The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[VVilliam]

We cannot (with human senses) see air, yet we know it is made matter.
We can see a limited range of light, and also know that light is made of matter.

I am not speaking of matter which has being created into functional form (rocks and human bodies as you mention) but matter which has no form, prior to being given form.

well put VV


cause and effect can only really exist if there is real separateness. This separateness is duality: me and you, before and after, this and that, cause and effect. In terms of duality, the mind applies reason and logic, believing that it can predict and control life. But dual separateness and chaos in the mind are illusions: every atom of a separate entity does not consist of thing, plant, animal or human, but of light. There is no separation in light. Where there is no separation, cause and effect are one and therefore not real. Life is light, non-dual

Through the lens of human experience, light has been shown to also exhibit "dual" properties (wave and particle).

This observation would lead one to surmise that the human instrument was designed to "see" things in dualistic measures.

The question re that (and the thread subject) is "Why would the Source-Creator design these human instruments so that any consciousness experiencing the universe through these, would "see" (experience) things in a dualistic manner?"

Perhaps "cause and effect" can only be "seen" as "real separateness" through such medium, and an interesting property re that is that we can choose to "see" things as they actually are (non-separate) - while yet encased within a form which is designed to prevent such from at least being obvious to us which explains why Consciousness is actually (first and foremost) the REAL "thing" going on re any experience it might have, and while a medium-suit can inhibit that knowledge, it cannot completely block said knowledge altogether from the physical essence of "what consciousness is".

To explain that "in other words" - I just wrote this, in reply to another in a similar (mirrored) thread on another message board.

Other: And I agree with your perspective to a degree. I would add that it's possible for the first cause to have had both physical and non-physical traits.

Me: You wrote that in the past tense. Did you mean to do that?

Other: Some alternatives I can come up with is that things simply appear physical, but that might not be the reality -

Me: If "something which appears to be physical but isn't", then what is it and why even to say it exists (is real)?
Remember what the thread topic is arguing.
If you can explain how a mind which is not physical in nature can interact with and create functional forms which appear to exist and naturally so, I would be more inclined to follow such reasoning.

Other: The Matrix!

Me: Primarily (and perhaps the authors were unaware they were doing so) the story of The Matrix is telling the viewer-consciousness that one cannot believe their eyes - yet significantly - in the realms we have two main happenings, all participants within those realms not only believing what they consciously experience is "Real" but interacting and even killing each other...
...So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?

This thought-question then circles back to the idea (re the thread subject) of the Source of the Matrix in "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) and said "state of being" should be argued as being the "only REAL "thing" which exists" and the stuff which makes those "creations" appear and be experienced as "real" by the minds which are all related to the Source Mind (re "IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.") is "made real" through the process I mentioned ("When it choses to create (per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.")

Other: There's also the concept of emergence which involves new properties and substances coming into existence.

Me: Yes. This is explained re "When it choses to create (or per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience."

Other: Earlier you asked for evidence that consciousness is not physical. I view my claim more in terms of being the likely explanation as opposed to being a settled or proven

Me: I was specifically arguing so that you might think deeper about the question. Something about your thought-patterns have you leaning that way.
The path we are claiming to be on, is agnosticism and therein "most likely" is the bias preference, but is it an agnostic perspective?

Other: I think the strongest evidence for that comes from the nature of subjective experience.

Me: What is "subjective experience" IF the experience itself is not able to be experienced as REAL?

Should we suppose that in ITs natural quintessential state IT wonders if IT is "real?

Do any of us "children" of this Source-Consciousness think that we are "not real"?

Other: Not only is it invisible, but thus far, it has proven to be immeasurable to the point that even scientists eliminated it as a topic of inquiry in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, it has been bought back as a research topic.

