The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Age]

The premises used only mentioned "uncaused cause" which we know in some theist circles means the omni-God idea that you argue cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
However, an uncaused cause does not have to mean "an Omni God".

How does your argument deal with that?

I don't see the Kalam concludes with an "uncaused cause"
but only conclude,
there is a cause to the beginning of the universe.

Those who argue for an uncaused cause from the Kalam is taking a metaphysical and ontological leap into la la land.

But to conclude that there was 'a cause' to the whole Universe, Itself, is not, in what you would say, 'a leap into la la land', right "veritas aequitas"?

As can be clearly seen here, these people, back then, really were living not in actual Reality but in some kind of 'land' or 'world'.

The misinterpretation of the words, 'In the beginning', in just one book alone caused thousands of years of human beings living in some made up version of 'reality', which never even fitted in with the actual and irrefutable 'Reality' at all.

If you read Craiq's argument, he extended with premises to include a claim for a personal God.

The majority of theists are from the Abrahamic religions, their holy texts dictate their God therein is an omni-God.
Whilst the Hindus and others like pantheist's and panentheists' God are claimed to omnipresent.
So the refutation that God exists as real is effective for the majority of theists.

Just so you become aware "veritas aequitas", before absolutely anyone could actually refute the idea that God exists that one would have to provide a definition for the God word, which, by the way, would have to be in acceptance and in agreement with others.

So, 'we' await for 'your definition' of the God word, before we could even begin to 'see' what you claim you have refuted, forever. [/quote]

But, considering the irrefutable Fact that you are completely CLOSED here, you will never get to 'see' and understand this, let alone do what is actually necessarily needed in the 'refuting' and/or 'verifying' of absolutely any thing.

It is only a minority who do not claim a non-omni-God which are inferior, thus are not of significant concern.
I have not come across arguments that insist Zeus, Poseidon and other minor gods from all over the world exist as real.

[Age]

Here is how we can expose the fallacy:

Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the [scientific] universe began to exist, then the [scientific] universe has a [scientific] cause of its [scientific] beginning.
2. The [scientific] universe began to exist [scientifically] .
3. Therefore, the [scientific] universe has a cause of its [scientific] beginning

So, well supposedly to this one, how to expose 'the fallacy' is by using a False premise.

The absolute absurdity that used to go on, back in the days when this was being written, seemed never ending.

...................................................................
4. which is an Uncaused First Cause [unscientific] as
5. A Personal Being [unscientific] with [unscientific]Freedom of the Will -a [unscientific]Personal Creator

the .............. line represent that deceptive big leap from the scientific FSK into the theological FSK of la la land.

The, so-called, 'la la land', or faulty thinking, began with and at the very first so-called 'premise' here.

These people, back then, seemed to not fully comprehend and understand that for a Truly 'sound and valid argument', which are again the only arguments Truly worthy of being presented and repeated, all 'premises' have to be actually Factual, and not what are just thought, just presumed, nor just believed to be true.

[Age]

The premises used only mentioned "uncaused cause" which we know in some theist circles means the omni-God idea that you argue cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
However, an uncaused cause does not have to mean "an Omni God".

How does your argument deal with that?

I don't see the Kalam concludes with an "uncaused cause"
but only conclude,
there is a cause to the beginning of the universe.

Actually I was incorrect re the premises mentioning an uncaused cause, but I think I am correct that the Kalam has evolved re the premises to conclude that there is an uncaused cause re the presumption the universe began.

Those who argue for an uncaused cause from the Kalam is taking a metaphysical and ontological leap into la la land.

Perhaps - but it does have interesting connotations.

If you read Craiq's argument, he extended with premises to include a claim for a personal God.

The thing about this is that if the personal God is the cause of the existence of the universe, then in order to avoid infinite regress, the being would have to be regarded as always having existed and thus be uncaused.

1. That there is some presumed 'infinite regress' existing is just as stupid, irrational, illogical, and as absurd as presuming that 'the Universe, Itself, actually began' is.

2. Take away these two absolutely faulty and False presumptions, and a lot of the totally ridiculous and seemingly endless discussing here ends, completely.

The majority of theists are from the Abrahamic religions, their holy texts dictate their God therein is an omni-God.

This appears to be the case.

