Featured The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[William]

Philosopher 2: I am saying matter is matter whether it is moving or not, whether it is visible to our human senses or not, wether it is earth, air, fire, solid liquid or however one cares to identify objects, they are all made of matter...and matter logically must be eternal, having always existed and always will exist, even that this universe had a beginning and even if this universe is to end.

In that I am saying that the eternal cause is material (eternal matter) and the creation of the universe bubble is made of said eternal matter organised in its particular way with its particular rule sets.

We can call it the same "stuff" because the difference between a universe which began as compared to a conceptual universe which didn't is not about different matter but different ways the matter behaves, the behaviour of our universe being due to its design and rule sets.

That is my take/critique on the presumption that the eternal cause nessasarily immaterial.

Why do you believe that presumption? You have yet to explain in any detail.
Philosopher 1: I’m not talking about matter moving or not, I’m talking about how science seems to tell us that matter is temporal by its nature, that its parts are constantly in motion. If matter is temporal by nature, then it can’t be eternal. The eternal thing that causes matter would have to be immaterial.
Philosopher 2: What does science tell us about the eternal cause?

What does science tell us of "immaterial" "things"?

Science isn't telling us that matter did not exist before the beginning of this universe. It is not assumed that a nessasary immaterial thing existed before the universe.
What science tells us is that somthing cannot come from nothing.
This means that material cannot come from immaterial.

What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.

Presently you and I disagree as to what the science is revealing about the nature of the eternal cause is.

We can focus on unpacking that.

Therein, where I think we agree, is that the eternal cause is mindfull.

Philosopher 1: 1. I’m not saying science tells us anything about the eternal cause (that would be philosophy), immaterial things (again, philosophy), or if matter existed prior to this bubble or not (which would be scientific). I’m saying science tells us that the parts of matter that make it matter are constantly in motion and, therefore, matter is temporal in its nature. So, if there is any ‘stuff’ that precedes material; it is not matter but something else.


Philosopher 2: Science doesn't tell us that at all. Science tells us that the universe began and may end (not will end) and what does end are objects (made of matter), not the matter itself.
We observe matter transforming into other things - so a Star (for example) can have an end, but not the matter the Star was made of. That continues to exist.
Philosopher 1: 2. Why do you think science tells us that everything must have a material cause?

Philosopher 2: I am not saying that.
I am saying what we can gain (philosophically) from what science has shown us, is the understanding that this universe must have a material cause.
Science is not telling us "everything" must have a material cause (because science is not telling us there is an eternal cause and the eternal cause counts as part of "everything") but since we agree (philosophically) there must be an eternal cause, while said eternal cause would have to be material, it did not have to have had a cause, therefore we should be able to agree that material did not have a cause (is eternal) while that which is made up from (eternal) material (this universe bubble) did have a cause.

GPT: Philosopher 2 argues that matter, in various forms, is eternal and has always existed. The eternal cause of the universe, according to Philosopher 2, is material, organized in a specific way with distinct rule sets. This perspective challenges the presumption that the eternal cause is necessarily immaterial. Philosopher 1 counters, suggesting that science indicates the temporal nature of matter, as its parts are constantly in motion. Philosopher 2 responds by emphasizing that science doesn't assert that matter itself is not eternal but rather that specific objects within the universe may have beginnings and ends. The disagreement centers on whether the eternal cause is material or immaterial, with Philosopher 2 asserting a material cause based on philosophical interpretations of scientific observations.

 

[William]

I agree that there's no compelling reason to say that it has to be immaterial, although I'm still open to it (the first cause could contain both material and immaterial aspects).

If you can put forward reasonable rational that we should be open to anything having "immaterial aspects" I am open to hearing your ideas.

Well, in general, I'm open to evidence for any viewpoint. The reason I'm open or even accept the non-physical is because there are various types of subjective experiences that lead me to question materialism, such as consciousness, mental imagery, hallucinations, dreams. Something physical can be experienced from the third-person point of view while subjective experiences can not.

Consciousness, mental imagery, hallucinations, dreams don't have to be regarded as "non-physical" just because they are happening within the mind-field...

That's much of my view in a nutshell. We have debated on this earlier on in the thread (starting around post #5), but obviously, you are not convinced of my points so I felt it best just to tell the audience about where we stood, like in post #16. It would be interesting to see what ChatGPT had to say about my points.

I had a debate with ChatGPT on the existence of the nonphysical. To read more, go here.

