Would you also claim about that 3rd-party, that it is supernatural?there is a 3rd party intelligence omnipotent to our perceivable reality
The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
.
Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
1. agreed
2. disagree, the Universe has always existed . space and the periodic table has always been . both are infinite in their existence .
3. the Universe has no cause.
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 10086
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
supernatural:- adjective:- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
Sure, whether 'IT' be 1. Divine or 2. A.I. simulation, at this stage with our current comprehension via science, science has no comprehension of 'IT', hence no explanation for it.
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
Why should we refer to that (IT) which we are yet to comprehend and explain, as therefore "not of nature"?attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 12:05 pmsupernatural:- adjective:- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
Sure, whether 'IT' be 1. Divine or 2. A.I. simulation, at this stage with our current comprehension via science, science has no comprehension of 'IT', hence no explanation for it.
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 10086
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
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)VVilliam wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:11 pmWhy should we refer to that (IT) which we are yet to comprehend and explain, as therefore "not of nature"?attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 12:05 pmsupernatural:- adjective:- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
Sure, whether 'IT' be 1. Divine or 2. A.I. simulation, at this stage with our current comprehension via science, science has no comprehension of 'IT', hence no explanation for it.
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
1. An explanation for the cause is either scientific or personal, but the cause of the universe must be beyond science (since science studies the natural world and the natural world didn’t exist until it was caused by this explanation). Therefore, the cause must be personal.
2. The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds, but abstract objects like numbers have no causal powers. Therefore the cause must be an abstract mind (and therefore personal).
3. An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect. For example (for simplicity) water freezes when the temperature is below 0 degrees centigrade. So, if the cause (temperature below 0) is eternal, then the effect (frozen water) would also have always been the case. Impersonal temperatures of below 0 don’t choose when the water will freeze; it simultaneously happens. It would be impossible for water to begin to freeze a finite time ago, if the temperature has always, eternally been below 0. But personal causes can freely choose to use their power or not, choosing to bring about an effect, which would be an effect that is temporal and not eternal.
Why are all 3 of those arguments wrong?
1 - is incorrect, because it assumes the universe is natural while asserting it was created by a supernatural being.
IF the uncaused is natural (as it must be since it was not caused) THEN anything arising from the natural would have to be regarded as a natural extension of a natural thing.
In other words, if the cause of the universe is considered to be uncaused or self-existent, it would be more accurate to characterize it as a natural entity, and anything emanating from it would also be part of that natural order.
That "the cause must be personal", does not take away from this observation as we simply have to include mindfulness as part of that overall nature of the uncaused.
With this view, consciousness/mindfulness would not be something separate or supernatural but rather an inherent aspect included in the fundamental nature of existence.
2 - also attempts to separate numbers and minds from being natural but if all comes from a mindful uncaused being, then numbers and minds must also be fundamental to the fabric of all that exists and traceable to the uncaused mind.
3 - adds to the assertion for an uncaused cause, but in no way supports the assumptions of 1 and 2 (that the uncaused mind is separate from/supernatural to its creation.
It does not matter that the universe may be a temporal creation, as this in itself does not imply that there have not been an eternity of such creations beginning, existing and eventually ceasing because the "stuff" which makes up the objects which are temporal, would have to be regarded as eternal and thus "of the uncaused" (natural).
2. The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds, but abstract objects like numbers have no causal powers. Therefore the cause must be an abstract mind (and therefore personal).
3. An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect. For example (for simplicity) water freezes when the temperature is below 0 degrees centigrade. So, if the cause (temperature below 0) is eternal, then the effect (frozen water) would also have always been the case. Impersonal temperatures of below 0 don’t choose when the water will freeze; it simultaneously happens. It would be impossible for water to begin to freeze a finite time ago, if the temperature has always, eternally been below 0. But personal causes can freely choose to use their power or not, choosing to bring about an effect, which would be an effect that is temporal and not eternal.
Why are all 3 of those arguments wrong?
1 - is incorrect, because it assumes the universe is natural while asserting it was created by a supernatural being.
IF the uncaused is natural (as it must be since it was not caused) THEN anything arising from the natural would have to be regarded as a natural extension of a natural thing.
In other words, if the cause of the universe is considered to be uncaused or self-existent, it would be more accurate to characterize it as a natural entity, and anything emanating from it would also be part of that natural order.
That "the cause must be personal", does not take away from this observation as we simply have to include mindfulness as part of that overall nature of the uncaused.
With this view, consciousness/mindfulness would not be something separate or supernatural but rather an inherent aspect included in the fundamental nature of existence.
2 - also attempts to separate numbers and minds from being natural but if all comes from a mindful uncaused being, then numbers and minds must also be fundamental to the fabric of all that exists and traceable to the uncaused mind.
3 - adds to the assertion for an uncaused cause, but in no way supports the assumptions of 1 and 2 (that the uncaused mind is separate from/supernatural to its creation.
It does not matter that the universe may be a temporal creation, as this in itself does not imply that there have not been an eternity of such creations beginning, existing and eventually ceasing because the "stuff" which makes up the objects which are temporal, would have to be regarded as eternal and thus "of the uncaused" (natural).
A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality
A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality
Me: Are there differing forms of the Kalam?
GPT: The Kalam cosmological argument is a form of argument for the existence of God that originated in medieval Islamic philosophy and was later adopted and modified by medieval Christian thinkers. The basic idea behind the Kalam cosmological argument is that the universe must have had a beginning, and therefore, there must be a cause or explanation for its existence.
While the core idea of the Kalam cosmological argument remains consistent, there can be variations in its formulation and presentation by different philosophers and theologians. Different proponents may emphasize particular aspects or use different terminology to express the key concepts. Additionally, the argument has been adapted and integrated into various theological and philosophical systems over time.
In summary, while there may be differing formulations or expressions of the Kalam cosmological argument, they generally share the fundamental premise that the universe had a beginning and requires a cause or explanation for its existence. Different philosophers and theologians may articulate the argument in distinct ways, but the underlying concept remains similar.
Me: Are these 3 premises part of the Kalam or have these been used in order to formulate that Kalam?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
GPT: Yes, the three premises you listed are indeed part of the formulation of the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument is often presented in the following syllogistic form:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
These premises form the foundational structure of the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument aims to establish the existence of a cause or explanation for the beginning of the universe, and it has been discussed and defended by various philosophers and theologians throughout history. Keep in mind that different proponents of the Kalam cosmological argument may present it with some variations in wording or emphasis, but the core structure typically includes these three premises.
Me: Okay. So I am currently arguing with a supernaturalist and we are now in the process of going over these particular premises. We agree with the first premise but in my asking of the second "Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?" the reply is "Clarification needed. By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?"
GPT: The clarification requested by the supernaturalist is a common point of discussion when it comes to the Kalam cosmological argument. The term "universe" can be interpreted in different ways, and this can impact the understanding of the second premise.
In the context of the Kalam cosmological argument, the term "universe" typically refers to all of spatio-temporal reality, including all matter, energy, space, and time. The second premise asserts that this entire spatio-temporal reality had a beginning.
