Argument from Mystical Experience

"What if you slept, and what if in your sleep you dreamed,

and what if in your dream you went to heaven

and there you plucked a strange and beautiful flower,

and what if when you awoke you had the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?"

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Although I have yet to formulate an argument based around what I find to be the most compelling lines of evidence for the soul, and then theism, I would say I find Arguments from Mystical Experiences to be convincing. Now, I'm not saying that all 'mystical' experiences are true. In fact, I am hesitant when mystical experiences are brought up too often in the church setting. Claiming divine intervention on healing is a bold claim, and I think for a skeptical audience member, this might seem as if they are trying to postulate a 'Healing of the Gaps' argument for divine intervention.


So what exactly is a mystical experience? I would consider the following lines of research 'mystical' in nature:


- Evidence of Near-Death Experiences
- Evidence for deathbed visions
- Evidence for Reincarnation
- Evidence for mediumship


Other lines of research that would seem to undermine naturalism are evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance, healing powers, psychic powers, etc.


How about this:


1. If naturalism is true, then all mystical experiences would be explainable in naturalistic terms.
2. Not all mystical experiences can be explained in naturalistic terms.
Therefore:
3. Naturalism is false
And, for me:
4. The best explanation for these lines of evidence is the existence of an entity separate from our physical bodies, an immaterial 'thing.'
5. The best explanation for this 'separate entity' or 'soul,' 'mind,' or 'spirit' is the existence of a God capable of creating such an entity (Another rationale behind this is that if we accept the evidence for verdical experiences as authentic, then we have no reason not believe the rest of the standard NDE - namely that God, or 'The Light' exists, and there is an afterlife).


It's pretty clear that the above argument begs the question at premise two, so the only way to accept (2) is to decide if the evidence is explainable in naturalistic terms. I say it cannot be. If one takes a step back and acknowledges that there is, at the very least, evidence, in all the above areas, it's easy to say that we should only expect this type of evidence if naturalism were false.


In order to accept premise (2), however, one has to do some research on the matter, and no example given in this space could suffice for what thousands of pages of NDE research could accomplish. It's not very hard to find information on the matter, as many of the top experts on NDE's have moved past whether they are authentic or not, and have moved towards understanding their implications. So, needless to say, there are many books on the matter that revolve around their authenticity, and for the skeptic, those should be the ones to debunk.

Who Will Guard the Guards?

"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....." 

-Plato

A skeptic is someone who questions the truthfulness of a given assertion. And the more radical the assertion, the more overwhelming the evidence has to be. These people are the hypothetical 'guards' to the truth, - guarding it from the bogus claims of potentially religious fanatics. The problem is, while these guards are meant to challenge controversial assertions of those enslaved to an ideology, they themselves have become enslaved the the ideology of naturalism. Claims are no longer viewed in a serious scientific light, but rather scrutinized under the assumption from the get-go that they must be false, and any justification they can give is better than what these people claim to have seen or experienced. Nowhere is this ideology more prevalent than in the assessment of Near-Death experiences.


When one thinks of religion, one typically assumes some type of belief in the afterlife. To many, this belief is viewed as wishful thinking, and it shows how fearful people are of death. Because of this fear, religions created the concept of the 'soul,' which survives after death - which they will say has absolutely no bearing on reality, and is completely a man-made invention. However, with globalization, the commonality of near-death experiences, as well as their striking similarities have been revealed for all, sparking a new sect of scientific (in some cases pseudo-scientific) research into the actual possibility that life-after-death may in fact be.


Approximately 5% of the population have experienced either a NDE or OBE (out-of-body experience). For people who are actually 'near-death,' approximately 1/3 have a NDE, and this number is probably is low, for reasons you can read about here. NDE's occur across all cultures, all races, and can be seen in documentation in various cultures throughout history. There are around eleven common elements of NDE's, and the usual person experiences around six to seven of these elements. The experience usually includes some variety of the following: a great being of light (this is the most prevalent, and powerful element in NDE accounts), a tunnel-like sequence, talking to deceased loved ones, feeling extremely loved, feeling like they are returning home, heightened perception, a life-review, communicating with religious figures, and being told they must (or can choose) to return to their body. The NDE'r typically does not fear death after his or her NDE, and actually welcomes it, seeing it as merely 'biological death.' The NDE'r usually becomes much more 'spiritual' as a result of their experience. Perhaps most importantly is that the NDE'r usually does not doubt that what they experienced was real, and does not believe that they were hallucinating.


