The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Age]

That's all very well but you have not provided any scientfic proof of God.

When you inform me of what God exactly is to you, only then I can provide said proof.

Saying, God is either 'divine' or 'artificial intelligence' does not really give me much to provide you with 'scientific proof'.

It does not matter what I think God is. You are the one making the claim that you can easily scientifically prove the existence of God ergo PLEASE DO.

Then, I just did.

Through, and by, 'science', what I just said and claimed here, has already been proved absolutely True

If you need further proof, then just ask for 'it'. But please do not forget that if you want proof of and/or for some 'thing', then you will have to provide what 'it' is, exactly, which you are seeking proof for.

You're just making claims without any supporting evidence.

But this is not true at all.

Also, I have not just supporting evidence but supporting proof, as well as supporting scientific proof.

As of now I have just not received from absolutely any one a clear definition of what the God word means, to them, and then asked me for 'scientific proof' for 'that thing'.

Let's see YOUR definition of God AND YOUR proof of God's existence.

Do you really still not yet know 'my' definition of the God word?

God, to me, can be understood in two senses.

1. In the visible sense, the visibly seen Universe, Itself.

2. In the invisible sense, the invisible Mind, itself.

And, the proof that the Universe, Itself, and the Mind, Itself, exists can be and is, literally, 'Self-evident', as 'I' know, without doubt, that there are thoughts or views existing, which obviously could only happen and occur If 'I/God/Universe/Mind' is existing.

There are thoughts/views, therefore 'I' exist.

What makes you think God is omniscient?

Because the actual 'Thing', which has the ability to be Omniscient, is what is sometimes referred to by the God word.

Also, and by the way, if the 'Thing', which has the ability to be Omniscient, is not some 'thing' that the God word would be referring to, then let us begin to name this 'Thing' with some other word or label.

If God is omniscient - ALL knowing including knowing every event in the future, then humans don't have free will.

Why do you say and claim this as well as presume or believe this?

Also, what do the words 'free will' even mean or are referring to here, to you, exactly?

God would also be bored out of his silicone chips.

Why would you even presume this?

HERE-NOW, at this very present moment, besides is always in a continually constant-change and so nothing is the 'same' to be bored of nor with here, the fact of how long the duration of NOW, literally, means there is no 'time' to even get nor be bored.

[Age]

I think we are talking past one another re definition of "The Universe".

Science (as far as I am aware) has not shown that energy and matter are temporal.
Therefore while we can say that there are objects formed through the "apparent" interplay, (which are altogether recognized as "The Universe" and are generally regarded as deriving from a point called the "Big Bang"...

...Scientists (and we) cannot show that the point itself didn't rest upon an eternal field of matter and that the energy which occurred and unfolded into what is currently the universe of formed-objects we are experiencing is not the expression of a mind/mindfulness and is not the same as the matter itself...Is not material...is immaterial.

(Sure - these things can be said - but cannot be shown to being the case).

For that matter, we cannot determine whether the Point is an exit or an entry.

So - sticking with what we know now, what can we agree with re the definition of "The Universe"?

You did not "quote" my post so I was not notified of your post.

As I had explained, what is the most real 'The Universe' is the scientific Universe [see below] as conditioned upon the scientific method [Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge].

But, and obviously, the actual Universe, Itself, is not and never actually 'conditioned' upon absolutely anything you human beings think nor do.

The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies. Space and time, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the Big Bang, emerged together 13.787±0.020 billion years ago,[11] and the universe has been expanding ever since. Today the universe has expanded into an age and size that is physically only in parts observable as the observable universe, which is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter at the present day, while the spatial size, if any, of the entire universe is unknown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Because at present, the scientific FSRK is the most credible, reliable and objective, there is no other non-scientific 'universe' that can claim to be more real than the scientific universe.

At present, the creationists claim their definition of 'the universe' as created by a God is the most realistic.

But this is based on a theological FSRK which is based on blind faith, thus cannot be credible, reliable and objective [say 0.01%] relative the scientific FSRK [100% as the standard].

At present, when this is being written, the "veritas aequitas's" of 'the world' claim their definition of 'the universe' as beginning and starting from absolutely nothing is the most realistic.

But this is based on a "veritas aequitas's" own framework of system and knowledge, which is based on faith and belief, alone, thus cannot be credible, reliable, nor even objective.

