Philosophical Speculations

Are any of you familiar with the Kalām argument, popularized by William Lane Craig?

To me it feels like a very strong argument for positing an uncaused and eternal consciousness as the cause of the universe. And from it one doesn't necessarily need to draw conclusions towards Christian theism - that consciousness may very well had been the non-meta-cognitive Mind @ Large.

The main problem with these types of arguments is that they are dualistic and simply assume there are two separate domains of reality, the "natural" and the "supernatural" i.e. the material and the mental/spiritual. They therefore run into the same problems as the materialists - how do the two interact if they are qualitatively different? So I would say the argument is technically correct but in a very superficial and therefore fleeting way. There are much more solid arguments against materialism and for idealism or spiritual reality.

I've nothing to add to the previous discussion of this topic in the old MS forum.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:42 pm I've nothing to add to the previous discussion of this topic in the old MS forum.

Ah, thank you, I forgot we already had this discussion back then .

assuming we're talking about this: (wikipedia)

The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following brief syllogism:[4]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
   Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]
4. The universe has a cause.
5. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
6. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful
   .

Can somebody unpack 5 for me pls. I see no reason to conclude that there is an uncaused personal creator, just because the universe has a cause.

The pile of dung i see before me also has a cause, and although its creator is not personal but at least bovine, it's certainly caused. What's the difference?

I could come up with a pretty believable proof for the existence of sunsets - but until you've seen one any and all arguments are non confincing. After you've experienced a sunset the arguments are frivilous.

Wikipedia does a pretty bad job describing the argument. The best source I've found are the audio series starting with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGWuZ0h4DN8.

This is a pretty good discussion here on the Leibniz formulation