Now the first response would be to ask if we can believe what these people are telling us. The obvious problem is the huge number of people who have experienced this, as well as the commonality most experiences share. If I told you I saw a polar bear in downtown Telford, you would probably be skeptical - and for good reason. If millions of people told you they saw that polar bear, it would be unreasonable to conclude they are all lying. The only way there wasn't a polar bear in downtown Telford is if these people, in one way or another, are deceived. 


The next set of theories attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation for NDE's. You don't have to go far, however, before it becomes clear that a naturalistic explanation just cant solve all of these experiences. For example, take a NDE'r or OBE'r who follows his family around the hospital and sits with them in the cafeteria while they eat lunch, and after the NDE'r is healed, they proceed to tell their family the conversations they had while the NDE'r was in a coma. One could argue that this NDE'r could be imagining all of this, even though they are seeminly flat-lining, but one cannot explain in any naturalistic sense how a conversation taking place far away from their body could be overheard, and accurately retold. Once we realize that naturalism cannot explain this, the rest of the phenomena, which otherwise must be explained as some type of delusion, make much more sense. Does it seem realistic for those who are hallucinating to experience heightened perception? And if these people are hallucinating, wouldn't one expect them to at least by cynical as to what they've experienced?


This same type of skepticism is what produces Christ-Myth theories. If we are to believe that Christ didn't exist, then we have no more reason to believe that just about anyone before the time of Christ existed. We have reference to the historical Jesus is the accounts of Josephus, as well as later Roman Emperors to corroborate with the evidence given in the Bible. If the same set of scientific and historical standards were applied to evolution and Alexander the Great, we would feel completely different the actuality of both of these things. Historians who approach the historical Jesus without bias are able to recognize this, as seen in the video below:

The above examples lead me to believe that anyone who approaches the question of God with an open heart will find reason to believe in God. Many of the greatest minds throughout history, such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Aquinas, and Descartes were all theists in one way or another, so you're in good company (Aristotle is questionable, as he believed in a 'Prime Mover'). There are many reasons to believe in God, or merely to believe naturalism is false, as I think NDE's clearly provides, and I think those who approach spirituality as actual skeptics will be rewarded with the evidence available.

Near-Death Experiences

I wanted to post something on Near-Death Experiences (NDE's), to help add another piece of the evidence not only that naturalism is false, that a 'soul' or 'mind' exist, but also as evidence for God and the possibility of the afterlife. There is a good summary here that talks about some of the current understanding of NDE's. Here are some of the basic points:


-There are approximately thirteen to fourteen million people in the United States, (2% of the population) and at least fifteen million more around the world that have had an experience defined as a “near-death experience”


- There are eleven basic elements in NDE's. Nobody experiences all of them, but people usually experience six to seven.


-Numerous people have told of hearing or watching their doctors or other spectators, declare or pronounce them dead. Often they feel like they are another person in the room somewhere, watching the whole thing like a spectator, but being unable to feel anything associated with their own body. 


-The existence of light is probably the most common and dominant element in the accounts of NDEs. It is this, which has the most profound effect upon the individual being.


-The love and warmth which ‘emanate' from this light are beyond words.


-Astonishingly, many people describe the light as having a personality. People recount it having a sense of humor, and it being fun to be around. A little girl who died in a swimming pool, and who then told about her experience simply said, “You'll see, heaven is fun” 


-When one dies, reviews ones are commonly recounted. The review is usually in the form of a ‘movie' which will show some irrelevant and some significant things about one's life. Watching the review is just like being part of it, standing there in the scene as a spectator. 