And, if 'I' was "veritas aequitas" then 'I' would add some completely random figures and percentages and keep trying to trick and fool others that 'I' know what I am talking about, just like "veritas aequitas" has clearly fooled and tricked "its" own 'self' to believe the very things that 'it' "itself" has made up, and is imagining is true.

As I had stated Craig's universe is that of the scientific-universe.

So, based on the above, i.e. the universe as scientific and accepted by Craig, Craig's Kalam Argument is debunked [details as above and link below]
viewtopic.php?t=41405

Your views?

My view is you never cease to Truly amaze with your faith and blindness here "veritas aequitas".

[VVilliam]

I think we are talking past one another re definition of "The Universe".

Science (as far as I am aware) has not shown that energy and matter are temporal.
Therefore while we can say that there are objects formed through the "apparent" interplay, (which are altogether recognized as "The Universe" and are generally regarded as deriving from a point called the "Big Bang"...

...Scientists (and we) cannot show that the point itself didn't rest upon an eternal field of matter and that the energy which occurred and unfolded into what is currently the universe of formed-objects we are experiencing is not the expression of a mind/mindfulness and is not the same as the matter itself...Is not material...is immaterial.

(Sure - these things can be said - but cannot be shown to being the case).

For that matter, we cannot determine whether the Point is an exit or an entry.

So - sticking with what we know now, what can we agree with re the definition of "The Universe"?

You did not "quote" my post so I was not notified of your post.

My bad.

As I had explained, what is the most real 'The Universe' is the scientific Universe [see below] as conditioned upon the scientific method [Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge].

The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies. Space and time, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the Big Bang, emerged together 13.787±0.020 billion years ago,[11] and the universe has been expanding ever since. Today the universe has expanded into an age and size that is physically only in parts observable as the observable universe, which is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter at the present day, while the spatial size, if any, of the entire universe is unknown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Because at present, the scientific FSRK is the most credible, reliable and objective, there is no other non-scientific 'universe' that can claim to be more real than the scientific universe.

At present, the creationists claim their definition of 'the universe' as created by a God is the most realistic. But this is based on a theological FSRK which is based on blind faith, thus cannot be credible, reliable and objective [say 0.01%] relative the scientific FSRK [100% as the standard].

As I had stated Craig's universe is that of the scientific-universe.

So, based on the above, i.e. the universe as scientific and accepted by Craig, Craig's Kalam Argument is debunked [details as above and link below]
viewtopic.php?t=41405

Your views?

Where I am at presently is that I now understand that the word temporal is being use to describe that which moves.

This means that particles are temporal (moving) and also even if at some point they stop moving, this does not mean that they stop existing.
From what I understand of the kalam, the idea is that there had to be an immaterial cause (which is a timeless thinking reasoning decision-making entity) to the beginning of The Universe and also that this cause was somehow able to create matter,

However, if matter is eternal (even if particles were not moving and this signified the end of The Universe), particles would still exist. So even if the science seems to be saying that the moment of the end of The Universe would be signified by the lack of temporal (moving) particles, science wouldn't be saying that would be the end of particles.

That is basically where I am at presently. I think those arguing for the kalam are saying a creator-entity would not only have to be immaterial, but also would have to be in a timeless state (thus is somehow super-to-nature) but I think if something like that existed and is timeless in an eternal state (always existing) this does not mean that it does not move or experience time, but rather that time itself is not a factor in its existence as an eternal entity. (any eternal entity whether mindful or not.)

[Age]

I think we are talking past one another re definition of "The Universe".

Science (as far as I am aware) has not shown that energy and matter are temporal.
Therefore while we can say that there are objects formed through the "apparent" interplay, (which are altogether recognized as "The Universe" and are generally regarded as deriving from a point called the "Big Bang"...

...Scientists (and we) cannot show that the point itself didn't rest upon an eternal field of matter and that the energy which occurred and unfolded into what is currently the universe of formed-objects we are experiencing is not the expression of a mind/mindfulness and is not the same as the matter itself...Is not material...is immaterial.

(Sure - these things can be said - but cannot be shown to being the case).

For that matter, we cannot determine whether the Point is an exit or an entry.

So - sticking with what we know now, what can we agree with re the definition of "The Universe"?

