The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is how we can expose the fallacy:

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

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

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

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

So the first premise is unnecessary worded.

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

I had argued elsewhere,
What is real, true, knowledge and objective must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most real, objective and credible at present.
There are no other FSKs which are more credible than the present scientific FSK.
Can you think of any otherwise.

If there is a least one other universe, then there must be an infinite number of universes.
But where are they, they can only be a speculation within some speculative-supernatural-FSKs which cannot be more real than the existing human-based scientific FSK.
Relative such supernatural FSK would be at the other extreme of realness and objective in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

The Universe as generally accepted;

• The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Because the universe is defined as ALL there is, there cannot be another 'all there is'.
So the scientific universe is the only universe which can be accepted without question and is evident.
I believe Craig agreed P1 implied the scientific universe [got to double check].

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

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:

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

Here is an interesting test.

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

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

Your views?

[VVilliam]

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

The Universe as generally accepted;
The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.

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

I agree with this definition and accompanying argument.

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

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

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

Currently I am working with the following premises.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, 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.

[VVilliam]

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

So the first premise is unnecessary worded.

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

The Universe as generally accepted;

• The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Currently I agree with the definition offered.

In that, I find it unnecessary (do not agree) that the additional phrasing you are using (scientific FSK et al) with "The Universe" is appropriate as this implies the existence of a non-scientific (supernatural) Universe.
Perhaps we can agree with discussing The Universe without any such unnecessary attachments?

In that, we could agree that The Universe requires from us/our human perspective of being in it, to scientific study it and since it is (very handily) available to us for such a purpose. We can agree to assume it is indeed that which can be studied rather than actually calling it "scientific" and thus opening the door to the possibility there is a universe which is not "scientific".

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

So the first premise is unnecessary worded.

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

The Universe as generally accepted;

• The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Currently I agree with the definition offered.

In that, I find it unnecessary (do not agree) that the additional phrasing you are using (scientific FSK et al) with "The Universe" is appropriate as this implies the existence of a non-scientific (supernatural) Universe.
Perhaps we can agree with discussing The Universe without any such unnecessary attachments?

In that, we could agree that The Universe requires from us/our human perspective of being in it, to scientific study it and since it is (very handily) available to us for such a purpose. We can agree to assume it is indeed that which can be studied rather than actually calling it "scientific" and thus opening the door to the possibility there is a universe which is not "scientific".

My fundamental principle is;
What is real, factual, true, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR [realization]-FSK [knowledge]. To keep it short, FSK imply FSR as well.

If we do not bring reality as conditioned, then we are opening it to the possibility of the UNCONDITIONED, opening up a pandora-box where anything goes, giving rise to speculative metaphysical entities [God], and generating dilemmas & antimonies.
Therefrom it is a 'till the cows come home' affair.

That is why I argued;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. FSK dependent reality [conditioned]
2. Philosophical Realism mind-independent reality [unconditioned].

Of course "Why FSK?" must be strongly argued with empirical evidences.
One clue toward this advancing direction is from Physics 'Model Dependent Realism' from Stephen Hawking, where model imply it is human-based.

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] .It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

The above imply "2. Philosophical Realism mind-independent reality [unconditioned]" is useless.

The most credible and objective FSK conditioned reality at present is that of the scientific FSK.
The term scientific FSK is glaringly obvious because our current science operate within a Framework [various wide conditions, paradigms, specific fields] and Systems [the standard scientific method, other necessary processes].
To discuss this relevant complex issue we have to be rigorous, consider nuances and be more definite and precise on our approach.

Can you show there is a FSK more credible and objective than the scientific-FSK at present?
If not, then to start off with any realistic it has to be conditioned upon the scientific FSK as I did above.
This automatically cut off any metaphysical-ontology like philosophical realism and theistic realism [God] and other pseudo-scientific claims.

Because the Kalam Cosmological Argument is ultimately metaphysical and ontological it is not tenable to be real [scientific as the standard].
There is no real God but we can accept there is an illusory God that is useful for psychological purposes.

It is your discretion to rely on an unqualified and unconditional universe, but in my view it inherently has holes which theists can easily eel through.

Note:
Re Why PI must be scientific.
In Craig's article he provided 3 reasons to support his PI' and the third reason is;

• 3.. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'.
  The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the Universe.
  So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

So it is not wrong for me to qualify PI as scientific transparently all the way.
This is to ensure Craig do not pull 'anything' out of his sleeves later in the argument.

The present scientific community has not confirm the existence of other universes other than the one that is defined scientifically as per the scientific-FSK.