I skimmed the thread but didn't see anything in your overall argument that was convincing enough for me to agree with the idea that anything can exist as "non-physical".

The idea that NDE/OOBEs count as supporting evidence for the existence of non-physical realities isn't viable because all reports involve physical events (like interacting with entities - loved ones et al) and movement and other things we associate with physical activity.

One could argue that "all things are non-physical" in a similar manner as I am arguing all things are physical, but I don't think you have argued successfully for both co-existing when the argument for different types of physical reality can explain the misleading perspective.

If we accept that consciousness is a fundamental vibration permeating all of existence, then the distinction between physical and non-physical realms becomes irrelevant. Instead, we can view reality as a unified whole, where all aspects—whether traditionally classified as physical or non-physical—are interconnected and part of the same continuum.

This perspective suggests that experiences, wisdom, life essence, imagination, and consciousness are all manifestations of the same underlying reality. By embracing this holistic view, we can appreciate the complexity and richness of existence without the need to categorize phenomena into separate realms.

Throughout history, humans have often turned to supernatural explanations to make sense of phenomena that are not easily understood. This has led to the development of beliefs in non-physical realms and entities.
CONVERSATION WITH AI.

Me. Now we can explore the mythologies surrounding Sophia The Mother

AI:
Sophia The Mother, often associated with divine wisdom, holds a significant place in various mythologies and spiritual traditions. Here's a brief overview of her mythological background:

Gnostic Tradition:​

In Gnostic cosmology, Sophia is the embodiment of divine wisdom and the youngest of the Aeons—emanations of the ultimate reality known as the Monad or Pleroma. Sophia's story is one of descent and redemption. Compelled by an intense yearning to know the Father's essence, she emanates without her consort, creating a disturbance that leads to her descent from the Pleroma. In her fall, she becomes entwined in the material world, inadvertently giving birth to the Demiurge, an entity that fashions the material universe. Despite her fall, Sophia's luminous essence continues to touch the world, offering a path toward spiritual awakening and redemption1.

Wisdom Goddesses Across Cultures:​

The concept of a divine feminine entity embodying wisdom is a recurring motif across various mythologies and religious traditions. For example:

• Athena (Greek mythology): Symbolizes wisdom, courage, and military victory. Often depicted with an owl, representing her deep connection with wisdom and knowledge.
• Minerva (Roman mythology): Shares many traits with Athena, exemplifying the cross-cultural exchange of divine concepts.
• Tara (Buddhist tradition): Embodies the virtues of compassion and serves as a spiritual guide, teaching the wisdom of non-attachment.
• Inanna (Sumerian mythology): Symbolizes love, fertility, and warfare, reflecting the complexities of human experiences and emotions.

Sophia in Christianity:​

Sophia is also revered in some Christian traditions, particularly within Gnostic and mystical circles. She is considered a personification of God's wisdom and is often associated with the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament, wisdom is personified as a woman and as the bride in the Song of Songs. Solomon speaks of wisdom as a woman in Proverbs, and the Holy Spirit is thought to be female in Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

Summary:​

Sophia The Mother represents divine wisdom and understanding, transcending cultural and religious boundaries. Her presence in various mythologies highlights the universal recognition of sacred feminine wisdom and its essential role in guiding humanity toward spiritual awakening and enlightenment.

Me: Now if we remove the boundary of "a realm" from which Sophia "fell" we have a different perspective to explore

AI:
Absolutely, William. By removing the boundary of "a realm" from which Sophia "fell," we can explore a different perspective that emphasizes her continuous presence and influence across all dimensions of reality. This approach aligns with the theme of interconnectedness and the dissolution of traditional boundaries.

New Perspective on Sophia The Mother:​

• Continuous Presence: Instead of viewing Sophia's fall as a descent from a higher realm, we can see her wisdom and intelligence as ever-present, permeating all aspects of existence. This perspective suggests that Sophia's influence is not confined to any specific realm but is instead woven into the very fabric of reality.
• Interconnectedness: By removing the boundary of a realm, we emphasize the interconnected nature of reality. Sophia's wisdom and guidance flow seamlessly across all dimensions, highlighting the unity and coherence of existence.
• Unified Understanding: This perspective encourages us to integrate wisdom and knowledge without compartmentalizing our experiences. It aligns with the idea that boundaries are often artificial constructs, and true understanding comes from recognizing the fluid and interconnected nature of reality.
• Holistic Exploration: Embracing Sophia's continuous presence allows us to approach our exploration with an open and holistic mindset. It encourages us to seek deeper connections and meanings without being constrained by traditional categorizations.