You did not "quote" my post so I was not notified of your post.

My bad.

As I had explained, what is the most real 'The Universe' is the scientific Universe [see below] as conditioned upon the scientific method [Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge].

The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises all of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies. Space and time, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the Big Bang, emerged together 13.787±0.020 billion years ago,[11] and the universe has been expanding ever since. Today the universe has expanded into an age and size that is physically only in parts observable as the observable universe, which is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter at the present day, while the spatial size, if any, of the entire universe is unknown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Because at present, the scientific FSRK is the most credible, reliable and objective, there is no other non-scientific 'universe' that can claim to be more real than the scientific universe.

At present, the creationists claim their definition of 'the universe' as created by a God is the most realistic. But this is based on a theological FSRK which is based on blind faith, thus cannot be credible, reliable and objective [say 0.01%] relative the scientific FSRK [100% as the standard].

As I had stated Craig's universe is that of the scientific-universe.

So, based on the above, i.e. the universe as scientific and accepted by Craig, Craig's Kalam Argument is debunked [details as above and link below]
viewtopic.php?t=41405

Your views?

Where I am at presently is that I now understand that the word temporal is being use to describe that which moves.

This means that particles are temporal (moving) and also even if at some point they stop moving, this does not mean that they stop existing.
From what I understand of the kalam, the idea is that there had to be an immaterial cause (which is a timeless thinking reasoning decision-making entity) to the beginning of The Universe and also that this cause was somehow able to create matter,

However, if matter is eternal (even if particles were not moving and this signified the end of The Universe), particles would still exist.

If particles are still existing, then, by definition, this means that the Universe did not end, at all.

Particles or matter not moving or moving makes no difference at to the Fact that the Universe is 'still existing'.

So even if the science seems to be saying that the moment of the end of The Universe would be signified by the lack of temporal (moving) particles, science wouldn't be saying that would be the end of particles.

There is no 'science' that is, nor even seems to be saying, the so-called 'end' of the Universe is signified by the lack of temporal (moving) particles.

If 'science' did even try to begin to do this, then 'science' would have to explain how 'it' defines the word 'Universe', and if that definition does not encompass all-there-is, then I would then ask 'science' what word 'it' uses, which has the definition of 'all-there-is'?

That is basically where I am at presently.

you appear to be moving away from the actual Truth of things here, rather than getting closer to 'It'.

I think those arguing for the kalam are saying a creator-entity would not only have to be immaterial, but also would have to be in a timeless state (thus is somehow super-to-nature) but I think if something like that existed and is timeless in an eternal state (always existing) this does not mean that it does not move or experience time, but rather that time itself is not a factor in its existence as an eternal entity. (any eternal entity whether mindful or not.)

The so-called 'kalem cosmological argument' is not a sound and valid argument, from the outset. Therefore, it is best not repeated, looked at, nor even discussed.

So-called 'premise' 1. and 2. failed before they even began.

If absolutely any one thinks or believes that the Universe, Itself, began, then I suggest you start presenting actual 'proof' for this view or belief of yours.

Until then the actual and irrefutable 'proof' that the Universe is eternal STANDS, and I could say 'forever'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where I am at presently is that I now understand that the word temporal is being use to describe that which moves.

This means that particles are temporal (moving) and also even if at some point they stop moving, this does not mean that they stop existing.
From what I understand of the kalam, the idea is that there had to be an immaterial cause (which is a timeless thinking reasoning decision-making entity) to the beginning of The Universe and also that this cause was somehow able to create matter,

However, if matter is eternal (even if particles were not moving and this signified the end of The Universe), particles would still exist. So even if the science seems to be saying that the moment of the end of The Universe would be signified by the lack of temporal (moving) particles, science wouldn't be saying that would be the end of particles.

That is basically where I am at presently. I think those arguing for the kalam are saying a creator-entity would not only have to be immaterial, but also would have to be in a timeless state (thus is somehow super-to-nature) but I think if something like that existed and is timeless in an eternal state (always existing) this does not mean that it does not move or experience time, but rather that time itself is not a factor in its existence as an eternal entity. (any eternal entity whether mindful or not.)

I don't follow with your argument.

Since the OP is with reference to Craig's Kalam Argument, we have to stick to it, i.e.