If you and the supernaturalist can agree on this understanding of "universe" as encompassing all spatio-temporal reality, then you can proceed with discussing the implications of the second premise. However, if there is a disagreement or if the supernaturalist has a different understanding of "universe," it's important to clarify and reach a common understanding before continuing the discussion.
So, in response to the clarification, you might want to confirm that you are indeed referring to the spatio-temporal reality encompassing all matter, energy, space, and time when discussing the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument. If the supernaturalist has a different interpretation, it's crucial to understand and address those differences in order to have a meaningful discussion about the argument.
Me: I would like to answer in the affirmative with the addition that in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through" only applies to this one universe and should be worded "whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through and will continue to go through in its temporal existence as this particular universe.
GPT: Your proposed clarification is well-phrased and can help ensure a common understanding between you and the supernaturalist regarding the scope of the second premise in the Kalam cosmological argument. By specifying that "whatever forms and cycles it has gone through" refers to the temporal existence of this particular universe, you are adding clarity to the discussion.
So, when affirming the second premise, you can express it as follows:
"I agree with the second premise, which states that the universe, encompassing all spatio-temporal reality, including whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through, and will continue to go through in its temporal existence, had a beginning."
This clarification should help address any potential ambiguity and ensure that both parties have a shared understanding of the scope of the second premise in the context of the Kalam cosmological argument.
Me: The idea is that we are not to add to the second premise but to clarify that I agree that this is what the second premise should mean.
GPT: Certainly, if you want to affirm the second premise without adding to it but providing a clarification for shared understanding, you can say:
"I agree with the second premise, which states that the universe, encompassing all spatio-temporal reality, including whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through, and will continue to go through in its temporal existence. This understanding is crucial for our discussion, as it establishes that the entirety of spatio-temporal reality had a beginning."
This way, you affirm the second premise and include a clarification about the temporal aspects of the universe's existence to ensure that both parties are on the same page regarding the scope of the argument.
Me: No the second premise only states "the universe" and we are simply looking for agreement on what that should mean. That the words "The universe began to exist." should mean that which we both agree it should mean.
GPT: I see, I apologize for any confusion. In that case, you can respond to the clarification request more succinctly, focusing on the agreement on the intended meaning of "universe" in the second premise:
"I agree with the second premise, 'The universe began to exist,' and in our discussion, I interpret 'universe' to mean all of spatio-temporal reality, encompassing whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through, and will continue to go through in its temporal existence."
This response emphasizes your agreement with the second premise while providing a clear understanding of the intended meaning of "universe" in the context of your discussion.
Me: What does spatio-temporal matter/energy mean?
GPT: "Spatio-temporal matter/energy" refers to entities and phenomena that exist in both space and time. Let's break down the components of this term:
1. Spatio-temporal: This term combines "spatial" and "temporal." Spatial refers to space, the three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur. Temporal refers to time, the dimension in which events unfold and can be measured. So, spatio-temporal means relating to both space and time.
2. Matter/energy: This encompasses the physical substance and the capacity to do work. In the context of the universe, matter refers to physical substances that occupy space, such as atoms, molecules, and larger structures like planets and stars. Energy, on the other hand, is a more abstract concept but is related to the capacity to cause changes in matter or the ability to do work.
When the term "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is used, it usually denotes the entire physical reality of the universe, including all physical substances (matter) and the dynamic processes and interactions involving them (energy), situated within the dimensions of space and time.
In the context of discussions related to the Kalam cosmological argument, the second premise often asserts that the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning, implying that all physical matter and energy, within the framework of space and time, had a starting point.
Me: Ah - then we may have hit on why there is disagreement because the energy does something in order to form things from the matter...
GPT: Yes, the relationship between matter and energy, particularly in the context of the formation and dynamics of the universe, is a crucial aspect that can lead to different perspectives and interpretations. In the realm of cosmology and physics, the interplay between matter and energy is central to understanding the origins and evolution of the cosmos.
In the Kalam cosmological argument, proponents often assert that the universe had a beginning, and this beginning is often associated with a cause or explanation. Disagreements may arise based on differing views about the nature of this cause, the role of energy in the formation of matter, and the specifics of the universe's origin.
When discussing these matters, it can be helpful to explore the scientific understanding of the universe's origin, such as the Big Bang theory, as well as philosophical perspectives on causation and existence. Clarifying these points and finding common ground on the definitions and implications of terms like "universe," "matter," and "energy" may help in resolving or narrowing down areas of disagreement.
Me: When was the Kalam first presented?
GPT: The Kalam cosmological argument has its roots in medieval Islamic philosophy. It was formulated by Muslim theologians and philosophers, particularly within the context of the Ash'ari school of Sunni Islam. The argument is associated with figures such as Al-Kindi (c. 801–873), Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), and most notably, Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980–1037).
The Kalam cosmological argument gained prominence and continued to be developed by later Islamic scholars. Its influence extended beyond Islamic thought, and it became a topic of discussion in medieval Christian philosophy as well.
The argument was later reintroduced to Western philosophy through the works of medieval Jewish and Christian thinkers. It experienced a revival in the medieval period through figures like Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and others who adapted and modified the argument to fit within the context of Christian theology.
Therefore, while the roots of the Kalam cosmological argument can be traced back to medieval Islamic philosophy, its formulation and development occurred over a span of centuries and across different cultural and religious traditions.
Me: What does current science tell us of matter and of energy?
GPT: As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, the following information reflects the state of scientific understanding regarding matter and energy. However, please note that scientific knowledge evolves, and there may have been further advancements or changes since then. It's advisable to consult more recent sources for the latest information.
1. Matter:
• Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space. It includes a wide range of entities, from subatomic particles (such as quarks and electrons) to atoms, molecules, and macroscopic objects like planets and stars.
• At the quantum level, matter exhibits both particle-like and wave-like properties, as described by quantum mechanics.
2. Energy:
• Energy is a fundamental concept in physics and is often described as the capacity to do work or cause change. It exists in various forms, including kinetic energy (associated with motion), potential energy (associated with position or configuration), thermal energy (related to temperature), electromagnetic energy (associated with light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation), and more.
• According to the theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, matter and energy are interchangeable through the famous equation E=mc^2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light.
3. Relationship Between Matter and Energy:
• The concept of mass-energy equivalence, as expressed in E=mc^2, highlights the close relationship between matter and energy. It suggests that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.
• Particle physics explores the fundamental particles that make up matter (e.g., quarks, leptons) and their interactions through forces mediated by particles like photons and W/Z bosons.
4. Origin of the Universe:
• The prevailing cosmological model is the Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as an extremely hot and dense state about 13.8 billion years ago. This theory describes the expansion of the universe and the subsequent evolution of matter and energy.
5. Dark Matter and Dark Energy:
• While ordinary matter and energy account for a small fraction of the universe, dark matter and dark energy constitute the majority. Dark matter does not emit, absorb, or reflect light and is detected indirectly through its gravitational effects. Dark energy is thought to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.