Whilst the Hindus and others like pantheist's and panentheists' God are claimed to omnipresent.
So the refutation that God exists as real is effective for the majority of theists.

It is only a minority who do not claim a non-omni-God which are inferior, thus are not of significant concern.
I have not come across arguments that insist Zeus, Poseidon and other minor gods from all over the world exist as real.

[Age]

Here is how we can expose the fallacy:

Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the [scientific] universe began to exist, then the [scientific] universe has a [scientific] cause of its [scientific] beginning.
2. The [scientific] universe began to exist [scientifically] .
3. Therefore, the [scientific] universe has a cause of its [scientific] beginning
....................................................................
4. which is an Uncaused First Cause [unscientific] as
5. A Personal Being [unscientific] with [unscientific]Freedom of the Will -a [unscientific]Personal Creator

the .............. line represent that deceptive big leap from the scientific FSK into the theological FSK of la la land.

Referring to the universe as "the scientific universe" allows one to infer that there is at least one other universe which is not scientific. Generally that is identified as "supernatural".

So the first premise is unnecessary worded.

Besides it is also based on an absolutely False claim anyway.

The idea appears to be that there has to be agreement of what is meant by "The Universe"

What do you mean by the idea 'appears' to be that there has to be agreement on what is meant by 'the Universe'?

It is not just 'an idea', and it does not just 'appear' to be 'the case' that agreement has to be reached in regards to what is meant by the word 'Universe'.

For absolutely any and all discussions to progress, properly, Correctly, and successfully, then, literally, 'agreement' of what words mean have to be discussed, and accepted, before any True discussion can actually take place.

Oh, and by the way, 'this' is more or less how 'all goals' and a Truly 'peaceful and harmonious world' come, and came, about. But, 'first things first', as some would say here, now.

[Age]

If you read Craiq's argument, he extended with premises to include a claim for a personal God.

The thing about this is that if the personal God is the cause of the existence of the universe, then in order to avoid infinite regress, the being would have to be regarded as always having existed and thus be uncaused.

Re "uncaused cause" as in Craig's argument re P4 [above], he had taken a deceptive leap into la la land from the scientific FSK into the metaphysical-ontological theological FSK which is a fallacy.

Using the so-called 'premises' of 1 and 2, exactly like you have "veritas aequitas" is not just pure fallacy but a pure sign of just how delusional you really still are.

[Age]

Here is how we can expose the fallacy:

Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the [scientific] universe began to exist, then the [scientific] universe has a [scientific] cause of its [scientific] beginning.
2. The [scientific] universe began to exist [scientifically] .
3. Therefore, the [scientific] universe has a cause of its [scientific] beginning
....................................................................

....................................................................
4. which is an Uncaused First Cause [unscientific] as
5. A Personal Being [unscientific] with [unscientific]Freedom of the Will -a [unscientific]Personal Creator

the .............. line represent that deceptive big leap from the scientific FSK into the theological FSK of la la land.

Referring to the universe as "the scientific universe" allows one to infer that there is at least one other universe which is not scientific. Generally that is identified as "supernatural".

So the first premise is unnecessary worded.

The idea appears to be that there has to be agreement of what is meant by "The Universe"

I had argued elsewhere,

And, as I have said and pointed out elsewhere, if what you so-call 'argue' is not 'sound and valid', then 'it' is not even worth mentioning again.

Also, and by the way, if what you 'argued' previously was 'sound and valid', then everyone could just be agreeing and accepting 'it' anyway.

So, again, you would not have to be, continually, mentioning that you had 'argued' for something somewhere else. Again, because 'it' could and so would just already be accepted.

What is real, true, knowledge and objective must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most real, objective and credible at present.

Claiming that some 'thing' is the 'most' real, 'most' objective, and 'most' credible, at any 'present moment' in no way at all means that what is being presented is, as you Falsely claim here, once more, 'What is real, true, knowledge, and objective', at all.

Also, here claiming that conditioning 'What is real, true, knowledge, or so-called 'objective' on 'that', which is not actually 'real', 'objective', nor 'credible' is just another piece of absolute lunacy that you are providing 'us' with.

There are no other FSKs which are more credible than the present scientific FSK.

So what?

Why base, or condition, absolutely any thing on what is not, always, actually 'credible'.

