The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Ziran]

The word Elohim is a female word Eloha with the male -im ending. Thus Elohim is a plural word covering both genders

No.... Elohim is plural of elohei ( pronounced elohay), not elohah. Both elohei, and elohim are certainly masculine, because all verbs associated with them are masculine. The feminine component is shechinah which is the divine presence which is dwelling.

Thus Anu means heavenly being - coming into the Kabbalah as Ain.

Ain means "NOT". It is NOT a heavenly being. It is NOT a god. No matter what word is chosen, It is NOT with only one exception which is itself. It doesn't do anything, with only one exception which is negation.

Eloha seems to derive from the Sumerian Ilu.

No.... you're mixing all of these up. The closest analogue is Ail to IL. Aleph-Lamed. Elohei is different. Aleph-Lamed-Hei-Yud.

ויאמר אנכי אלהי אביך אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב ויסתר משה פניו כי ירא מהביט אל־האלהים׃

And he said, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

This comes into the Hebrew tradition as El Elyon and is translated as The Most High.

In the hebrew tradition, YHVH is The Most High. Abraham ( at that time Abram ) corrects malchi-tzedek.

ומלכי־צדק מלך שלם הוציא לחם ויין והוא כהן לאל עליון׃
And Melchizedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the אל עליו ("most high God").

ויברכהו ויאמר ברוך אברם לאל עליון קנה שמים וארץ׃
And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of אל עליו ("the most high God"), possessor of heaven and earth;

ויאמר אברם אל־מלך סדם הרמתי ידי אל־יהוה אל עליון קנה שמים וארץ׃
And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand to יהוה אל עליון ( "the Lord, the most high God" ) , the possessor of heaven and earth,​

See the difference? The other nations had their "most high god". Malchi-tzedek is tying to include Abram in that. Abram corrected it.... just as I am correcting you.

Post automatically merged: Nov 26, 2023

You ARE right in hinting, though, that the Arabic "Allah" is related to the Hebrews' "Elohim" (as to "El' generally.)

First, God is Islam is certainly the same God in Judaism. Second The name of God aleph-lamed is pronounced Ail, not El. El in hebrew is a preposition. Ail is the 2 dots under the aleph. Ail is a name which is expresses a one-to-one relationship with each and everything in creation. The two-dots under the aleph, the aleph itself which is two dots reflected in a sort of yin-yang, and the lamed which is connecting upwards. There is a similar derivation that can be made regarding the vocalization. The name is often associated with chesed, which expresses itself as "love".

Elohei and Elohim are completely different. Arguably opposite. Elohim is gevurah which expresses itself as strict justice. Elohei begins as a relationship, (the aleph), and it connects up, (the lamed), but the hand of god, (hei), comes down, and restricts, the (yud). There's other ways to derive this idea that elohim = strict-justice. But the main problem is, people don't actually know how to read and prnounce hebrew, so, the names get smooshed together and confused.

Post automatically merged: Nov 26, 2023

The universe began to exist.

Ultimately this is the fault with the kalam argument. While it's true that that the universe had a beginning, the singularity prior to it does not technically have a beginning. If the singularity includes time-and-space, then there is no prior to the singularity. Because of this, there is a hard limit to material cosmology.

 

[William]

William said:
The universe began to exist.

Ultimately this is the fault with the kalam argument. While it's true that that the universe had a beginning, the singularity prior to it does not technically have a beginning. If the singularity includes time-and-space, then there is no prior to the singularity. Because of this, there is a hard limit to material cosmology.

By asserting that the singularity includes time and space, you appear to be emphasizing that it is not just a theoretical abstraction but a concrete part of the physical description of the universe. If that is so, this perspective raises questions about how one defines a "beginning" in the presence of such a singularity, particularly if the singularity itself does not have a clear "prior" in terms of time and space. This nuanced view challenges simplistic interpretations of the universe having a straightforward beginning, as posited by some cosmological arguments.

Post automatically merged: Nov 27, 2023

This from an interaction with GPT, yesterday.

Me: What is the person saying?