Me: Would you also argue that we human consciousnesses are "invisible to our own conscious awareness?" Is the argument also that in ITs natural quintessential state the Source Consciousness creator (re the thread subject) is "invisible" to Its own awareness?
As to what is invisible to our human-form sensors, when we take into account the restrictive nature of that form we should not be surprised in understanding why human-scientists "turn a blind eye" re factoring in the thread subject...
(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.)

...when they are "doing their science".

Other: I also brought up hallucinations earlier. The reason I think that serves as a example of the non-physical is because they are not real.

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

Other: You can't observe or measure something that is not real so in that sense hallucinations are non-physical, by definition.

Me: This argument is debunked through the understanding that The Source Creator n "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) cannot "observe or measure" what IT is, and thus is an "hallucination" and "non-physical".

Specifically, my argument is that anything which can be created and experienced as REAL must therefore be made of the same stuff (physical). That incredible variation of physical stuff is the way it is due to what we call "vibration" of the original state of the particle before it is quantized into 'many things which can be experience by said mind as "real".

[Immanuel Can]

...along the lines of being it being "self created" but mindfully so...

Aristoteliean cosmology, or Hindu cosmology, or Buddhist cosmology would hold that this is how things are. There's just one problem: science.

We know that the universe is running down, tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and on a track for an eventual end called "heat death." That's observable, measurable and as certain as any scientific fact can be. We know, for example, that there is no known force in the universe that could reverse the escape velocity of the expanding universe, and recollapse the universe into a cyclical condition: there simply isn't enough mass per space in the universe to achieve that by any physical law. Or we can measure the decay-rate of various items and isotopes...things are all running down there, too, tending from a state of higher order to a lower order. And so on.

So this universe that we know is a contingent entity. If anything eternal exists, it's not within this universe and subject to its regularities. It has to transcend that...as does whatever First Cause we come to believe has generated the universe. And there's really no escaping that, without denying the very existence of the material world, and the coherence of causality and mathematical sequences.

The "running down" (as argument) is a type of semantics, given the enormous amount of time and space IT has allocated Itself to have the whole the experience.

It isn't, actually.

It's a known and widely-recognized scientific law, one observable to all of us in multiple ways. In fact, it might be the most securely established scientific law that science has. There's certainly a vast amount of data to support it.

Maybe only the Law of Gravity has an equivalent amount of scientific support. Maybe not even that one.

And let me explain why appealing to "enormous amounts of time" doesn't just not help the contrary argument, it actually cripples it.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is evident when you park your car in the driveway and leave it there for a year. When you come back, is the car a better or a worse car than when you left it? It's obvious, isn't it? It will be worse. It will be rusted, seized, flat-tired, dented, discoloured...or any other of dozens of things, because over time, cars get worse, not better.

So would you argue that if we left that car in the driveway for an "enormous amount of time" that it would be a better car? Would it be an equivalent car? Or would it be a much worse car than the car you left for only a year?

You see, the principle's so obvious we can't escape it.

[Immanuel Can]

The "running down" (as argument) is a type of semantics, given the enormous amount of time and space IT has allocated Itself to have the whole the experience.

No, it's a scientific postulate.

We simply do not have enough mass in the universe any longer to produce a cycle or "Big Crunch" to recycle the universe. So we're on a linear track now, for sure. And adding more time will make that situation worse for the cyclical view, not help resolve it, since the mass in the universe is continually spreading out farther and farther, still with no known physical dynamic to reverse the process.

Somehow, you missed the point which has been made.

Help me out, then. What "point" was "missed"?

[Immanuel Can]

Contrary to popular belief, it's not a scientific fact that the entropy of the universe is increasing. It's increasing here. It may be decreasing in black holes...

"May be?" What's your evidence it is?

I can produce a ton of evidence for the 2nd Law. I would think you should offer something more than a vague supposition in return, no?

[Atla]

Contrary to popular belief, it's not a scientific fact that the entropy of the universe is increasing. It's increasing here. It may be decreasing in black holes...

"May be?" What's your evidence it is?