• 1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
  2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
  ....................................................................
  4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
  5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

I believe you do not dispute premise 1, 2 and 3?
As I had stated these are supported by science.

P4 [transcendental] cannot follow from 3 [scientific].

As you stated with reference to P4 - the Uncaused First Cause or the creator-entity;

VV "I think those arguing for the kalam are saying a creator-entity would not only have to be immaterial, but also would have to be in a timeless state (thus is somehow super-to-nature) but I think if something like that existed and is timeless in an eternal state (always existing) this does not mean that it does not move or experience time, but rather that time itself is not a factor in its existence as an eternal entity. (any eternal entity whether mindful or not.)"

You did not make an final inference from the above.

But by your description, this Uncaused First Cause or the creator-entity is immaterial, timeless super-to-nature, which mean it is outside the scope of science and experience, i.e. it is transcendental.

Since P1, 2 & 3 are within the scope science, P4 in transcendental mode cannot follow P1, 2 & 3 [scientific].

Therefore Craig Kalam's argument is not valid due to the fallacy of equivocation and conflating science with the transcendental [non-science].

Do you agree with this take?

There are other more refined counter takes to the above, I'll leave them aside at present.

[VVilliam]

I don't follow with your argument.

Since the OP is with reference to Craig's Kalam Argument, we have to stick to it, i.e.

• 1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
  2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
  ....................................................................
  4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
  5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

I believe you do not dispute premise 1, 2 and 3?
As I had stated these are supported by science.

P4 [transcendental] cannot follow from 3 [scientific].

As you stated with reference to P4 - the Uncaused First Cause or the creator-entity;

VV "I think those arguing for the kalam are saying a creator-entity would not only have to be immaterial, but also would have to be in a timeless state (thus is somehow super-to-nature) but I think if something like that existed and is timeless in an eternal state (always existing) this does not mean that it does not move or experience time, but rather that time itself is not a factor in its existence as an eternal entity. (any eternal entity whether mindful or not.)"

You did not make an final inference from the above.

But by your description, this Uncaused First Cause or the creator-entity is immaterial, timeless super-to-nature, which mean it is outside the scope of science and experience, i.e. it is transcendental.

Since P1, 2 & 3 are within the scope science, P4 in transcendental mode cannot follow P1, 2 & 3 [scientific].

Therefore Craig Kalam's argument is not valid due to the fallacy of equivocation and conflating science with the transcendental [non-science].

Do you agree with this take?

There are other more refined counter takes to the above, I'll leave them aside at present.

As they are, I can agree with all 5 points, but 4 & 5 don't require the "Uncaused First Cause Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator" has to be regarded as transcendental to the creation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't follow with your argument.

Since the OP is with reference to Craig's Kalam Argument, we have to stick to it, i.e.

• 1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
  2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
  ....................................................................
  4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
  5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

I believe you do not dispute premise 1, 2 and 3?
As I had stated these are supported by science.

P4 [transcendental] cannot follow from 3 [scientific].

As you stated with reference to P4 - the Uncaused First Cause or the creator-entity;

VV "I think those arguing for the kalam are saying a creator-entity would not only have to be immaterial, but also would have to be in a timeless state (thus is somehow super-to-nature) but I think if something like that existed and is timeless in an eternal state (always existing) this does not mean that it does not move or experience time, but rather that time itself is not a factor in its existence as an eternal entity. (any eternal entity whether mindful or not.)"

You did not make an final inference from the above.

But by your description, this Uncaused First Cause or the creator-entity is immaterial, timeless super-to-nature, which mean it is outside the scope of science and experience, i.e. it is transcendental.

Since P1, 2 & 3 are within the scope science, P4 in transcendental mode cannot follow P1, 2 & 3 [scientific].

Therefore Craig Kalam's argument is not valid due to the fallacy of equivocation and conflating science with the transcendental [non-science].

Do you agree with this take?

There are other more refined counter takes to the above, I'll leave them aside at present.

As they are, I can agree with all 5 points, but 4 & 5 don't require the "Uncaused First Cause Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator" has to be regarded as transcendental to the creation.

You did not explain further.
I believe there is a need to deliberate on what 'transcendental' means.
What is your meaning of transcendental?