It's important to note that scientific understanding is dynamic, and ongoing research continually refines and expands our knowledge of matter and energy. For the latest information, it's recommended to refer to recent scientific literature and authoritative sources in the field.
Me: So we can say that we do not know enough about energy to presume anything about the nature of the universe to add such a condition to the second premise?
GPT: While our understanding of energy has advanced significantly, there are still aspects of the universe, especially at the quantum and cosmological levels, where our knowledge is incomplete. The second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument asserts that the universe began to exist. This statement aligns with the Big Bang theory, which describes the observable expansion of the universe from a hot and dense initial state.
However, the nature of the initial state, the conditions at the very beginning, and the fundamental aspects of the cosmos remain subjects of ongoing scientific inquiry and theoretical exploration. While we have a solid understanding of certain aspects, there are areas, such as the nature of dark matter, dark energy, and the precise conditions of the early universe, where more research is needed.
In philosophical and scientific discussions, it's important to acknowledge the limits of our current knowledge and to be open to revising our understanding as new evidence emerges. While the Kalam cosmological argument may provide a framework for discussing the universe's beginning, individuals may interpret the second premise differently based on their understanding of current scientific theories and philosophical perspectives.
Therefore, in discussions about the second premise, it's reasonable to acknowledge the existing scientific knowledge while being open to the potential evolution of our understanding as scientific research progresses.
Me: The reason I am asking is that I regard the energy as the reason why the matter became this particular manifestation of the universe we are experiencing and it is nether the matter nor the energy which is temporal, but simply the manifestation.
GPT: Your perspective aligns with a nuanced understanding of the relationship between matter, energy, and the manifestation of the universe. The concept that the temporal aspect is associated with the manifestation rather than with matter or energy is in line with certain philosophical and scientific viewpoints.
In discussions about the nature of the universe, different perspectives exist, and interpretations can vary based on philosophical, scientific, and theological considerations. Your emphasis on energy as a key factor in the manifestation of the universe is interesting, especially given the fundamental role that energy plays in various physical processes, transformations, and interactions.
It's worth noting that the nature of the universe, especially regarding its origins and the fundamental forces at play, is a complex and multifaceted topic. Scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory, provide a framework for understanding the observable aspects of the universe's evolution, but there are still open questions and areas of exploration.
Philosophically, discussions about causation, the nature of time, and the relationship between the temporal and the eternal have been ongoing for centuries. Different philosophical traditions and perspectives may offer varying insights into these questions.
Ultimately, the interpretation of the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument can be influenced by one's understanding of the scientific models describing the universe's history and by philosophical or theological perspectives on causation and existence. It's valuable to engage in open and respectful dialogue, acknowledging the complexity of the topic and the diversity of viewpoints.
Me: Given my understanding, it appears it aligns with most recent scientific data - rather than contradicting said data.
GPT: It's encouraging to hear that your understanding aligns with recent scientific data. The relationship between matter, energy, and the manifestation of the universe is a complex topic, and scientific understanding continues to evolve as researchers explore new frontiers in physics and cosmology.
Science aims to provide empirical explanations for natural phenomena based on observation, experimentation, and evidence.
If your perspective is consistent with and supported by the most recent scientific data, that can enhance the coherence of your viewpoint within the scientific framework.
It's important to recognize that the nature of the universe is a multifaceted subject, and different individuals may interpret scientific data through various philosophical, theological, or metaphysical lenses. Engaging in discussions that integrate both scientific insights and philosophical perspectives can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of these complex topics.
If you find resonance between your viewpoint and current scientific understanding, it can serve as a solid foundation for exploring and discussing these ideas within both scientific and philosophical contexts. Remember that ongoing scientific research may lead to further refinements and expansions of our understanding, so staying informed about developments in the relevant fields is always beneficial.
Me: So my answer would be that since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal, I regard "the universe" as that which has manifested as a result of the pre-existence/eternal nature of both matter and energy and that the two may well be one and the same.
GPT: Your perspective reflects a nuanced and contemplative approach to the question of the temporality of matter and energy, and it acknowledges the complexity of the nature of the universe. The idea that the manifestation of the universe arises from the pre-existence or eternal nature of both matter and energy aligns with certain philosophical and metaphysical considerations.
The interplay between matter, energy, and the manifestation of the universe is a profound topic that encompasses both scientific and philosophical dimensions. Your recognition that matter and energy may be interconnected and possibly share an eternal aspect resonates with some philosophical and scientific viewpoints.
Engaging in discussions that explore the implications of these ideas within the frameworks of both science and philosophy can contribute to a richer understanding of the universe's nature and origins. Remember that interpretations and perspectives on these matters can vary, and constructive dialogue often involves acknowledging the diversity of viewpoints while seeking common ground for discussion and exploration.
Me: Does the Kalam claim that all matter and energy are temporal?
GPT: The Kalam cosmological argument, as formulated by proponents, generally asserts that the universe, including both its matter and energy, had a beginning. The second premise often states that the universe began to exist. This assertion is in line with the idea that the entire spatio-temporal reality, encompassing matter and energy, had a starting point in the finite past.
While the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't explicitly claim that matter and energy are inherently temporal, the implication is that the current state of the universe—comprising matter, energy, space, and time—had a commencement. The argument focuses on the idea of a finite past and a cause for the existence of the universe.
It's important to note that discussions around the Kalam cosmological argument involve both philosophical and scientific considerations. Proponents argue that the existence of a cause or explanation for the universe's beginning points toward the existence of a transcendent cause, often identified with God.
Critics and skeptics, on the other hand, may challenge the premises or question whether the concept of a "beginning" applies in the same way to the universe as a whole, especially given the complexities of cosmological models, such as those involving multiverses or quantum cosmology.
In summary, while the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't explicitly claim that matter and energy are temporal, it does assert that the entire spatio-temporal reality we refer to as the universe had a beginning, and this is a key premise of the argument.
Me: Generally (re science) "The Universe" means the manifestations which are temporal due to the interaction between matter and energy
GPT: In scientific contexts, "the Universe" typically refers to the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy, including all galaxies, stars, planets, and other celestial structures. The term encompasses everything that exists, from the smallest particles to the largest cosmic structures.
In the scientific understanding, the Universe is considered to have had a beginning with the Big Bang, an event that initiated the expansion of space and the unfolding of time. This event set the stage for the formation and evolution of matter and energy in various forms.
The term "temporal" is indeed associated with the Universe in the sense that it has a history and evolves over time. The interactions between matter and energy, guided by the laws of physics, have led to the diverse manifestations and structures observed in the cosmos.
It's important to clarify that in scientific discussions, the term "temporal" is often used to describe the dimension of time rather than attributing temporality to matter and energy themselves. Matter and energy, as described by fundamental physics, can undergo transformations and interactions within the framework of spacetime, contributing to the dynamic and evolving nature of the Universe.
Your observation aligns with the scientific understanding that the manifestations within the Universe are temporal, evolving over cosmic timescales due to the interactions and processes involving matter and energy.
Me: In that, science has never shown that matter and energy "had a beginning".