[VVilliam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Iwannaplato]

1

[promethean75]

... is the loneliest number that you'll ever do?

[Age]

there is a 3rd party intelligence omnipotent to our perceivable reality

Would you also claim about that 3rd-party, that it is supernatural?

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.

But, 'It' is already well understood and well known, through and by science, itself.

But, then again, your 'currency' is of a different, and/or of an older, period or time.

'It', by the way, could obviously never be an a.i. simulation. For the extremely obvious reason.

[Age]

Would you also claim about that 3rd-party, that it is supernatural?

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.

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

There is absolutely nothing that could not be 'not of Nature, Itself'.

Although some human beings do like to think of themselves as being above, beyond, or not a part of Nature, Itself.

[Age]

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.

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

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

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

you human beings, here, are just in a process of 'catching up', as it could be said.

[Age]

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.

But there is no 'cause', well not from the concept that you have and are holding onto here.

As can be, and was, very easily and simply proved irrefutably True, scientifically.

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).

Why does the word 'mind' have to be in relation to 'persons'?

And, who and/or what does the 'person' word even refer to, exactly?

3. An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect.

Which is, more or less, exactly what is happening and occurring HERE-NOW, always, and forever.

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.

The so-called 'temperature' has never ever always been below zero, so I am not sure what this 'simple example' is meant to be explaining, that is; if it was meant to be explaining some thing.

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.

There is nothing that is 'not natural'. So, once again, thus 'we' have here another perfect example of why it is much better to never assume any thing.

IF the uncaused is natural (as it must be since it was not caused)

But even all of what is 'caused' is also natural.

THEN anything arising from the natural would have to be regarded as a natural extension of a natural thing.

But not if the 'thing', which cause/created some thing else, decided to call the new arose 'thing' to 'not natural'.

For example, exactly like how you naturally evolved and caused or created human beings perceived, and called, what you cause and create to be 'not natural' or 'unnatural'. Which is what you sometimes essentially do anyway. As well as if one were to just 'sit back' and look at quite a bit of what you human beings are doing, in the days when this is being written, I could see and understand, perfectly, why you sometimes call what you do 'unnatural'.

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.

I think we could remove the word 'entity' and the 'a' word before the 'natural' word, and just keep the word 'natural', and this would then all make perfect sense. And, irrefutably True also by the way.

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.

The word 'Mind' plays a big part here, but I am not sure why you want to relate 'That' with you people, or 'persons'. It is like you want to keep this 'personal'. And, the actual reason why will come-to-light to 'you' human beings as 'we' continue on here.

With this view, consciousness/mindfulness would not be something separate or supernatural but rather an inherent aspect included in the fundamental nature of existence.

Again, 'it' has to be.

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.

But who and/or what are these 'minds' things, exactly, which you speak of and write about here, ?

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,

But, by definition It could not be temporal.

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).

How could the 'stuff', which makes up objects, be both 'temporal' and also be regarded as 'eternal'?

Obviously the 'stuff', which objects are made up of, is forever, and thus eternal.

[Age]

A Discussion on Matter, Energy, and Temporality

Me: Are there differing forms of the Kalam?

............

Heading: Navigating the Meaning of "The Universe" in the Kalam Cosmological Argument: 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

I see what you are saying and did read that post when it first appeared.

The conversation I got GPT assistance on, has been ongoing.

Here, and above, 'we' can clearly see human beings had evolved to not just discuss endlessly about some things with each other but had evolved enough to create robots or machines, which they could then end up having endless discussions with in regards to the exact same things.

Also, as we can clearly see here, from these people back then, the very reason why 'this argument' was 'endlessly' being talked about, discussed, and argued and fought over was simply because they had, once again, taken a Truly False claim and presented 'it' as a 'premise'.

So, if they had just removed the False premise, completely, then 'this argument' could have been over and finished when it first appeared, some few hundred years prior to when these writings appeared.

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...

[Age]

The premises used only mentioned "uncaused cause" which we know in some theist circles means the omni-God idea that you argue cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Please do not forget that you people can say that you have argued for, or argued against, some thing, but this in absolutely no way at all means that the 'argument' is a 'sound and valid argument', which in Reality are the only 'arguments' that are worthy of being repeated.

However, an uncaused cause does not have to mean "an Omni God".

Why not?

What do the words 'Omni God' mean, to you, exactly?

How does your argument deal with that?

"veritas aequitas" so-called 'argument' does not deal with any thing, really. As it is not a 'sound and valid argument' anyway.