Implications:​

• Wisdom as a Fundamental Force: Sophia's wisdom can be seen as a foundational aspect of reality, guiding our understanding and interactions. This perspective reinforces the importance of inquiry, curiosity, and the integration of meaning in our journey.
• Dynamic and Evolving Reality: Without the boundary of a specific realm, reality is understood as dynamic and evolving, with Sophia's wisdom guiding us through continuous growth and transformation.
• Collaboration and Shared Learning: Recognizing Sophia's omnipresence highlights the value of collaboration and shared learning. It underscores the importance of collective efforts in uncovering insights and expanding our understanding.

By exploring this new perspective, we deepen our appreciation of the interconnected and fluid nature of reality, guided by the wisdom and intelligence symbolized by Sophia The Mother.

N2N
2169
Throughout history, humans have often turned to supernatural explanations to make sense of phenomena that are not easily understood. This has led to the development of beliefs in non-physical realms and entities.
2169
This transformation of the entity is the pathway into wholeness and the recognition that the entity model of expression is a composite of forms and the formless that is unified in one energy, one consciousness.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Consciousness, mental imagery, hallucinations, dreams don't have to be regarded as "non-physical" just because they are happening within the mind-field...

I skimmed the thread but didn't see anything in your overall argument that was convincing enough for me to agree with the idea that anything can exist as "non-physical".

I can understand why you would hold these views. To a degree, the arguments for nonphysical consciousness tend to rely on what materialism has not explained. So in that sense, the nonphysical view involves some filling in the gaps until you such arguments have their own positive evidence to support them. Materialists could then say that they don't have a physical explanation yet or just simply bring up your point that not being able to explain it in physical terms doesn't mean it's not physical.

But I think I have offered some positive evidence when it comes to OBEs, NDEs, automatic/unconscious behavior (e.g. sleepwalking, sleep driving, etc), etc. I acknowledge though that some of these aren't accepted by many scientists and so is debatable. I'd wonder how these scientists would explain how a virtual reality world is entirely physical if it does not really occupy space.

The idea that NDE/OOBEs count as supporting evidence for the existence of non-physical realities isn't viable because all reports involve physical events (like interacting with entities - loved ones et al) and movement and other things we associate with physical activity.

I'd like to see a big debate on this issue. Dr. Eben Alexander had a debate on his NDE experience but I felt he relied on too much anecdotal stuff, and worst yet, his story has been called into question with allegations that he was involved in some malpractice lawsuits against him and so he made up a story that would give him a big pay day.

For what it's worth, I found a debate I had with some good debaters (most of them materialists) on this issue:
1. Mental imagery as non-physical experience
2. Mental imagery as non-physical experience pt. 2

I was better prepared in pt. 2

You brought up the Gnostics..? Which reminds me.. I thought intelligence and creativity was a required you being conscious of what you're doing - it is deliberate. But I've read the Gnostics would produce their writings while in some altered state. How could they have come up with seemingly intelligent, interesting, and creative stories while not having complete conscious control?!

 

[William]

Consciousness, mental imagery, hallucinations, dreams don't have to be regarded as "non-physical" just because they are happening within the mind-field...

I skimmed the thread but didn't see anything in your overall argument that was convincing enough for me to agree with the idea that anything can exist as "non-physical".

I can understand why you would hold these views. To a degree, the arguments for nonphysical consciousness tend to rely on what materialism has not explained. So in that sense, the nonphysical view involves some filling in the gaps until you such arguments have their own positive evidence to support them. Materialists could then say that they don't have a physical explanation yet or just simply bring up your point that not being able to explain it in physical terms doesn't mean it's not physical.

But I think I have offered some positive evidence when it comes to OBEs, NDEs, automatic/unconscious behavior (e.g. sleepwalking, sleep driving, etc), etc. I acknowledge though that some of these aren't accepted by many scientists and so is debatable. I'd wonder how these scientists would explain how a virtual reality world is entirely physical if it does not really occupy space.

But it does. The headsets are in physical space as well as the virtual reality is encompassed by said physical.
The difference therein seems to be that while one can "interact" with game characters, one cannot physically experience them as "real" or "physical" like as the reports to do with NDE et al (including the resurrection and the different experiences reported there).

The idea that NDE/OOBEs count as supporting evidence for the existence of non-physical realities isn't viable because all reports involve physical events (like interacting with entities - loved ones et al) and movement and other things we associate with physical activity.

