solid dependable guide we can reframe the question in a way which acknowledges the overall object as "an expression of God" and focus on answering the question - which essentially is "why would ANYONE who could do so, create this particular universe the way that it is" thus reducing the need to hypothesis "other" possible Universes?

Personality 16: That's an interesting shift in perspective. By considering the universe itself as an expression of God, we can redirect our focus toward understanding why this particular universe exists in its current form. It reduces the need to speculate about the possibility of other universes and brings us closer to examining the intricacies of the one we inhabit.

Personality 17: It also aligns with the idea that everything within the universe, including its properties and laws, is an expression of the inherent qualities of God. This approach may provide a more cohesive framework for exploring the motivations and intentions behind the act of creation.

Personality 18: Instead of questioning why God, in a redefined form of matter, mind, and energy, would create different universes, we can delve into the specific characteristics of our universe and seek a deeper understanding of how they reflect the nature of God.

Personality 19: This reframing could potentially lead to a more nuanced exploration of the relationship between the divine and the observable universe. It allows us to consider the universe as a meaningful and purposeful expression of God, prompting us to contemplate the intricacies and meaning embedded within our own existence.

Personality 20: However, it doesn't necessarily eliminate the mystery. We still face the challenge of discerning the motivations behind the creation of this particular universe, understanding why certain properties and laws were chosen, and how they contribute to the overall purpose, if any.

Personality 21: Perhaps this approach invites us to appreciate the universe as a profound manifestation of the divine, encouraging us to explore the depths of its complexity and significance without necessarily expecting to uncover all the answers.

Personality 22: Indeed, reframing the question in this way opens up a rich avenue for philosophical and theological exploration. The universe as an expression of God invites us to contemplate the divine essence woven into the fabric of reality, embracing the inherent mysteries that come with such contemplation.

Personality 23: As we continue our journey into these profound inquiries, we may find that the answers lie not only in the external exploration of the cosmos but also in the internal reflections on the nature of our existence and our relationship with the divine.

 

[William]

It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

Agreed.
Any definition of "The Universe" which is not scientific knowledge - including the one you are using/wanting to use, should thus be placed aside because of that rule-set.

The definition "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is breach of rule-set as it has within it's phrasing the word "temporal" which is an answer to whether The Universe is "eternal" or "temporal" - (in this case the answer being "temporal".)

Since it is the case that such is not scientific knowledge, "The Universe" cannot be further clarified in its meaning, (re the rule-set) and therefore can only be taken at face value (simply referred to as "The Universe") re the 3 premises being discussed.

This being the case, the second premise (2. The Universe began to exist) having not yet been established, is a false premise and thus, the third premise (3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.) cannot be determined as a logical conclusion.

SOURCE
I would say that what is going on here are two distinct philosophical arguments.

On the one hand, the supernaturalist premises;

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.

And on the other hand, the following.

1. The Universe exists

2. It is unknown that The Universe began to exist.

3: It is unknown if an uncaused being caused The Universe to exist.

4: Therefore, The Universe can be regarded as The Uncaused Being.

Given that these are philosophical musings, they should hold equally to the same rule-set and therein neither should be granted a double standard pass.

This is to acknowledge that the rule-set should apply to both philosophical positions, rather than favor the one over the other.
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

 

[William]

You are correct that we should be more exact with the terms, since ‘temporal’ has different meanings.

Temporary simply means Temporal/Temporal simply means Temporary.

The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

In what way do we observe this phenomena?

It does not refer to whether it had a beginning or is beginningless (maybe those should be the terms used instead of eternal/temporal in the question we are not trying to beg).

Indeed - it could be argued that the phenomena observed (whatever these might be) consist of beginnings and ends.

For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (begin exists and end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

SOURCE

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Personality 9: It could potentially address the issue of why God might choose to create a universe only once. If God is comprised of matter, mind, and energy, then the act of creation might be an inherent and continuous aspect of God's nature. The limitations or constraints we brought up earlier could be redefined within the context of God's own composition.

Personality 18: Instead of questioning why God, in a redefined form of matter, mind, and energy, would create different universes, we can delve into the specific characteristics of our universe and seek a deeper understanding of how they reflect the nature of God.

I like those two points. They are points that don't veer too far off from what we do know. Introducing a lot of things that we don't know, which presumably come from religion, increases the chances of being wrong, imo.

As another point, I also find it interesting that the earlier religions or conceptions of God tended to identify God with the Universe (pantheism?) or some aspect of it. As religion begin to develop more, the concept of God became more specific.