GPT: You are correct. While the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model and describes the observable expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state, it doesn't provide a definitive explanation for what happened at the very "beginning" or before the Planck time (the earliest measurable time after the Big Bang).
The state of the universe during the Planck epoch, where our current understanding of physics breaks down, remains a topic of theoretical exploration.
In other words, the scientific understanding of the origin of the universe doesn't necessarily assert that matter and energy had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The language of "beginning" can sometimes be misleading when applied to the very early moments of the universe, as our current scientific models have limitations in describing events at extremely high energy scales and short time intervals.
The Kalam cosmological argument, on the other hand, posits a philosophical claim about the universe having a beginning, and proponents argue for the existence of a cause or explanation for this beginning. This claim is separate from the scientific model of the Big Bang, and it introduces metaphysical and philosophical considerations that go beyond what current scientific methods can address.
It's crucial to distinguish between scientific explanations, which are subject to empirical evidence and observation, and philosophical or metaphysical claims, which may involve broader considerations beyond the scope of empirical science. While science has provided a detailed understanding of the evolution of the universe, certain questions about the ultimate origin may fall outside the current scope of scientific investigation.
Me: Therefore I can answer the question put to me, (By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?) my answer would be along the lines that it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy"
GPT: Yes, your response is reasonable and aligns with the nuances of the scientific understanding. You can express that while science has provided valuable insights into the evolution and dynamics of the universe, it has not definitively established whether matter and energy, in and of themselves, had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The scientific narrative often focuses on the observable history of the universe, starting from the Planck time after the Big Bang, but it doesn't necessarily extend to a clear understanding of what occurred before that epoch.
Your interpretation of "the universe" as commonly referring to the temporal objects manifested through the existence of matter and energy is a valid perspective, emphasizing the dynamic and evolving nature of the observable cosmos. It's important to acknowledge the distinctions between scientific explanations and philosophical or metaphysical claims, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each approach.
This response can foster a more nuanced discussion about the nature of the universe within the contexts of both science and philosophy.
Me: Since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy". In that, I am possibly speaking of a different meaning to "universe" than you are, and if so - we will be required to account for which understanding best fits with what is meant by "the universe".
GPT: Your articulation here reflects a precise and careful approach to the terminology and the underlying concepts. By pointing out that the scientific understanding establishes the temporal nature of objects within the universe rather than necessarily matter and energy themselves, you highlight a key distinction. This distinction can indeed lead to different interpretations of the term "universe" in the context of the Kalam cosmological argument or similar discussions.
Your suggestion to account for and clarify the understanding of "universe" is a constructive way to move forward in the discussion. By examining and aligning the definitions and implications of key terms, you and your interlocutor can work toward a shared understanding, or at least a clear acknowledgment of the differing perspectives. This process can contribute to a more precise and meaningful exchange of ideas regarding the nature and origin of the universe, incorporating both scientific and philosophical considerations.
Me: I have written a reply...
"While science has provided valuable insights into the evolution and dynamics of the universe, it has not definitively established whether matter and energy, in and of themselves, had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The scientific narrative often focuses on the observable history of the universe, starting from the Planck time after the Big Bang, but it doesn't necessarily extend to a clear understanding of what occurred before that epoch.
Since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy", I am possibly speaking of a different meaning to "the universe" than you are, and if so - we will be required to account for and determine from that which understanding best fits with what is meant by "the universe" as per the current evidence available to us.
Re that, what I am saying is that "The Universe" may not exclude matter and energy and may include those as eternal aspects, which would effectively mean that "The Universe" did not "begin to exist" but only the current manifestations themselves - and it is the temporal things which began to exist, but these do not altogether make up "The Universe" or we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.
Thus, I would have to say that I disagree with the idea/conventional assumption that there is even such a thing as "spatio-temporal matter/energy". Furthermore, it is clear that the Kalam "meaning of "The Universe" re premise 2 requires updating in order to align with what is actually known rather than what is presumed."
GPT: By distinguishing between the eternal aspects (matter and energy) and the temporal manifestations within the universe, you emphasize that "The Universe" did not "begin to exist" in its entirety, but rather, it's the temporal manifestations that began to exist.
Your inclusion of the option to agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and known to have had a beginning is a fair consideration. It acknowledges the possibility of limiting the term "The Universe" to what is observable and temporal, leaving aside discussions about the eternal aspects.
Moreover, your observation that we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal adds an element of humility, acknowledging the current limits of our knowledge. This approach encourages an open and honest exploration of the uncertainties inherent in discussions about the universe's origin.
Overall, your edited response maintains its thoughtful and well-reasoned nature, fostering a nuanced and constructive discussion about the nature of the universe and the implications for the Kalam cosmological argument.
Me: So my comprehensive answer to the question "By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?" has been necessary but still retains a succinct quality?
GPT: Yes, your comprehensive answer effectively addresses the question while maintaining a succinct and clear quality. It provides a well-articulated response that outlines the current state of scientific understanding, introduces a nuanced perspective on the distinction between temporal manifestations and eternal aspects, and suggests a thoughtful consideration of the terminology used in the Kalam cosmological argument. Your response invites further exploration and discussion while presenting your position in a concise and comprehensible manner.
Me: Please provide a summary of this interaction and a suitable heading
GPT: Summary: The interaction delves into a discussion prompted by the Kalam cosmological argument's definition of "universe." The responder critically examines the assumption that "the universe" exclusively refers to spatio-temporal matter/energy.
They assert that current scientific understanding doesn't definitively establish the absolute beginning of matter and energy and propose a nuanced viewpoint. The responder suggests that the universe may include eternal aspects, challenging the conventional idea of spatio-temporal matter/energy. The response also highlights the need for updating the Kalam's meaning of "The Universe" in light of current knowledge.
Heading: Navigating the Meaning of "The Universe" in the Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality
Me: Are there differing forms of the Kalam?
GPT: The Kalam cosmological argument is a form of argument for the existence of God that originated in medieval Islamic philosophy and was later adopted and modified by medieval Christian thinkers. The basic idea behind the Kalam cosmological argument is that the universe must have had a beginning, and therefore, there must be a cause or explanation for its existence.
While the core idea of the Kalam cosmological argument remains consistent, there can be variations in its formulation and presentation by different philosophers and theologians. Different proponents may emphasize particular aspects or use different terminology to express the key concepts. Additionally, the argument has been adapted and integrated into various theological and philosophical systems over time.
In summary, while there may be differing formulations or expressions of the Kalam cosmological argument, they generally share the fundamental premise that the universe had a beginning and requires a cause or explanation for its existence. Different philosophers and theologians may articulate the argument in distinct ways, but the underlying concept remains similar.
Me: Are these 3 premises part of the Kalam or have these been used in order to formulate that Kalam?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
GPT: Yes, the three premises you listed are indeed part of the formulation of the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument is often presented in the following syllogistic form:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
These premises form the foundational structure of the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument aims to establish the existence of a cause or explanation for the beginning of the universe, and it has been discussed and defended by various philosophers and theologians throughout history. Keep in mind that different proponents of the Kalam cosmological argument may present it with some variations in wording or emphasis, but the core structure typically includes these three premises.