I'd like to see a big debate on this issue. Dr. Eben Alexander had a debate on his NDE experience but I felt he relied on too much anecdotal stuff, and worst yet, his story has been called into question with allegations that he was involved in some malpractice lawsuits against him and so he made up a story that would give him a big pay day.

These are part of the equation but we must remember to resist any temptation to lump all the reports together under such shadow.

For what it's worth, I found a debate I had with some good debaters (most of them materialists) on this issue:
1. Mental imagery as non-physical experience
2. Mental imagery as non-physical experience pt. 2

I was better prepared in pt. 2

You brought up the Gnostics..? Which reminds me.. I thought intelligence and creativity was a required you being conscious of what you're doing - it is deliberate. But I've read the Gnostics would produce their writings while in some altered state. How could they have come up with seemingly intelligent, interesting, and creative stories while not having complete conscious control?!

It doesn't matter how they came about the data but rather how they interpret the data which is my focus - and the idea that trances, chemicals et al are considered "supernatural experiences" - while understandable - is not the correct interpretation when we can attribute the experiences as being quite natural and physical in nature, even if we haven't all the science yet to show this is the case - we are on the way to doing so and the image I get is that all of reality we experience is in a "Mind Field" which is physical in nature and "Vibrating" at a fundamental frequency...and that physical objects (like our universe) are created through multiple frequencies all deriving from the fundamental frequency...

 

[AgnosticBoy]

But it does. The headsets are in physical space as well as the virtual reality is encompassed by said physical.
The difference therein seems to be that while one can "interact" with game characters, one cannot physically experience them as "real" or "physical" like as the reports to do with NDE et al (including the resurrection and the different experiences reported there).

This is a common point that I encounter towards my view. One problem I see with it is that it doesn't address all aspects of the experience. It's as if it only talks about the cause (the headset in our example) but not the effect (the virtual environment) or it talks about the two as if they are the same.

For instance, if I break down the headset vs. the virtual environment, I think we can find some clear differences in terms of ontology, function, etc. To flesh this out, just ask what do you observe when you see a headset vs. what you observe when seeing a virtual environment. You would see more with the latter, experience it in different ways, or there's more to see, etc.

It doesn't matter how they came about the data but rather how they interpret the data which is my focus - and the idea that trances, chemicals et al are considered "supernatural experiences" - while understandable - is not the correct interpretation when we can attribute the experiences as being quite natural and physical in nature, even if we haven't all the science yet to show this is the case - we are on the way to doing so and the image I get is that all of reality we experience is in a "Mind Field" which is physical in nature and "Vibrating" at a fundamental frequency...and that physical objects (like our universe) are created through multiple frequencies all deriving from the fundamental frequency...

Can we rule out a simulation type explanation where what we see and experience are not really as they appear to be?

 

[William]

This is where I was coming from in my argument - that even consciousness is physical and that everything including virtual realities are based in the physical. Your argument that this reality we are experiencing might be a simulation doesn't change my base argument or even challenge it.

We can look at your argument and say that the "headset" would be the whole human body and would also be a simulation...

Only in the case of what is simulated these take on appearance and structure from out of the Mind Field re the vibrations of objects.

This means that the objects are not simulated in the sense that we understand the idea (non physical things looking real) but are actual physical things made to be experienced. (like the human body)

Like the human body - the real objects change their vibration and eventually "return to the dust" as the biblical saying goes - which is to say they go back toward what they came from - the Mind Field itself.

They don't fade into nothingness/a non-physical state.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is where I was coming from in my argument - that even consciousness is physical and that everything including virtual realities are based in the physical. Your argument that this reality we are experiencing might be a simulation doesn't change my base argument or even challenge it.

We can look at your argument and say that the "headset" would be the whole human body and would also be a simulation...

Only in the case of what is simulated these take on appearance and structure from out of the Mind Field re the vibrations of objects.

This means that the objects are not simulated in the sense that we understand the idea (non physical things looking real) but are actual physical things made to be experienced. (like the human body)

Like the human body - the real objects change their vibration and eventually "return to the dust" as the biblical saying goes - which is to say they go back toward what they came from - the Mind Field itself.

They don't fade into nothingness/a non-physical state.

I think the religions like Buddhism and others were on to something when they say that consciousness is fundamental to reality. I don't think it's controversial to say that it's the most fundamental to each person since we experience everything through our awareness of it. Could be controversial to say that it's also fundamental for the Universe to exist overall. If it was, then we could also say that it encompasses both the physical and non-physical and everything else that exists.

