The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Dana Lomas]

Kudos to anyone that is familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as you're more knowledgeable than I, nonetheless, it seems this is relevant to many discussions here  regarding a transpersonal 'Self' ... The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Dana Lomas]

While under idealism we grant that consciousness, as the irreducible ontological primitive, is uncaused, and thus has no point of origin in time, it still seems to leave open the question of this individuated locus of consciousness having a cause, or point of origin in time, which, however much one presumes that such must be the case, still seems to be a highly dubious proposition that indeed this is the case. But if so, where to locate it?

[Eugene I]

That's a good video, I'm listening. But I don't think anybody has an answer. According to Buddha, he recalled his previous incarnations but said that "the origin cannot be traced". But some NDE and regression therapy accounts claim that the new alters are constantly being "born". Of course all of these testimonies are speculative and inconclusive.  

[Dana Lomas]

Well, I'm not gonna cop out ... it happened at the point of the cognitive 'big bang', the Father and the Mother getting it on, the initial Child being conceived, and as per the Mandelbrot set its fractal individuation has being going on ad infinitum ever since, which is what happens when no meta-cognition goes into getting it on ... symbolically speaking of course. So this Christmas, contemplate that birth, and make the best of it  :)  

[Brad Walker]

https://www.theonion.com/nasa-s-hubble-telescope-captures-rare-sight-of-2-galaxi-1845350401

[Dana Lomas]

Sorry RHC, this thread may have to be X-rated !

[RHC]

; )

[Dana Lomas]

Whew, that was a narrow X-scape. And now back to our regularly scheduled 'programming' ... Rockin' Around the Xmas Tree

[Eugene I]

Smart guy. This is a good one too: Could God Be Evil?

[Dana Lomas]

Yes, as you may have noticed, I suggested he chat with BK in the comments on that good/evil debate :)

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

WLG is a rationalist, like most evangelical Christian apologists, which is why I find his arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument somewhat meaningless. They will not convince many people to accept idealism or the Christian faith in any deep, long-lasting, meaningful way. Here is a 'discussion' and Q&A about the "meaning of life" between WLG, Rebecca Goldstein JBP, which may illustrate my point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV4oIqnaxlg&t=3890s 

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Specifically you may want to check out the initial Q&A exchange around the 1:13:00 time.

[Dana Lomas]

This is the first I've heard of or from WLG, so I can't jump to any conclusions. And in this chat, while he surely is implying idealism, he certainly didn't get into any coherent articulation of it, but then I suppose that wasn't the intention. But just saying that the universe as a cause, and that cause must be a Divine cause, isn't saying much. More intriguing, I feel, would be Alex chatting with BK about his ideas, and really getting into an in depth exploration of the religious implications. 

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Smart guy. This is a good one too: Could God Be Evil? 

Not to sound too disparaging to this young man... but this is just child's play.  He is right that most modern 'religious' people do not confront God's 'complicity' in the suffering and malevolence inherent to existence, but wrong that most religious thinkers do not confront it. Throughout history, that is exactly what almost all religious thinkers have confronted and quite successfully IMO. 

In modern times, we have to look to the philosophers and depth psychologists - Carl Jung squarely confronts it in Answer to Job, which I am sure this kid has never read. In general, the 'new atheists' have never confronted any of these deep religious thinkers. They have not grown out of the materialist/rationalist paradigm which the evangelical Christians, who they are "debating", are also immersed in. Two sides of the same shallow coin.  

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"And in this chat, while he surely is implying idealism, he certainly didn't get into any coherent articulation of it, but then I suppose that wasn't the intention "

WLG is a substance dualist, which is standard for many recent theistic apologists. That is why, fundamentally, his arguments for the Christian God are misleading at best. This Alex kid, from the two videos I have seen so far, would need a lot more philosophical contemplation and deprogramming before being ready to appreciate BK's ideas. The 'new atheist' types generally have ventured out of any meaningful, open-minded philosophy/theology and into pure materialist/rationalist ideology. The more time and resources they have devoted to that endeavor, the harder it will be to convince them to truly keep an open mind. He is still young, so maybe you are right... I guess it couldn't hurt to try.