Me: Okay. So I am currently arguing with a supernaturalist and we are now in the process of going over these particular premises. We agree with the first premise but in my asking of the second "Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?" the reply is "Clarification needed. By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?"
GPT: The clarification requested by the supernaturalist is a common point of discussion when it comes to the Kalam cosmological argument. The term "universe" can be interpreted in different ways, and this can impact the understanding of the second premise.
In the context of the Kalam cosmological argument, the term "universe" typically refers to all of spatio-temporal reality, including all matter, energy, space, and time. The second premise asserts that this entire spatio-temporal reality had a beginning.
If you and the supernaturalist can agree on this understanding of "universe" as encompassing all spatio-temporal reality, then you can proceed with discussing the implications of the second premise. However, if there is a disagreement or if the supernaturalist has a different understanding of "universe," it's important to clarify and reach a common understanding before continuing the discussion.
So, in response to the clarification, you might want to confirm that you are indeed referring to the spatio-temporal reality encompassing all matter, energy, space, and time when discussing the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument. If the supernaturalist has a different interpretation, it's crucial to understand and address those differences in order to have a meaningful discussion about the argument.
Me: I would like to answer in the affirmative with the addition that in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through" only applies to this one universe and should be worded "whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through and will continue to go through in its temporal existence as this particular universe.
GPT: Your proposed clarification is well-phrased and can help ensure a common understanding between you and the supernaturalist regarding the scope of the second premise in the Kalam cosmological argument. By specifying that "whatever forms and cycles it has gone through" refers to the temporal existence of this particular universe, you are adding clarity to the discussion.
So, when affirming the second premise, you can express it as follows:
"I agree with the second premise, which states that the universe, encompassing all spatio-temporal reality, including whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through, and will continue to go through in its temporal existence, had a beginning."
This clarification should help address any potential ambiguity and ensure that both parties have a shared understanding of the scope of the second premise in the context of the Kalam cosmological argument.
Me: The idea is that we are not to add to the second premise but to clarify that I agree that this is what the second premise should mean.
GPT: Certainly, if you want to affirm the second premise without adding to it but providing a clarification for shared understanding, you can say:
"I agree with the second premise, which states that the universe, encompassing all spatio-temporal reality, including whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through, and will continue to go through in its temporal existence. This understanding is crucial for our discussion, as it establishes that the entirety of spatio-temporal reality had a beginning."
This way, you affirm the second premise and include a clarification about the temporal aspects of the universe's existence to ensure that both parties are on the same page regarding the scope of the argument.
Me: No the second premise only states "the universe" and we are simply looking for agreement on what that should mean. That the words "The universe began to exist." should mean that which we both agree it should mean.
GPT: I see, I apologize for any confusion. In that case, you can respond to the clarification request more succinctly, focusing on the agreement on the intended meaning of "universe" in the second premise:
"I agree with the second premise, 'The universe began to exist,' and in our discussion, I interpret 'universe' to mean all of spatio-temporal reality, encompassing whatever forms and cycles it has gone through, is going through, and will continue to go through in its temporal existence."
This response emphasizes your agreement with the second premise while providing a clear understanding of the intended meaning of "universe" in the context of your discussion.
Me: What does spatio-temporal matter/energy mean?
GPT: "Spatio-temporal matter/energy" refers to entities and phenomena that exist in both space and time. Let's break down the components of this term:
1. Spatio-temporal: This term combines "spatial" and "temporal." Spatial refers to space, the three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur. Temporal refers to time, the dimension in which events unfold and can be measured. So, spatio-temporal means relating to both space and time.
2. Matter/energy: This encompasses the physical substance and the capacity to do work. In the context of the universe, matter refers to physical substances that occupy space, such as atoms, molecules, and larger structures like planets and stars. Energy, on the other hand, is a more abstract concept but is related to the capacity to cause changes in matter or the ability to do work.
When the term "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is used, it usually denotes the entire physical reality of the universe, including all physical substances (matter) and the dynamic processes and interactions involving them (energy), situated within the dimensions of space and time.
In the context of discussions related to the Kalam cosmological argument, the second premise often asserts that the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning, implying that all physical matter and energy, within the framework of space and time, had a starting point.
Me: Ah - then we may have hit on why there is disagreement because the energy does something in order to form things from the matter...
GPT: Yes, the relationship between matter and energy, particularly in the context of the formation and dynamics of the universe, is a crucial aspect that can lead to different perspectives and interpretations. In the realm of cosmology and physics, the interplay between matter and energy is central to understanding the origins and evolution of the cosmos.
In the Kalam cosmological argument, proponents often assert that the universe had a beginning, and this beginning is often associated with a cause or explanation. Disagreements may arise based on differing views about the nature of this cause, the role of energy in the formation of matter, and the specifics of the universe's origin.
When discussing these matters, it can be helpful to explore the scientific understanding of the universe's origin, such as the Big Bang theory, as well as philosophical perspectives on causation and existence. Clarifying these points and finding common ground on the definitions and implications of terms like "universe," "matter," and "energy" may help in resolving or narrowing down areas of disagreement.
Me: When was the Kalam first presented?
GPT: The Kalam cosmological argument has its roots in medieval Islamic philosophy. It was formulated by Muslim theologians and philosophers, particularly within the context of the Ash'ari school of Sunni Islam. The argument is associated with figures such as Al-Kindi (c. 801–873), Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), and most notably, Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980–1037).
The Kalam cosmological argument gained prominence and continued to be developed by later Islamic scholars. Its influence extended beyond Islamic thought, and it became a topic of discussion in medieval Christian philosophy as well.
The argument was later reintroduced to Western philosophy through the works of medieval Jewish and Christian thinkers. It experienced a revival in the medieval period through figures like Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and others who adapted and modified the argument to fit within the context of Christian theology.
Therefore, while the roots of the Kalam cosmological argument can be traced back to medieval Islamic philosophy, its formulation and development occurred over a span of centuries and across different cultural and religious traditions.
Me: What does current science tell us of matter and of energy?
GPT: As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, the following information reflects the state of scientific understanding regarding matter and energy. However, please note that scientific knowledge evolves, and there may have been further advancements or changes since then. It's advisable to consult more recent sources for the latest information.
1. Matter:
• Matter is anything that has mass and occupies space. It includes a wide range of entities, from subatomic particles (such as quarks and electrons) to atoms, molecules, and macroscopic objects like planets and stars.
• At the quantum level, matter exhibits both particle-like and wave-like properties, as described by quantum mechanics.
2. Energy:
• Energy is a fundamental concept in physics and is often described as the capacity to do work or cause change. It exists in various forms, including kinetic energy (associated with motion), potential energy (associated with position or configuration), thermal energy (related to temperature), electromagnetic energy (associated with light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation), and more.
• According to the theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, matter and energy are interchangeable through the famous equation E=mc^2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light.
3. Relationship Between Matter and Energy:
• The concept of mass-energy equivalence, as expressed in E=mc^2, highlights the close relationship between matter and energy. It suggests that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.