I can produce a ton of evidence for the 2nd Law. I would think you should offer something more than a vague supposition in return, no?

It seems to be increasing in the observable universe outside black holes, the rest is unknown. Black holes may be decreasing entropy though because they are black holes.

[iambiguous]

Aristoteliean cosmology, or Hindu cosmology, or Buddhist cosmology would hold that this is how things are. There's just one problem: science.

We know that the universe is running down, tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and on a track for an eventual end called "heat death." That's observable, measurable and as certain as any scientific fact can be. We know, for example, that there is no known force in the universe that could reverse the escape velocity of the expanding universe, and recollapse the universe into a cyclical condition: there simply isn't enough mass per space in the universe to achieve that by any physical law. Or we can measure the decay-rate of various items and isotopes...things are all running down there, too, tending from a state of higher order to a lower order. And so on.

So this universe that we know is a contingent entity. If anything eternal exists, it's not within this universe and subject to its regularities. It has to transcend that...as does whatever First Cause we come to believe has generated the universe. And there's really no escaping that, without denying the very existence of the material world, and the coherence of causality and mathematical sequences.

The "running down" (as argument) is a type of semantics, given the enormous amount of time and space IT has allocated Itself to have the whole the experience.

It isn't, actually.

It's a known and widely-recognized scientific law, one observable to all of us in multiple ways. In fact, it might be the most securely established scientific law that science has. There's certainly a vast amount of data to support it.

Maybe only the Law of Gravity has an equivalent amount of scientific support. Maybe not even that one.

And let me explain why appealing to "enormous amounts of time" doesn't just not help the contrary argument, it actually cripples it.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is evident when you park your car in the driveway and leave it there for a year. When you come back, is the car a better or a worse car than when you left it? It's obvious, isn't it? It will be worse. It will be rusted, seized, flat-tired, dented, discoloured...or any other of dozens of things, because over time, cars get worse, not better.

So would you argue that if we left that car in the driveway for an "enormous amount of time" that it would be a better car? Would it be an equivalent car? Or would it be a much worse car than the car you left for only a year?

You see, the principle's so obvious we can't escape it.

And this has exactly what to do with demonstrating [scientifically or otherwise] that the Christian God does in fact exist?

And [of course] those on other religious paths -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- can make the same claim about their God.

And is it a law because the Christian God created it or did the Christian God create it because He too is inherently bound by it?

[VVilliam]

So would you argue that if we left that car in the driveway for an "enormous amount of time" that it would be a better car? Would it be an equivalent car? Or would it be a much worse car than the car you left for only a year?

You see, the principle's so obvious we can't escape it.

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did. It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal. That which it creates to experience does not in and of itself make the fundamental Mind "cease to be" just because its creations cease to be eventually. (Are created as temporal).

In that, you are conflating the creation (almighty as it is) with the creator and then arguing against something I have not been arguing.

[Sculptor]

So would you argue that if we left that car in the driveway for an "enormous amount of time" that it would be a better car? Would it be an equivalent car? Or would it be a much worse car than the car you left for only a year?

You see, the principle's so obvious we can't escape it.

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did. It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal. That which it creates to experience does not in and of itself make the fundamental Mind "cease to be" just because its creations cease to be eventually. (Are created as temporal).

In that, you are conflating the creation (almighty as it is) with the creator and then arguing against something I have not been arguing.

Sounds like you are both confused.

[Immanuel Can]

Contrary to popular belief, it's not a scientific fact that the entropy of the universe is increasing. It's increasing here. It may be decreasing in black holes...

"May be?" What's your evidence it is?

I can produce a ton of evidence for the 2nd Law. I would think you should offer something more than a vague supposition in return, no?

It seems to be increasing in the observable universe outside black holes, the rest is unknown. Black holes may be decreasing entropy though because they are black holes.

"May be"? "May be" based on what data?

Or is that just an imagining of your own?