Of which there is only One thing, only.

And, that being the actual and irrefutable Truth, alone.

Can you think of any otherwise.

Yes.

And, if I did not already know how 'you' work, exactly, I would be somewhat surprised that 'you' could not think of anything otherwise as well.

If there is a least one other universe, then there must be an infinite number of universes.
But where are they, they can only be a speculation within some speculative-supernatural-FSKs which cannot be more real than the existing human-based scientific FSK.

This one actually believes that 'it', and human beings, are the highest form of intelligence, and could only ever be, that 'it' actually also believes that there could not be, in the whole Universe, anything more so-called 'real' than the 'existing human being based scientific framework of systems and knowledge'.

It is like this one actually believes that human beings are the most and/or only intelligent species/thing in the whole Universe, Itself.

This one here could not provide a better example of just how narrowed and closed adult human beings had become and could be, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

Relative such supernatural FSK would be at the other extreme of realness and objective in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

The Universe as generally accepted;

• 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.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Because the universe is defined as ALL there is, there cannot be another 'all there is'.
So the scientific universe is the only universe which can be accepted without question and is evident.

So, there is no use at all, and thus completely redundant, to call the One and only Universe, 'the scientific universe', right?

I believe Craig agreed P1 implied the scientific universe [got to double check].

Yet, one sentence later this one calls the One and only Universe the 'scientific universe', once again.

Thus P1 above has to be
1.. If the [scientific] universe began to exist, then the [scientific] universe has a [scientific] cause of its [scientific] beginning.

If anyone insist there are other universes which are supernatural and are not scientific then they will have to prove it is possible for them to exists at least scientifically for them to be real [FSK-based].

Besides calling 'the Universe', Itself, 'the scientific universe', being beyond absolute stupidity, but then to say and claim the rest that this one has here is getting beyond a joke now.

If you want to keep insisting that 'the Universe' is a so-called 'scientific universe', then how about insisting others prove things, you begin proving how 'the Universe', Itself, is a so-called 'scientific universe'?

[Age]

Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:

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

Here is an interesting test.

For the scientific FSK we can move from 1 to prove the universe has a beginning to in 3 i.e. the scientific Big Bang.
From C3 we can work backward to P1.
This is applicable to all scientific conclusions, where it is not speculated, it can be tested repeatedly to be the same as in the Natural Sciences.

But in the case of Craig's Kalam where he took a deceptive leap across to the non-scientific P4 and P5, there is no way he work backward to P1.
If he tries to leap from P4 and P5 back to P1 he will have a a problem, because the scientific FSK will not allow him to work back unless he can produce empirical evidence as imperatively required by the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK will tell P4 and P5 to f.. off unless there are empirical evidence or empirical possibilities to work with.

Your views?

My view here is; 'you are off your rocker "veritas aequitas', as some of you human beings say.

Now, how from a scientific framework of system and/or of knowledge can it be proven that the Universe began, and/or how could 'you' supposedly work backwards from the conclusion to the first Wrongly named 'premise' here, exactly?

[Age]

The idea appears to be that there has to be agreement of what is meant by "The Universe"

The Universe as generally accepted;
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.

Because the universe is defined as ALL there is, there cannot be another 'all there is'.

I agree with this definition and accompanying argument.

So the scientific universe is the only universe which can be accepted without question and is evident.

I disagree with the additive "scientific" to "universe" as it implies there is some other universe (perhaps non-scientific/perhaps supernatural).

Since we can agree that there cannot be another universe, we should be able to agree that there is no necessity to refer to The Universe in any other way than "The Universe" and drop references such as your
"the scientific FSK" as it serves us no philosophical purpose and tends toward muddying the waters of clarity.

Currently I am working with the following premises.

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 (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning,

But it is already know that the Universe, Itself, did not have 'a beginning', well not from the concept at least that most of you people here, back then, had.

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.

Yes, and as I have been alluding to all along here, in this forum, the Universe, Itself, is always 'in Creation', in that 'It' is always continually Creating 'Itself/the Universe' HERE-NOW. Which is always, 'In the beginning', (of what is about to-come, and/or be revealed).

The Universe, as I have also been saying and claiming here, always exists in two senses. They are:

In the visible sense. In which visible matter, always, can never be created nor destroyed. And,

In the invisible sense. In which the 'Mind' (or Being), always, knows what is actually True and Right.