Person. “The universe began to exist.”
Ultimately this is the fault with the kalam argument. While it's true that that the universe had a beginning, the singularity prior to it does not technically have a beginning. If the singularity includes time-and-space, then there is no prior to the singularity. Because of this, there is a hard limit to material cosmology.

GPT: The person is discussing the Kalam cosmological argument, which posits that the universe had a beginning. However, they are pointing out a perceived flaw in the argument. They argue that while it is true the universe had a beginning, the singularity that existed prior to the universe's beginning does not technically have a beginning itself. They suggest that if the singularity includes time and space, then there is no "prior" to the singularity, leading to a limitation in material cosmology. The statement implies a nuanced perspective on the concept of the beginning of the universe and challenges the simplicity of the Kalam cosmological argument.

Me: It still doesn’t make sense to me. Can it be reworded without losing the context?

GPT: Certainly! The person is critiquing the Kalam cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe had a beginning. The critique focuses on the idea that while the universe had a starting point, the singularity that existed before it may not have a conventional "beginning" if it includes time and space. In other words, if the singularity is not distinct from time and space, there is no "prior" to the singularity. This perspective introduces a challenge to the Kalam argument by questioning the notion of a clear-cut starting point for the universe.

Me: Can time and space be measured without functional form?



GPT: The question of whether time and space can be measured without a functional form is a nuanced one. Let's break it down:

Time Measurement:
Time is often measured based on events or processes. In classical physics, time is considered a continuous parameter, and it can be measured using various methods such as clocks. In relativistic physics, time is more intricately connected to space in a four-dimensional spacetime framework.

However, your question seems to touch on the idea of whether time can be measured without some underlying functional form or reference. Time measurement typically involves comparing the duration of events, and these comparisons inherently involve some form of reference or functional representation.

Space Measurement:
Space is often measured in terms of distance or displacement. In classical physics, Euclidean geometry provides a framework for measuring space. In modern physics, especially with the advent of relativity, space is intertwined with time in a four-dimensional spacetime continuum.

Similar to time, measuring space usually involves some form of reference or coordinate system, which can be considered a kind of functional form.

Functional Form:
A functional form generally refers to a mathematical expression or model that represents a relationship between variables. In the context of measuring time and space, functional forms often arise from the need to quantify and describe these concepts.

It's challenging to conceive of a measurement system that completely divorces itself from some form of functional representation or reference. The very act of measurement implies a comparison or mapping against a standard or scale.

In summary, while the exact nature of time and space can be complex and may be described differently in various physical theories, the practical act of measurement often involves some form of functional representation or reference point.

Me: In the case of the argument, the “singularity” could be the functional form?



GPT: In the context of the argument you mentioned earlier about the singularity, it seems like the term "singularity" is not being used as a functional form in the sense of a mathematical expression or model.

In cosmology and astrophysics, a singularity often refers to a point or region in spacetime where certain physical quantities become infinite or undefined. For example, in the context of the Big Bang theory, the singularity is a hypothetical state of extremely high density and temperature at which the universe is thought to have originated.

In the argument, the person is discussing the idea that if the singularity includes time and space, then the conventional notion of a "beginning" might be challenging to define because there may not be a distinct "prior" to the singularity. The singularity, in this case, is more of a concept representing a state of the universe rather than a functional form or mathematical model.

The person is raising questions about the applicability of the Kalam cosmological argument in the presence of such a singularity, emphasizing the intricacies and challenges in understanding the nature of the universe's beginning.

Me: So, essentially the person is saying that the singularity represents not only a stating point but a physical thing?


GPT: Yes, that's a reasonable interpretation. The person in the argument is suggesting that the singularity is not merely a theoretical starting point or an abstract concept but a physical entity or state. In the context of cosmology, the singularity is often considered a point of extremely high density and temperature, representing the initial state of the universe in theories like the Big Bang.

By asserting that the singularity includes time and space, the person is emphasizing that it is not just a theoretical abstraction but a concrete part of the physical description of the universe. This perspective raises questions about how one defines a "beginning" in the presence of such a singularity, particularly if the singularity itself does not have a clear "prior" in terms of time and space. This nuanced view challenges simplistic interpretations of the universe having a straightforward beginning, as posited by some cosmological arguments.