-In many cases, various unusual sensations are reported to occur at or near death; sometimes they are extremely unpleasant. Often it is a really loud, uncomfortable buzzing noise that rings, or other times it is the experience of intense unpleasant feelings. “I had the feeling of being lonesome… I was completely alone, by myself… I really felt a fit of depression then."

-This could be a form of what many religions call ‘hell'. These experiences seem to be much rarer, but maybe they are just so uncommon because people feel uncomfortable talking about them since they are hell-like and may indicate that the person has lived a bad life.

-“In the presence of the light, the thoughts or words came into my mind: ‘Do you want to die?' And I replied that I didn't know since I knew nothing about death. Then the white light said, ‘Come over this line and you will learn.'… As I crossed the line, the most wonderful feelings came over me - feelings of peace, tranquility, a vanishing of all worries."

-This experience shows how life and life after death are separated, and how the experiences people have, are just an inter-phase to life after death. 

-The people that had NDEs also get a totally new picture of what death is like! Most of the time they enjoy it so much that they are not even afraid of dying - not a single bit. 

What I find most impressive about all these experiences are the number of persons who experience them, and also just how convinced they are themselves that what they've seen is real. I think it's foolish to say that all of these millions of people are simply 'making it up.' It's possible it's a type of hallucination, but given the similarities between the experiences, as well as how convinced the people are of what they've seen, I'd say this is all remarkable evidence. Here is an archive over on SubmersiveThinking that has NDE's in video, if you want to judge for youself. Also, here is a list of quotes from persons having NDE's and what they've meant to them. 

It's also important to note that the afterlife has been a common aspect in religion for a long time. Although it's been depicted differently from religion to religion, it usually revolves around common elements that seem to transcend religion. Perhaps NDE's, as has been suggested, have inspired and helped evolve not only past religions, but religions perception of the afterlife, and what's in store for us. Perhaps these images of light have helped humankind throughout history modify their image of God to one closer to reality. 

Dr. Kenneth Ring, perhaps the most respected of all near-death researchers, and the one who did most to put the subject on the academic map, says:

"Any adequate neurological explanation would have to be capable of showing how the entire complex of phenomena associated with the core experience [that is, the out-of-body state, paranormal knowledge, the tunnel, the golden light, the voice or presence, the appearance of deceased relatives, beautiful vistas, and so forth] would be expected to occur in subjectively authentic fashion as a consequence of specific neurological events triggered by the approach of death ... I am tempted to argue that the burden of proof has now shifted to those who wish to explain NDEs in this way."

Furthermore, there are many books written on out-of-body experiences, and you can read sample chapters of some material here.

And perhaps best of all,  here  is a report which outlines NDE's, what happens during them, and goes over why all other skeptical explanations simply fall short of adequetly explaining this phenomena.

A Traditional Argument for Mental States

It would seem that it could go without saying that free will, and non-material mental states exist. For anyone who doesn't know why this is important, let me illustrate quickly. Naturalism believes that free-will is an illusion, since we are fully determined by our environment and DNA, as I talked about here. Furthermore, naturalism will assert that all things are either matter or energy. So, by attempting to prove that mental states exist that are in no way physical, I will abbreviate an argument found here, which you can read for a better version (which contains a link at the bottom to an even more detailed version. 

Say we create a man named Steve. Steve is perfectly knowledgeable in reading the brain. In fact, he has an instrument he places over his eyes which allows him to see all the activity going on in ones brain while on is thinking, from the firing of neurons to the movement of electrons. Now, to test whether his complete knowledge of the brain actually can allow him to understand what I am thinking, I will imagine something. I will imagine a dog, but not just any dog. This dog will be one that does not even exist in real life, but nevertheless, I imagine a dog that has a horn coming out of his head, three tails, six legs, two heads, and has scales and breathes fire. 