[Age]

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

I do not see you talking past "veritas aequitas" here at all "vvilliam". I see, however, "veritas aequitas" talking straight past you.

I also see "veritas aequitas" just being absolutely to blind and to deaf to actually read, see, and hear what you are saying here.

"veritas aequitas" even actually agreed with you regarding there being only One Universe, but is so 'stuck' in its beliefs that it cannot bring itself to just remove the 'scientific' word from the 'universe' word.

Even when "veritas aequitas" argued for and said;
Because the universe is defined as ALL there is, there cannot be another 'all there is'. And,
So the scientific universe is the only universe which can be accepted without question and is evident.

"veritas aequitas", still, cannot bring 'itself' to just say, 'the Universe', only, because doing so would mean that 'it' would have to agree with you in one way or another, and 'it' just cannot bring 'itself' to do this.

Science (as far as I am aware) has not shown that energy and matter are temporal.

And thus how and why it is has already been proven that the Universe is eternal.

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"...

It is illogical, contradictory, and hypocritical to claim that energy and matter cannot be shown to be temporal while also claiming that there was a beginning to energy and/or matter.

Why does anyone claim that 'science' says energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed while also claiming that 'science' says that it all began?

...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.

you appear to not like "veritas aequitas" bringing into here the unnecessary word 'scientific' in relation to the Universe, Itself, however, you appear to keep bringing the, so far, unnecessary word 'being' or 'mind' into here.

Agree on what the Universe, Itself, is first, then prove that the Universe, Itself, is eternal, and infinite, and always causing/Creating, then work on proving the Mind, Itself, and how It fits into the Picture here perfectly.

Which, by the way, and once again is a Truly very simple and very easy thing to do.

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

But they can, and already have, by the way.

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"?

What you "veritas aequitas" have already said. That is; the word 'Universe' just refers to ALL-THERE-IS.

[attofishpi]

Why should we refer to that (IT) which we are yet to comprehend and explain, as therefore "not of nature"?

What? IT is of nature, IT is an entity that as of yet cannot be explained by science, personally I prefer to call it God (being old-fashion and all that)

But, 'God', Itself, can be explained by, and through, science, and very simply and very easily I will also add.

GREAT!! So go ahead Age, explain God to us.

[Age]

What? IT is of nature, IT is an entity that as of yet cannot be explained by science, personally I prefer to call it God (being old-fashion and all that)

But, 'God', Itself, can be explained by, and through, science, and very simply and very easily I will also add.

GREAT!! So go ahead Age, explain God to us.

Once again, the word 'God' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and explained in, and with, the two senses:

In the visible sense, which is just the visible 'Universe', Itself. And,

In the invisible sense, which is just the invisible 'Mind', Itself.

Both, together, make up and are the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent SAGE, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, which some people talk about and claim exists.

[attofishpi]

But, 'God', Itself, can be explained by, and through, science, and very simply and very easily I will also add.

GREAT!! So go ahead Age, explain God to us.

Once again, the word 'God' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and explained in, and with, the two senses:

In the visible sense, which is just the visible 'Universe', Itself. And,

In the invisible sense, which is just the invisible 'Mind', Itself.

Both, together, make up and are the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent SAGE, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, which some people talk about and claim exists.

That's all very well but you have not provided any scientfic proof of God. You're just making claims without any supporting evidence.

What makes you think God is omniscient?

[Age]

GREAT!! So go ahead Age, explain God to us.

Once again, the word 'God' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and explained in, and with, the two senses:

In the visible sense, which is just the visible 'Universe', Itself. And,

In the invisible sense, which is just the invisible 'Mind', Itself.

Both, together, make up and are the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent SAGE, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, which some people talk about and claim exists.

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'.

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'.

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.

[attofishpi]

Once again, the word 'God' just refers to the Universe, Itself, and explained in, and with, the two senses:

In the visible sense, which is just the visible 'Universe', Itself. And,

In the invisible sense, which is just the invisible 'Mind', Itself.

Both, together, make up and are the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent SAGE, Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, which some people talk about and claim exists.

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.

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.

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. God would also be bored out of his silicone chips.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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].

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?