[Immanuel Can]

So would you argue that if we left that car in the driveway for an "enormous amount of time" that it would be a better car? Would it be an equivalent car? Or would it be a much worse car than the car you left for only a year?

You see, the principle's so obvious we can't escape it.

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamental mind."

The only "mind" that created the universe was the First Cause. And we're asking what the exact qualities of this First Cause would have to be.

It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal.

Yes. But that's because the First Cause is a necessary entity. We (and the universe) are contingent entities. We are not eternal. And what we are trying to explain is not the existence of the First Cause, the nature of which we have not yet established, but rather the sufficient cause for the existence of the universe, which is subject to causality and to decay.

[VVilliam]

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamental mind."

The only "mind" that created the universe was the First Cause.

Again, it is best to avoid semantics. We are speaking about the same Mind as the subject of the thread. We don't need to agree to a particular name in order for us to both agree we are speaking of the same thing.
My use of "fundamental mind" is in acknowledgment of all the incarnate mindfulness in the chain of contingency within which you (a mind) and I (also a mind), exist. I have also used other names, such as "the creator-mind".

It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal.

But that's because the First Cause is a necessary entity.

Necessary to explaining why this universe began to exist. (To that I am adding "Necessary to explaining why consciousness exists in said Universe." )

We (and the universe) are contingent entities.

This is based upon the premise that "We" are identified as being "the human form" rather than "the consciousness experiencing the human form."

We are not eternal.

If "We" are of the Source Consciousness, then we have always been eternal. Even if "We" are personalities grown through the experience of the human form, these can be "saved" by the mindfulness that is necessary for personalities to grow. Thus, the mindfulness can be considered necessary and eternal, even if the personalities grown are considered to being "created" and there is no reason to think that these have to go the same way as functional forms (also necessary in order to grow personalities).

And what we are trying to explain is not the existence of the First Cause, the nature of which we have not yet established, but rather the existence of the universe, which is subject to causality and to decay.

No. The subject of this thread is both the Nature of First Source (which has already been suggested and hasn't been seriously challenged) and whether that nature has to be (necessary) regarded as "supernatural" or not.

The apparent "decay" of the functional forms have already been explained as the natural and purposeful result of the temporal thing which the First Cause will then have no mindful use for, as the universe has served the intended purpose it was created to serve.

I have already written of this here in the thread. Have you read all of my arguments in my posts?

The argument I am presenting is based upon the agreed necessary attributes of the Creator-Mind...(IT's natural or quintessential state) so perhaps we need to go over those and see where we may not be agreeing?

The "First Cause" attributes in ITs Quintessential State (prior to the creation of this universe/functional forms).

IT is "All That Exists" in that IT has nothing else which IT has created, occupying IT's own existence and there exists nothing else apart from IT.
That would not put anything "outside of Itself, nor would IT be "outside" of Itself.
ITs natural or quintessential state" is
timeless,
spaceless,
eternal,
imageless,
uncaused,
beginningless,
changeless,
and potentially powerful

Lets focus on coming to agreement on these attributes of the Nature of The First Cause and see if we cannot determine from these whether it is necessary for us to think of IT as "supernatural".

[Immanuel Can]

You are forgetting the thread subject and argument has to do with a Fundamental Mind which created the Universe the way that it did.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamental mind."

The only "mind" that created the universe was the First Cause.

Again, it is best to avoid semantics.

I have no idea what you're talking about...nobody's doing mere "semantics" here. We're talking logic, are we not?

We don't need to agree to a particular name in order for us to both agree we are speaking of the same thing.

I think we do. The characteristics of this "Mind" are exactly what is in question at the moment.

It is not subject to decay, because it is eternal.

But that's because the First Cause is a necessary entity.

Necessary to explaining why this universe began to exist.

Well, yes, but that's not the point being made. It's not merely "neccessary to explanation." It's "necessary" in the philosophical sense that it could not have not existed.

As Stanford puts it, "It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings."