The question is, if someone where to completely have knowledge of one's brain and the movement of electrons, the processes that goes on within it, could they recreate the imagine I made in my head? More importantly, can he completely read my mind by looking at my brain? This is essentially the question - is the brain that which does the thinking itself, or merely a transmitter from mental states to physical states? In the above example, I would say no combination of neural states and electron movement could ever allow someone to recreate that image. The argument would look something like:


1.) Steve is able to understand all possible physical states of my brain.
2.) I am thinking about a specific type of dog.
3.) Steve cannot fully conceptualize the dog I am thinking of merely by looking at the brain
thus-
4.) Steve does not know my 'mental states' by looking at my physical states
5.) Since mental states exist, physicalism is thus false.

The argument obviously hinges on premise (3). The question to me is - does my brain look any different when I'm thinking about one dog than when I am thinking about another kind of dog? I would imagine it would not.

Furthermore, how is something that seems completely a mental state attributed in terms of physical things? At first glance, one might think the brain does the thinking. Clearly, consciousness, and thus one's mental states are affected by the physical. One's mental quickness seems to depend on the body, as we become quicker as we develop in our youth, and then it depreciates as we get older. We clearly are able to lose consciousness when struck in the head, so it only seems natural that the brain is what creates psyche. 

But this is altogether difficult to imagine. How can an atom have the feeling of blue? Or better yet, how can an atom feel happiness? What difference does it make if we put ten atoms together? or 100? or enough to make an arm? Does an arm have a 'self''? If the atoms and molecules and cells in the arm don't have a self, what makes them any different when arranged to form the glob we call a brain? This type of thinking is further expanded in an article located here.

The dualist, or one believing in a separation of physical and mental states, would use the analogy of the radio to illustrate the purpose of the brain. If one would take a sledgehammer to a radio, we would obviously notice the music would stop playing. But it would be wrong of us to assume that the radio is actually creating the music. Instead, we know the radio to receive the signal from another source. In the same way, the dualist believes the brain to be such that it transfers mental states to physical states. Obviously, how this process is done, if it is indeed done, is not something that is scientifically testable, and would be scientifically denied as being something that exists.  

Metaphysical Naturalism

The below quote is taken from another blog that I really enjoy looking at. It discussed many of the arguments surrounding God, but in particular discusses the implications of naturalism as a worldview, and what people who accept naturalism (and thus atheism) must believe. It's important to note that the implications of naturalism are some of the most convincing aspects towards belief in the supernatural (or God). Below is a quote from a leading philosophical naturalist Alex Rosenberg, where he fully understands the implications that naturalism has regarding our world-view. 

Really think about this. Many arguments for God are really the disbelief in what life without God, or the supernatural, would entail. People who ask to prove to them that there is a God are asking for the impossible, in the same way that it can't be proven there isn't a God. If the options are super-naturalism and naturalism, and we don't believe the result of naturalism to be correct, then we are left with accepting something more, namely the supernatural. Here is what Rosenberg has to say about the implications of naturalism:

 " It is of course obvious that introspection strongly suggests that the brain does store information propositionally, and that therefore it has beliefs and desire with “aboutness” or intentionality. A thoroughgoing naturalism must deny this, I allege. If beliefs are anything they are brain states—physical configurations of matter. But one configuration of matter cannot, in virtue just of its structure, composition, location, or causal relation, be “about” another configuration of matter in the way original intentionality requires (because it cant pass the referential opacity test). So, there are no beliefs"

I hope your able to see what happened there. Because naturalism is assumed from the onset to be true, we thus arrive at the conclusion that we have no beliefs, because a 'belief' cannot be a configuration of matter, no matter how elegantly arranged it is. Now what do you believe is the more likely conclusion, that we have no beliefs, no free will, and are completely caused by our environment and DNA, or that naturalism is false? If naturalism is true, the implications are tremendous. This means that we are completely 'caused' by nature, just like everything else, and we all have the illusion of free will, which has developed over thousands of years of evolution. To push this idea further on it's implications, quoting Richard Dawkins, renowned atheist biologist:

"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Faulty car?"