• Particle physics explores the fundamental particles that make up matter (e.g., quarks, leptons) and their interactions through forces mediated by particles like photons and W/Z bosons.
4. Origin of the Universe:
• The prevailing cosmological model is the Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as an extremely hot and dense state about 13.8 billion years ago. This theory describes the expansion of the universe and the subsequent evolution of matter and energy.
5. Dark Matter and Dark Energy:
• While ordinary matter and energy account for a small fraction of the universe, dark matter and dark energy constitute the majority. Dark matter does not emit, absorb, or reflect light and is detected indirectly through its gravitational effects. Dark energy is thought to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.
It's important to note that scientific understanding is dynamic, and ongoing research continually refines and expands our knowledge of matter and energy. For the latest information, it's recommended to refer to recent scientific literature and authoritative sources in the field.
Me: So we can say that we do not know enough about energy to presume anything about the nature of the universe to add such a condition to the second premise?
GPT: While our understanding of energy has advanced significantly, there are still aspects of the universe, especially at the quantum and cosmological levels, where our knowledge is incomplete. The second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument asserts that the universe began to exist. This statement aligns with the Big Bang theory, which describes the observable expansion of the universe from a hot and dense initial state.
However, the nature of the initial state, the conditions at the very beginning, and the fundamental aspects of the cosmos remain subjects of ongoing scientific inquiry and theoretical exploration. While we have a solid understanding of certain aspects, there are areas, such as the nature of dark matter, dark energy, and the precise conditions of the early universe, where more research is needed.
In philosophical and scientific discussions, it's important to acknowledge the limits of our current knowledge and to be open to revising our understanding as new evidence emerges. While the Kalam cosmological argument may provide a framework for discussing the universe's beginning, individuals may interpret the second premise differently based on their understanding of current scientific theories and philosophical perspectives.
Therefore, in discussions about the second premise, it's reasonable to acknowledge the existing scientific knowledge while being open to the potential evolution of our understanding as scientific research progresses.
Me: The reason I am asking is that I regard the energy as the reason why the matter became this particular manifestation of the universe we are experiencing and it is nether the matter nor the energy which is temporal, but simply the manifestation.
GPT: Your perspective aligns with a nuanced understanding of the relationship between matter, energy, and the manifestation of the universe. The concept that the temporal aspect is associated with the manifestation rather than with matter or energy is in line with certain philosophical and scientific viewpoints.
In discussions about the nature of the universe, different perspectives exist, and interpretations can vary based on philosophical, scientific, and theological considerations. Your emphasis on energy as a key factor in the manifestation of the universe is interesting, especially given the fundamental role that energy plays in various physical processes, transformations, and interactions.
It's worth noting that the nature of the universe, especially regarding its origins and the fundamental forces at play, is a complex and multifaceted topic. Scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory, provide a framework for understanding the observable aspects of the universe's evolution, but there are still open questions and areas of exploration.
Philosophically, discussions about causation, the nature of time, and the relationship between the temporal and the eternal have been ongoing for centuries. Different philosophical traditions and perspectives may offer varying insights into these questions.
Ultimately, the interpretation of the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument can be influenced by one's understanding of the scientific models describing the universe's history and by philosophical or theological perspectives on causation and existence. It's valuable to engage in open and respectful dialogue, acknowledging the complexity of the topic and the diversity of viewpoints.
Me: Given my understanding, it appears it aligns with most recent scientific data - rather than contradicting said data.
GPT: It's encouraging to hear that your understanding aligns with recent scientific data. The relationship between matter, energy, and the manifestation of the universe is a complex topic, and scientific understanding continues to evolve as researchers explore new frontiers in physics and cosmology.
Science aims to provide empirical explanations for natural phenomena based on observation, experimentation, and evidence.
If your perspective is consistent with and supported by the most recent scientific data, that can enhance the coherence of your viewpoint within the scientific framework.
It's important to recognize that the nature of the universe is a multifaceted subject, and different individuals may interpret scientific data through various philosophical, theological, or metaphysical lenses. Engaging in discussions that integrate both scientific insights and philosophical perspectives can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of these complex topics.
If you find resonance between your viewpoint and current scientific understanding, it can serve as a solid foundation for exploring and discussing these ideas within both scientific and philosophical contexts. Remember that ongoing scientific research may lead to further refinements and expansions of our understanding, so staying informed about developments in the relevant fields is always beneficial.
Me: So my answer would be that since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal, I regard "the universe" as that which has manifested as a result of the pre-existence/eternal nature of both matter and energy and that the two may well be one and the same.
GPT: Your perspective reflects a nuanced and contemplative approach to the question of the temporality of matter and energy, and it acknowledges the complexity of the nature of the universe. The idea that the manifestation of the universe arises from the pre-existence or eternal nature of both matter and energy aligns with certain philosophical and metaphysical considerations.
The interplay between matter, energy, and the manifestation of the universe is a profound topic that encompasses both scientific and philosophical dimensions. Your recognition that matter and energy may be interconnected and possibly share an eternal aspect resonates with some philosophical and scientific viewpoints.
Engaging in discussions that explore the implications of these ideas within the frameworks of both science and philosophy can contribute to a richer understanding of the universe's nature and origins. Remember that interpretations and perspectives on these matters can vary, and constructive dialogue often involves acknowledging the diversity of viewpoints while seeking common ground for discussion and exploration.
Me: Does the Kalam claim that all matter and energy are temporal?
GPT: The Kalam cosmological argument, as formulated by proponents, generally asserts that the universe, including both its matter and energy, had a beginning. The second premise often states that the universe began to exist. This assertion is in line with the idea that the entire spatio-temporal reality, encompassing matter and energy, had a starting point in the finite past.
While the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't explicitly claim that matter and energy are inherently temporal, the implication is that the current state of the universe—comprising matter, energy, space, and time—had a commencement. The argument focuses on the idea of a finite past and a cause for the existence of the universe.
It's important to note that discussions around the Kalam cosmological argument involve both philosophical and scientific considerations. Proponents argue that the existence of a cause or explanation for the universe's beginning points toward the existence of a transcendent cause, often identified with God.
Critics and skeptics, on the other hand, may challenge the premises or question whether the concept of a "beginning" applies in the same way to the universe as a whole, especially given the complexities of cosmological models, such as those involving multiverses or quantum cosmology.
In summary, while the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't explicitly claim that matter and energy are temporal, it does assert that the entire spatio-temporal reality we refer to as the universe had a beginning, and this is a key premise of the argument.
Me: Generally (re science) "The Universe" means the manifestations which are temporal due to the interaction between matter and energy
GPT: In scientific contexts, "the Universe" typically refers to the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy, including all galaxies, stars, planets, and other celestial structures. The term encompasses everything that exists, from the smallest particles to the largest cosmic structures.
In the scientific understanding, the Universe is considered to have had a beginning with the Big Bang, an event that initiated the expansion of space and the unfolding of time. This event set the stage for the formation and evolution of matter and energy in various forms.