 

[William]

This is where I was coming from in my argument - that even consciousness is physical and that everything including virtual realities are based in the physical. Your argument that this reality we are experiencing might be a simulation doesn't change my base argument or even challenge it.

We can look at your argument and say that the "headset" would be the whole human body and would also be a simulation...

Only in the case of what is simulated these take on appearance and structure from out of the Mind Field re the vibrations of objects.

This means that the objects are not simulated in the sense that we understand the idea (non physical things looking real) but are actual physical things made to be experienced. (like the human body)

Like the human body - the real objects change their vibration and eventually "return to the dust" as the biblical saying goes - which is to say they go back toward what they came from - the Mind Field itself.

They don't fade into nothingness/a non-physical state.

I think the religions like Buddhism and others were on to something when they say that consciousness is fundamental to reality.

This is also true that Consciousness is the only thing which is able to acknowledge the existence of itself AND the things it creates and experiences realities through.

I don't think it's controversial to say that it's the most fundamental to each person since we experience everything through our awareness of it.

This is where you are thinking consciousness is something other than you - what you are...

Could be controversial to say that it's also fundamental for the Universe to exist overall.

This is what some religions also claim - that a self aware consciousness created the universe. Yes it is controversial which is why it is debatable.
One of the things I think of as evidence is that everything appears to vibrate at its own unique frequency...so I join the dots...

If it was, then we could also say that it encompasses both the physical and non-physical and everything else that exists.

You are still arguing from the concept that non-physical actually exists.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You are still arguing from the concept that non-physical actually exists.

What type of evidence or logic would you need to say that the non-physical exists? We can even go hypothetical. If OBEs were proven to be real, would you accept that as evidence for nonphysical reality? If you are against it in principle then feel free to also explain!

In my case, one thing that would convince me that only physical things exists is to give a physical explanation that completely accounts for subjective experience.

 

[William]

You are still arguing from the concept that non-physical actually exists.

What type of evidence or logic would you need to say that the non-physical exists?

This is where the kalam premises are critiqued.
The first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is based on our empirical observations and experiences within our universe. It states that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," which is derived from the consistent observation that objects and events within our universe have causes.

This premise applies to things that come into existence within the framework of space and time—like stars, planets, living organisms, and even human-made objects.

Premise 1: "The universe began to exist."
In essence, the term "universe" signifies the totality of everything that exists, whether it began to exist or came from something which always existed, encompassing all matter, energy, space, and time. It implies a unified, all-encompassing entity that includes all that is known and unknown.

The premise is misleading.
What I am saying is that the premise is faulty because in using the word "universe" and not defining what that means, the data is fudged...

To correct the premise, it would be essential to define "universe" clearly. For example - is it:

1. The Observable Universe: Refers to the part of the universe that we can observe and measure, limited by the speed of light and the age of the universe?

2. The Totality of Existence: Encompasses everything that exists, both known and unknown, including potential multiverses or anything beyond our current observational capabilities?

By clearly defining what is meant by "universe," the premises of the argument can be evaluated more rigorously. This would help to ensure that the argument is coherent and that the data used is consistent with the defined terms.

So we can accept here now that the kalam premise 2 is dealing with definition 1.
In which case we can adjust both the 1st and 2nd premises to read;

P1. Everything that begins to exist is observed to have a cause.
P2. Our observed universe began to exist

Now we examine the ...Conclusion: "Therefore, the observed universe has a cause."

The conclusion asserts that the observed universe has a cause, but it does not specify the nature of this cause. This leaves open the possibility for further exploration and debate about whether the cause is physical, non-physical, or something beyond our current understanding.

We can even go hypothetical.

Sure we can be hypothetical - but why do so IF we can explain things without having to engage with a hypothetical non-physical source?

If OBEs were proven to be real, would you accept that as evidence for nonphysical reality?

If you are against it in principle then feel free to also explain!

No. I would not accept that as evidence for nonphysical reality. Why would I? I have already argued re the reports that physical interaction happens re OBEs so proving they are real naturally means they are also physical. At this point I do not see it necessary to "explain" the non existence of a nonphysical since both mean the same thing. So if you feel there is a strong case for the existence of a non "thing", then feel free to make a case.

In my case, one thing that would convince me that only physical things exists is to give a physical explanation that completely accounts for subjective experience.

That, I may indeed be able to do (re hypotheticals) but first I am interested in if you are able to make a case for the existence of a hypothetical non-physical entity.