So the First Cause is not merely a convenient way of explaining something. Rather, when we say that the First Cause is a "necessary entity," we mean that it could not have failed to exist.

By contrast, everything in the universe, including you and me, are contingent entities -- that is, it is very possible for them not to have existed at all -- and in most cases, there was a time when they did not exist, and very likely will be a time when they will fail to exist.

We (and the universe) are contingent entities.

This is based upon the premise that "We" are identified as being "the human form" rather than "the consciousness experiencing the human form."

That's Pantheism. Pantheism has many conceptual and practical problems...one of which is the existence of the natural world, and another is its complete detachment from science.

If "We" are of the Source Consciousness,

Manifestly, we are not. We are contingent, limited and fallible beings.

The subject of this thread is both the Nature of First Source

No, the subject is the Kalaam.

The apparent "decay" of the functional forms have already been explained as the natural and purposeful result of the temporal thing which the First Cause will then have no mindful use for, as the universe has served the intended purpose it was created to serve.

Have you read all of my arguments in my posts?

I have. But I don't see evidence to back the statements.

Lets focus on coming to agreement on these attributes of the Nature of The First Cause and see if we cannot determine from these whether it is necessary for us to think of IT as "supernatural".

It could not possibly be otherwise. If the "effect" we're trying to explain is "the existence of the universe," then any explanation is going to have to come, by definition, from above and beyond the universe itself. We can't possibly explain the existence of contingent things with reference to something contingent, or the existence of the natural world by something merely natural. To do so would commit us to an infinite causal regress, which is incoherent, and clearly cannot be the case, because of the causal chain.

[Age]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

What do the words 'the world' here even REFER TO, EXACTLY?

Why is 'the world' a 'being', EXACTLY?

Why does EVERY 'being' BEGIN?

Is there ANY 'being' which does NOT 'begin'?

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

OBVIOUSLY.

BUT, NOT EVERY 'thing' begins.

2. The universe began to exist.

There is NO proof for this CLAIM.

And, in fact, there is ACTUALLY EXISTING PROOF that the Universe, Itself, ALWAYS exists.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

How do you define the words 'the universe'?

Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

What is 'this cosmology', EXACTLY, which you are REFERRING TO here?

Also, and by the way, do the words 'supernatural' and 'unnatural' here even REFER TO absolutely ANY 'thing' that could even ACTUALLY EXIST?

[Age]

Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well?

The answer to this is that whereas God is a "necessary" Being, the universe is a "contingent" entity.

What is the 'necessary' word here even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, "immanuel can"?

Now, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' will NOT answer 'this' BECAUSE 'you' do NOT have the INTELLECT to be ABLE TO.

The mistake is to think that God is a "cause" in the same sense that temperature is a "cause." Temperature relates to frozenness in a mechanical relation...if the temperature reaches zero C the water freezes (all else being equal) But it is not the case that if God exists the universe automatically pops into being, too.

It is also, OBVIOUSLY, NOT the case that because the Universe exists then, automatically, there is some male gendered 'thing' that created/caused the Universe. But 'this' goes WITHOUT reason.

It is not necessary for a universe to exist at all, in fact.

But 'it' IS 'necessary' for the Universe to exist, if the Universe is eternal.
The Universe IS eternal.
Therefore, it IS NECESSARY for THE Universe to exist, in fact.

It's a contingent entity, and the product of a personal choice by God, not a mechanical effect from a mechanical cause.

This one STILL BELIEVES that God is some male gendered, personal, 'thing'. Which can be best described as 'anthropomorphism' in EXTREMISM.

...one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless.

Of course, this challenges our current understanding of being.

WHY?

What is 'your', current, understanding of 'being', EXACTLY, "immanuel can"?

But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' will ALSO NOT ANSWER this QUESTION. 'your' LACK of ACTUAL knowledge, and/or 'your' FEAR of REFUTING and/or CONTRADICTING "your" 'self', here MAKES SURE OF 'this'.