The term "temporal" is indeed associated with the Universe in the sense that it has a history and evolves over time. The interactions between matter and energy, guided by the laws of physics, have led to the diverse manifestations and structures observed in the cosmos.
It's important to clarify that in scientific discussions, the term "temporal" is often used to describe the dimension of time rather than attributing temporality to matter and energy themselves. Matter and energy, as described by fundamental physics, can undergo transformations and interactions within the framework of spacetime, contributing to the dynamic and evolving nature of the Universe.
Your observation aligns with the scientific understanding that the manifestations within the Universe are temporal, evolving over cosmic timescales due to the interactions and processes involving matter and energy.
Me: In that, science has never shown that matter and energy "had a beginning".
GPT: You are correct. While the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model and describes the observable expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state, it doesn't provide a definitive explanation for what happened at the very "beginning" or before the Planck time (the earliest measurable time after the Big Bang).
The state of the universe during the Planck epoch, where our current understanding of physics breaks down, remains a topic of theoretical exploration.
In other words, the scientific understanding of the origin of the universe doesn't necessarily assert that matter and energy had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The language of "beginning" can sometimes be misleading when applied to the very early moments of the universe, as our current scientific models have limitations in describing events at extremely high energy scales and short time intervals.
The Kalam cosmological argument, on the other hand, posits a philosophical claim about the universe having a beginning, and proponents argue for the existence of a cause or explanation for this beginning. This claim is separate from the scientific model of the Big Bang, and it introduces metaphysical and philosophical considerations that go beyond what current scientific methods can address.
It's crucial to distinguish between scientific explanations, which are subject to empirical evidence and observation, and philosophical or metaphysical claims, which may involve broader considerations beyond the scope of empirical science. While science has provided a detailed understanding of the evolution of the universe, certain questions about the ultimate origin may fall outside the current scope of scientific investigation.
Me: Therefore I can answer the question put to me, (By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?) my answer would be along the lines that it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy"
GPT: Yes, your response is reasonable and aligns with the nuances of the scientific understanding. You can express that while science has provided valuable insights into the evolution and dynamics of the universe, it has not definitively established whether matter and energy, in and of themselves, had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The scientific narrative often focuses on the observable history of the universe, starting from the Planck time after the Big Bang, but it doesn't necessarily extend to a clear understanding of what occurred before that epoch.
Your interpretation of "the universe" as commonly referring to the temporal objects manifested through the existence of matter and energy is a valid perspective, emphasizing the dynamic and evolving nature of the observable cosmos. It's important to acknowledge the distinctions between scientific explanations and philosophical or metaphysical claims, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each approach.
This response can foster a more nuanced discussion about the nature of the universe within the contexts of both science and philosophy.
Me: Since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy". In that, I am possibly speaking of a different meaning to "universe" than you are, and if so - we will be required to account for which understanding best fits with what is meant by "the universe".
GPT: Your articulation here reflects a precise and careful approach to the terminology and the underlying concepts. By pointing out that the scientific understanding establishes the temporal nature of objects within the universe rather than necessarily matter and energy themselves, you highlight a key distinction. This distinction can indeed lead to different interpretations of the term "universe" in the context of the Kalam cosmological argument or similar discussions.
Your suggestion to account for and clarify the understanding of "universe" is a constructive way to move forward in the discussion. By examining and aligning the definitions and implications of key terms, you and your interlocutor can work toward a shared understanding, or at least a clear acknowledgment of the differing perspectives. This process can contribute to a more precise and meaningful exchange of ideas regarding the nature and origin of the universe, incorporating both scientific and philosophical considerations.
Me: I have written a reply...
"While science has provided valuable insights into the evolution and dynamics of the universe, it has not definitively established whether matter and energy, in and of themselves, had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The scientific narrative often focuses on the observable history of the universe, starting from the Planck time after the Big Bang, but it doesn't necessarily extend to a clear understanding of what occurred before that epoch.
Since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy", I am possibly speaking of a different meaning to "the universe" than you are, and if so - we will be required to account for and determine from that which understanding best fits with what is meant by "the universe" as per the current evidence available to us.
Re that, what I am saying is that "The Universe" may not exclude matter and energy and may include those as eternal aspects, which would effectively mean that "The Universe" did not "begin to exist" but only the current manifestations themselves - and it is the temporal things which began to exist, but these do not altogether make up "The Universe" or we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.
Thus, I would have to say that I disagree with the idea/conventional assumption that there is even such a thing as "spatio-temporal matter/energy". Furthermore, it is clear that the Kalam "meaning of "The Universe" re premise 2 requires updating in order to align with what is actually known rather than what is presumed."
GPT: By distinguishing between the eternal aspects (matter and energy) and the temporal manifestations within the universe, you emphasize that "The Universe" did not "begin to exist" in its entirety, but rather, it's the temporal manifestations that began to exist.
Your inclusion of the option to agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and known to have had a beginning is a fair consideration. It acknowledges the possibility of limiting the term "The Universe" to what is observable and temporal, leaving aside discussions about the eternal aspects.
Moreover, your observation that we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal adds an element of humility, acknowledging the current limits of our knowledge. This approach encourages an open and honest exploration of the uncertainties inherent in discussions about the universe's origin.
Overall, your edited response maintains its thoughtful and well-reasoned nature, fostering a nuanced and constructive discussion about the nature of the universe and the implications for the Kalam cosmological argument.
Me: So my comprehensive answer to the question "By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?" has been necessary but still retains a succinct quality?
GPT: Yes, your comprehensive answer effectively addresses the question while maintaining a succinct and clear quality. It provides a well-articulated response that outlines the current state of scientific understanding, introduces a nuanced perspective on the distinction between temporal manifestations and eternal aspects, and suggests a thoughtful consideration of the terminology used in the Kalam cosmological argument. Your response invites further exploration and discussion while presenting your position in a concise and comprehensible manner.
Me: Please provide a summary of this interaction and a suitable heading
GPT: Summary: The interaction delves into a discussion prompted by the Kalam cosmological argument's definition of "universe." The responder critically examines the assumption that "the universe" exclusively refers to spatio-temporal matter/energy.
They assert that current scientific understanding doesn't definitively establish the absolute beginning of matter and energy and propose a nuanced viewpoint. The responder suggests that the universe may include eternal aspects, challenging the conventional idea of spatio-temporal matter/energy. The response also highlights the need for updating the Kalam's meaning of "The Universe" in light of current knowledge.
Heading: Navigating the Meaning of "The Universe" in the Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 12802
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality
I read your post re discussion with ChatGpt which is interesting and has a lot of details but the whole conversation lacks that final KO 'punch' on the Kalam Argument.
The above is very typical for those who oppose the Kalam Argument especially realists who spend loads of time [books and articles] and effect on scientific issues in detail.
The secular realists cannot hit the final nail, because the theists are also realists [theological].
On a meta- basis, the scientific FSK [antirealists'] just cannot be equivocated with the theological FSK [realists'], they are like oil and water.