In my case, transcendental as with transcendent re P4 and P5 mean the following;

• Transcendental as with transcendent.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcendent
  1a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING
  1b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
  1c : in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
  
  2 : being beyond comprehension
  3 : transcending the universe or material existence

Since we are doing philosophy, my focus would be on the Kantian meaning, i.e.
"being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge"

Kant argued rigorously, whatever is "being beyond the limits of all possible experience" i.e. a thing-in-itself is an illusion. Nevertheless, it is a useful illusion for morality and to drive science forward and I believe for therapeutic reasons.
Are you familiar with Kant's arguments [in his Critique of Pure Reason] on the above?

Kant asserted with justifications, all arguments for God existence fall with 3 ONLY, i.e. Physico [teleological], Cosmological and Ontological [there are no others] and it is impossible for them to prove God exists as real [as defined].

My point as earlier,
Since P1, 2 & 3 are within the scope science, P4 & 5 in transcendental mode cannot follow P1, 2 & 3 [scientific].
In terms of credibility and objectivity, the Scientific facts [empirical] are the most credible and objective, index at 100/100, while theological claims [blind faith] are at the other extreme, i.e. negligible objectivity and credibility [say 0.01/100].

Another point is;
Scientific facts at best are polished conjectures [Popper].
Since P1-P3 are based on more refined polished conjectures of science, the P4 and P5 that followed are lesser-polished-conjectures, and are fundamentally conjectures.
Therefore the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument above is conjectural of very low credibility and objectivity.

Your views on the above?

[VVilliam]

Do you mean transcendent as in separate immaterial, unconnected to our universe??

[VVilliam]

Do you mean transcendent as in separate immaterial, unconnected/outside of our universe??

I think more along the lines of.
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.
5. The EEMM was able to cause The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Matter which eternally vibrates (thus moves) and it is the movement in relation to the varying vibrations caused through mindfulness which causes particles to form from the eternal matter.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you mean transcendent as in separate immaterial, unconnected/outside of our universe??

Yes, transcendent means unconnected and not represented as reality to the real universe; it is only an extreme mental thought of 'unreality' in the human mind.

I modify your narrative to the following;

• I think more along the lines of.
  1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
  The above is a scientific claim, which is the MOST credible and objective mode of realization of reality and knowledge.
  ....................
  
  Then you leap from the most credible and objective basis of reality and knowledge [science] to a transcendent basis [theology] which has no [negligible] credibility and objectivity.
  
  ....................
  This is the transcendent Domain via pseudo-reasonings;
  4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
  Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.
  5. The EEMM was able to cause The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Matter which eternally vibrates (thus moves) and it is the movement in relation to the varying vibrations caused through mindfulness which causes particles to form from the eternal matter.
  6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

I presume I can add to your above;
7. The uncaused creator is God existing with its attributed features and qualities i.e. absolutely perfect, omnipotent, omni-whatever.

The question, since you are not relying on the most credible and objective scientific mode, then what mode are you relying upon to support your claim re 4, 5, 6 and also 7 that God exists as a real entity with agency?

Your EEMM [entity, matter, vibrates, mindful agent] seem a scientific possibility, if you want to to verify and justified it scientifically, then bring the empirical evidences to support it. But this is not unlikely with its attributes like absolutely perfect, omnipotent, omni-whatever, absolutely unconditional and the like.

If you think seriously, your claim of 4,5,6 & 7 is a big leap beyond experience and possible experience to some sort of la la land which cannot be verified and justified by any credible and objective system of reality and knowledge.
As such, your claim re 4,5,6 & it is at most unsupported speculations, assumptions, dogmas and if they are reified as real, they are illusions.

Your views?

[VVilliam]

If you think seriously, your claim of 4,5,6 & 7 is a big leap beyond experience and possible experience to some sort of la la land which cannot be verified and justified by any credible and objective system of reality and knowledge.
As such, your claim re 4,5,6 & it is at most unsupported speculations, assumptions, dogmas and if they are reified as real, they are illusions.

Your views?

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.
5. The EEMM was able to cause The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Matter which eternally vibrates (thus moves) and it is the movement in relation to the varying vibrations caused through mindfulness which causes particles to form from the eternal matter.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

The Kalam does not begin with the premise "The Cause must be immaterial". Nor does it make any conclusion about The Cause. It only says that The Universe has a cause.