All our experience is from the contingent perspective, so we have no ability to imagine what existence would be, if it were timeless.

ONCE MORE this one here could NOT be FURTHER AWAY FROM the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'.

His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe.

Not quite.

God doesn't "enter into" time, except in the Incarnation. Rather, the traditional view is that He transcends time.

Does SAYING, ' the 'traditional view' ', make what is being claimed MORE true, somehow?

Past, present and future are all equally known to Him, and His "experience" of them (if we can borrow that word at all) is simultaneous and complete.

And HOW, EXACTLY, do 'you' propose that 'little old you', "immanuel can", KNOWS, what is KNOWN to ('this male gendered') God, of which 'you' speak about and of here?

But, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' will NOT even BEGIN to ANSWER this Truly OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION "immanuel can". For reasons given above here.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

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.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

Well, if we say that a cause must be sufficient to the effect we attribute to it, then it does.

If, for example, somebody was to say, "This cookie is my father," we would laugh or recognize him as a madman: a chocolate chip cookie is not an entity adequate to attribute to it the ability to generate a human being. If he were to say, "This older man is my father," we would likely take his word: the purported cause is adequate to the ascribed effect.

I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest 'you', people, SEEK OUT and GAIN ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST, BEFORE you even START TO ASSUME, or take 'their' word for, some 'thing'.

But, PLEASE FEEL FREE to 'take words', ASSUME, and/or BELIEVE 'things' WHENEVER 'you' like.

OBVIOUSLY, if you did NOT, then you would NOT END UP BELIEVING 'things' like; 'God' is a male person/thing, and which created the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

But the entity we need accounted for is not merely one human. It's all the humans. It's the entire human race, and all the animal species,

WHY do you say, 'human', and, 'all the animal species', like 'you', humans, are NOT OF 'the animal species', "immanuel can"?

and all the plants and birds and fish and insects and microorganisms and inanimate objects and rock formations and stars and galaxies...it's the universe. So let's imagine we don't know what such a cause could be: the right way to proceed, it seems to me, is to ask, "At minimum, what qualities would a purported Cause have to have, in order to be adequate to the ascribed effect of having generated this universe, with all its complexity and subtlety, it's organization and its laws, its spheres and dynamics, its social and animal entities, and all the phenomena that a universe entails?"

I suggest that BEFORE ANY one would BEGIN to even START to IMAGINE that there was 'A cause' to the Universe, Itself, you FIRST, FIND OUT, EXACTLY, IF the Universe, Itself, BEGAN, or NOT. And THEN proceed.

I suggest QUESTIONING 'this' FIRST, BEFORE ASKING, what 'you' do here "immanuel can".

But, AGAIN, please feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to proceed in absolutely ANY way 'you' like. No matter how Truly ABSURD and ILLOGICAL it IS.

And then, when we've got the list of those qualities that would make a proposed Cause adequate to that effect, we can ask, "What Entity would fit that description?"

Only then is the Cause we are thinking of adequate to the effect we're wanting to explain.

Candidates? Suggestions?

My FIRST suggestion here IS, QUESTION WHY one would even proceed to LOOK FOR A 'cause' for 'some thing' when one, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT YET even KNOW if 'that thing' HAD A BEGINNING, IN the FIRST PLACE.

[Age]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

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.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

This is an empty argument, since we can never know if the universe "began".

BUT 'we' CAN KNOW, and DO ALREADY KNOW. Well some of 'us', anyway.

It's beyond the empirical range of human experience.

This is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, ALSO.

'you', human beings, can have the most NARROWEST, SHALLOWEST, and SMALLEST 'field of view' sometimes.

And since Theologians makes exceptions for "GOD" whatever that is, then we can as easily make excpetions for "THE UNIVERSE" with equal hybris.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, IS EXACTLY what 'you' ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO here "sculptor".