[Eugene I]

<< In modern times, we have to look to the philosophers and depth psychologists - Carl Jung squarely confronts it in Answer to Job, which I am sure this kid has never read.  >>

Personally I'm quite in agreement with Jung's views on this topic. But the Jung's position is a complete heresy from the traditional Christianity standpoint. The "kid" is arguing mostly with the traditional Christianity and its theology, not with the modern open-minded monotheism of the Jungian kind (which only few of advanced monotheist philosophers would probably subscribe to).   

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"The "kid" is arguing mostly with the traditional Christianity and its theology, not with the modern open-minded monotheism of the Jungian kind (which only few of advanced monotheist philosophers would probably subscribe to)."   

I don't really buy that. By suggesting that something as deep as 'morality' can be grounded in something other than a religious worldview (like 'secular humanism'), he is necessarily arguing against all religious thinkers throughout human history. Now I doubt he is aware of that, just like his not aware that his morality is not possible without some belief in religious truths, which he holds unconsciously.  They are instantiated in his biology. But, again, he would need to shift to a different paradigm (away from rationalism/materialism) to begin seeing how that is true.

[Dana Lomas]

Yes, I could be wrong, but there seemed to be some inklings of doubt in Alex, that could yet have him questioning his premise a lot deeper. Given how young he is, and how much of life he has yet to experience, the mind may not yet be entirely locked up.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Well, browsing his videos more, he has certainly debated some heavyweights in the apologist community recently. So now would be a great time to expose his viewers, either evangelical Christians or skeptics on the fence, to the idealist philosophy of BK. 

[Lauris Olups]

I'm totally captivated by WLC's Kalam argument! I'm convinced up to the point of evoking the Biblical God.

I totally get his arguments against actual infinities and infinite regress, and even this short video on why the first cause must be personal rather than abstract set of conditions. 

So the most logical conclusion to me is that there exists a beginningless entity of a deistic kind, that has existed changelessly until, well, the first change. As WLC says: God exists timelessly sans creation, and within time since creation.

The biggest trouble for me is conceiving of anything beginningless because it seems my mind just isn't equipped to handle that. But rationality and logic seem to force that point, so I just have to accept that there is something uncaused and beginnignless even if I can't form a proper mental image of it in my mind.

[Eugene I]

<<  I just have to accept that there is something uncaused and beginnignless  >>

Sure, but why does it have to be the Biblical God? There is so many other possibilities, even including matter. There are other arguments against matter, but the "origin" argument does not prove one origin vs the other, because arguably even matter, just like God or simply impersonal consciousness, can be exactly the "thing" that exists uncaused and beginingless. I'm not advocating materialism, but I'm just saying that the Kalam's argument is not very good one.

[Lauris Olups]

I don't think Kalam goes as far as advocating for any particular god. I think WLC lays out a good argument for the personhood of the first cause in the video I linked to. Now, this could well be the non-meta-cognitive M@L, but still, as a conscious agent to some degree, it would be able to produce spontaneous effects.

[Dana Lomas]

Isn't WLG basically arguing that there has to be some felt sense of beingness, i.e. fundamental awareness, immanent to the OP for there to be an imperative towards becoming individuated in an ever-evolving way? This is to say that he's implying idealism. However, that this needs to be some sense of 'personhood' seems problematic.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"I totally get his arguments against actual infinities and infinite regress, and even this short video on why the first cause must be personal rather than abstract set of conditions."  

These are not "bad" arguments per se, as long you do not take them literally i.e. the way he intends them.  I think it's helpful to take everything he is saying and frame it in terms of 'psychological' symbols, which then gets us to the objective idealist worldview and avoids the pitfalls of his substance dualism which will lead nowhere good. Of course, we may ask ourselves, why go through all of that trouble when we have plenty of objective idealists who also make a case for God in general and the trinitarian God of the Bible specifically, and that would be a valid question.