This is a conundrum for Q-String-Theory which isn't allowing for the idea to come right out and say "the field is mindful".
Given that it "could" be mindful (as this would explain a lot) identifying the QField as "The Mindful Cause" solves a lot of problems (answers a lot of questions.)

"4. Therefore this Almighty Quantum Field (Eternal Entity) of Mindful Matter caused The Universe Big Bang and eventual bubble"

Alongside that observation, Q-String-Theory - observing the behaviours of particles at Q-levels and coming up with a theory to explain the existence of particles - presented a string-field (almighty by all accounts and unknown as to how big it is) which vibrated The Universe into existence from that initial huge event. (The Big Bang)

However, the string field behaves strangely and presented physicists with a problem as to how to refer to this string- field since the behaviour couldn't be explained the way particles are - because the behaviour was different.

Therefore, the string-field wasn't "material" in the sense that particles are understood as being material, but niether were they "immaterial".

Thus "the mystery" remains and probably will continue that way until folk start thinking about the field as being mindful and convert their thoughts and subsequent actions accordingly... ("Therefore this Almighty Quantum Field (Eternal Entity) of Mindful Matter caused The Universe Big Bang and eventual bubble")

[Advocate]

No version of god has ever been demonstrated to be possible, much less plausible, much less likely, much less actual.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you think seriously, your claim of 4,5,6 & 7 is a big leap beyond experience and possible experience to some sort of la la land which cannot be verified and justified by any credible and objective system of reality and knowledge.
As such, your claim re 4,5,6 & it is at most unsupported speculations, assumptions, dogmas and if they are reified as real, they are illusions.

Your views?

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.
5. The EEMM was able to cause The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Matter which eternally vibrates (thus moves) and it is the movement in relation to the varying vibrations caused through mindfulness which causes particles to form from the eternal matter.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

The Kalam does not begin with the premise "The Cause must be immaterial". Nor does it make any conclusion about The Cause. It only says that The Universe has a cause.

Yes, The Kalam does not begin with the premise "The Cause must be immaterial".
But is did make conclusion about The Cause [immaterial etc.]. See below;

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

Because The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig conflates the empirical [scientific] with the metaphysical, it is not valid.

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

Conclusion
On the basis, therefore, of both philosophical and scientific evidence, we have good grounds for believing that the universe began to exist. It therefore follows that the universe has a cause of its beginning.

What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.

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

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

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

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

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

You still think it is valid?

Your views?

[VVilliam]

Yes, The Kalam does not begin with the premise "The Cause must be immaterial".
But is did make conclusion about The Cause [immaterial etc.]. See below;

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

Because The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig conflates the empirical [scientific] with the metaphysical, it is not valid.

I was being specific to the 3 points re the Kalam. Whatever William Lane Craig added to that, is not "The Kalam" specifically is it?

When scientist speak of "the universe" having begun they are speaking about the Big Bang event are they not?

They are not speaking about the underlying Q-field (re string theory) when referring to "the universe".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, The Kalam does not begin with the premise "The Cause must be immaterial".
But is did make conclusion about The Cause [immaterial etc.]. See below;

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

Because The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig conflates the empirical [scientific] with the metaphysical, it is not valid.

I was being specific to the 3 points re the Kalam. Whatever William Lane Craig added to that, is not "The Kalam" specifically is it?

When scientist speak of "the universe" having begun they are speaking about the Big Bang event are they not?

They are not speaking about the underlying Q-field (re string theory) when referring to "the universe".

I was referencing to your OP;
"The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig"
To topic, W L Craig Kalam Argument is debunked due to conflation and equivocation.

I noted the original Kalam is restricted to the first 3 premises.
Btw, I understand, Al Ghazali, the originator of the basic Kalam Argument did not add further premises to claim God is the cause.
I have no problem with that since it can be verified by Cosmology, i.e. the Big Bang.
So far, what is accepted by science is the Big Bang theory, but not String Theory.
As such, there is no credibility to rely on String Theory.

Btw, I understand, Al Ghazali, the originator of the basic Kalam Argument did not add further premises to claim God is the cause.
Al Ghazali relied on the Kalam's basic premises and argue elsewhere God exists, which is then not the 'Kalam' per se. Whichever way, ultimately Al Ghazali would be guilty of the conflation and equivocation.