In my OP,
Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?t=41405
there is a final nail that the Kalam Argument is fallacious;
I posted that in here, i.e.;
viewtopic.php?p=683972#p683972
Re: A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality
I see what you are saying and did read that post when it first appeared.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 2:24 amI read your post re discussion with ChatGpt which is interesting and has a lot of details but the whole conversation lacks that final KO 'punch' on the Kalam Argument.
The above is very typical for those who oppose the Kalam Argument especially realists who spend loads of time [books and articles] and effect on scientific issues in detail.
The secular realists cannot hit the final nail, because the theists are also realists [theological].
On a meta- basis, the scientific FSK [antirealists'] just cannot be equivocated with the theological FSK [realists'], they are like oil and water.
In my OP,
Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?t=41405
there is a final nail that the Kalam Argument is fallacious;
I posted that in here, i.e.;
viewtopic.php?p=683972#p683972
The conversation I got GPT assistance on, has been ongoing.
Here are the details of that.
Supernaturalist: You aren’t even sure there is “spatio-temporal energy/matter”?
Me: You wanted clarification on what premise 2 "The Universe" meant. I gave a concise explanation re that, based on what you offered.
I gave my own view in answer, which was (in context) to say that I disagreed with your interpretation that "The Universe" was "all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through."
Supernaturalist: Do you mean it might be an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having? Because you couldn't be having this conversation if what we call spatio-temporal energy/matter didn't exist because you have a human body and are typing on some type of computer and all of that, which are things that are made of spatio-temporal energy/matter, even if that is an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having.
Me: So what you really mean is that "The Universe" is made up of temporary functional objects? If so, that aligns with how I see it too - as I wrote in my last post - we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.
To clarify, not to exclude matter and energy as being responsible for the existence of The Universe made up of temporary functional objects, but to exclude the idea that matter and energy itself is temporary.
Thus,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The Universe began to exist
In that, "The Universe" is "all of the temporal functional objects that exist in whatever forms and cycles these go through."
(Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?)
Supernaturalist: No, that is not what I mean. We can’t beg the question by our definition of ‘universe’. And we are currently talking about the term, not what the premise says about that term. By 'universe' I’m talking about those things you think are temporary, functional objects, but I’m not saying they are temporary, functional or not temporary, functional objects. That question, answered either way, cannot be a part of the definition or we are begging the question, which is irrational. The focus right now is just on agreeing on the term, not what we think about the things that make up that term.
Me: In considering the definition of 'The Universe,' I find your caution against including specific characteristics within the definition understandable. However, it's worth noting that seeking clarification on what 'The Universe' entails is not an attempt to impose specific characteristics but rather a means to ensure a common ground for our discussion.
Moreover, I understand that drawing on the insights provided by scientific knowledge is rational and that allowing such to be a part of the definition is not “begging the question”, and thus is not an irrational thing to do, but rather – a necessary (rational) thing to include and re definition -would not cause one to fall into the trap of circular reasoning.
Scientific discoveries about the nature of spatio-temporal objects, (various forms), and cycles (beginnings, beings and endings) can inform our understanding without being deemed as 'begging the question.' In doing so, we can create a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for our discussion that incorporates both philosophical considerations and empirical knowledge.
The Universe does have characteristics and these should be included in any definition of The Universe.
Supernaturalist: It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.
Me: Agreed.
Any definition of "The Universe" which is not scientific knowledge - including the one you are using/wanting to use, should thus be placed aside because of that rule-set.
The definition "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is breach of rule-set as it has within it's phrasing the word "temporal" which is an answer to whether The Universe is "eternal" or "temporal" - (in this case the answer being "temporal".)
Since it is the case that such is not scientific knowledge, "The Universe" cannot be further clarified in its meaning, (re the rule-set) and therefore can only be taken at face value (simply referred to as "The Universe") re the 3 premises being discussed.
This being the case, the second premise (2. The Universe began to exist) having not yet been established, is a false premise and thus, the third premise (3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.) cannot be determined as a logical conclusion.
NOTE to you here Veritas Aequitas. I think this is what you may be saying re your "final nail"? That Premise 2 is false/based upon false/misinformation/assumption?
Me: I would say that what is going on here are two distinct philosophical arguments.
On the one hand, the supernaturalist premises;
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
And on the other hand, the following.
1. The Universe exists
2. It is unknown that The Universe began to exist.
3: It is unknown if an uncaused being caused The Universe to exist.
4: Therefore, The Universe can be regarded as The Uncaused Being.
Given that these are philosophical musings, they should hold equally to the same rule-set and therein neither should be granted a double standard pass.
This is to acknowledge that the rule-set should apply to both philosophical positions, rather than favor the one over the other.
Supernaturalist: You are correct that we should be more exact with the terms, since ‘temporal’ has different meanings.
Me: Temporary simply means Temporal/Temporal simply means Temporary.
Supernaturalist: The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.
Me: In what way do we observe this phenomena?
Supernaturalist: It does not refer to whether it had a beginning or is beginningless (maybe those should be the terms used instead of eternal/temporal in the question we are not trying to beg).
Me: Indeed - it could be argued that the phenomena observed (whatever these might be) consist of beginnings and ends.
For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (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, 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.
That is so far where we are at.
Not sure where your "final nail" is situated re the bit after my note to you above...
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 12802
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality
"Final nail" means having a a conclusion,
Therefore, the Kalam Argument is fallacious and thus not tenable as I had demonstrated.
However, one need to be familiar with Kant's CPR.
Science can conclude "the universe has a beginning" but that is only be limited to the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], i.e. it is a 'scientific universe' with a 'scientific beginning' conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
If theists stick to the scientific basis, the Kalam model can conclude a cause but it has to be a scientific cause.
There is a limit to science [empirical] and one cannot rely on limited science [premise 2] to confirm what is supposedly [i.e. metaphysical & ontological] beyond the limit of science.
At the end of the day, as with Craig's additional premises to the original Kalam, the theist will have to assign that scientific cause with a big deceptive leap across an ontological chasm as a theological cause i.e. the divine God or a personal God.
Therefrom, that God must EXISTs [ontologically & metaphysically] as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omni-whatever perfect [absolutely] and other supreme attributes at dictated by their holy texts.
But all these attributes of God [theological FSK] cannot align or be verified nor justified as possible within the science FSK.
Therefore the Kalam and its hidden ontological argument are fallacious and it is impossible for it to prove God exists as real.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
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?
However, an uncaused cause does not have to mean "an Omni God".
How does your argument deal with that?
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 12802
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
I don't see the Kalam concludes with an "uncaused cause"VVilliam wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:21 am 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?
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.
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.
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.
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 12802
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
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.
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.
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
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.I don't see the Kalam concludes with an "uncaused cause"
but only conclude,
there is a cause to the beginning of the universe.
Perhaps - but it does have interesting connotations.Those who argue for an uncaused cause from the Kalam is taking a metaphysical and ontological leap into la la land.
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.If you read Craiq's argument, he extended with premises to include a claim for a personal God.
This appears to be the case.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.
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.
Re: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig
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".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:51 am 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.
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"