The above is not just completely wrong, and stupid, in my opinion, but it's also dangerous. If our minds are completely determined by our environment and DNA, then we have no real blame for acting in the way we do. We are simply a product of our environment and DNA. Well what caused those? Well our environment is largely due to the actions of other people in how they interact with us, and our DNA from our parents, and their parents and so forth. So really, if we trace the cause of this all the way back, we are just as right saying, "The Big Bang made me do it," when confronted about a crime. Like the above quote mentions, we might as well just abolish the judicial system and punishment for our crimes. Dawkins goes on to say that he believes one day, we'll laugh about the fact that we used to punish those who committed crimes.

This is the type of backwards science that the assumption of naturalism produces, as seen with the multiverse. Since naturalism must be true, than the premises are worked to fit the conclusion (that naturalism is true). But shouldn't we follow the premises towards the conclusion they logically lead us towards, even if that be doubt (or rejection) of naturalism? The multiverse is only a theory because it attempts to explain away the supernatural (or highly unlikely) probability that our universe could contain life.

Even more, if naturalism is true, then we are a complete accident, and really nothing matters at all. It's easy to see why belief in God can seem illogical at times, picturing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who created everything, but the problem is without Him in the picture, things make even less sense. The following is a quote from Jime at Subversive Thinking, who I linked above:

"But if naturalism is true, which is the ultimate purpose of an objective moral order? Human beings are accidental by-products of evolution. No afterlife exists. No free will exists. The universe as a whole is going to dissapear in the future. No spiritual reason for the universe, or for our specific existence, exists at all. All is part of a mere accident of a purposeless and blind material evolution, in regards to which we have zero importance. What's the ultimate purpose of obeying the moral rules in a purely naturalistic universe? In such naturalistic universe, only utilitarian and pragmatic reasons could be offered to being moral (i.e. it is useful or strategically conventient to be moral), but not ultimate purpose or trascendent consequence exists for such behaviour. And no explanation exists for an objective (human mind-independent) existence of such moral order in a purely materialistic universe."

Fine-Tuning Argument

The fine tuning argument, to put it simply, is science's way of observing that the initial conditions for our universe had to be set so precisely in order to create a universe that allowed life to grow. Conditions such as as the mass of the proton, neutron, the gravitational force, cosmological constant, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, are very suitable towards sustaining life. If you want to find out more about just how crazy the odds are, there is lots of good information you can read on the internet. Really, what I find important are the objections to the fine-tuning argument. I think the Fine-Tuning Argument is best thought of after consider the implications of the cosmological argument. All in all, the fine-tuning argument shows that we seem to be extremely lucky, and it's not unreasonable to think the universe was 'designed.' If we saw a group of 50 expert marksman lined up in a firing squad fire, and they all missed the target who was several feet from them, we would not conclude that they all just happened to miss, but rather that they all missed on purpose. Such is what the fine-tuning argument implies. Here are some of the responses:

Multiple Universes: I like science. And I have just about the utmost faith that science is not trying to undermine religion. But in the case of the multiverse (as well as science concluding we don't have free will), it seems to me that the conclusion supports the premises, not the other way around. The multiverse should be labeled for what it is: an attempt to explain 'Design' out of the picture. String Theory notwithstanding, the multiverse has absolutely no proof. If you ask how many universes are in the multiverse, it becomes clear that the purpose is to eliminate design. So the number of universes is however many it takes to make the probability that one will support life decent. Now, I don't necessarily think anything wrong about the possibility of multiple universes, but as of now, this theory needs to be labeled for what it is. If you believe in the multiverse, you are using just as much faith as anyone of any religion has ever needed.

Self-Organizing System: I've heard this one thrown around the blogosphere, that systems organize themselves. Two things. First, the constants are typically not related at all, at least up to this point by any scientific theory, and thus, it's unreasonable to think that they are able to interact in a way and organize. More importantly, even if a system was able to organize itself, why would it organize towards being life-permitting? There is no reason to think it would move towards a life-permitting universe over a non-life permitting one. 

Argument from Imperfection: This turns the fine-tuning argument on it's head and states that actually, the universe is mostly rather hostile to life, and thus, could be much better if a designer was involved. First, I would argue how we can know what conditions would make a better universe? It's easy to imagine a universe worse off than ours for permitting life, but it's hard for me to imagine one that is much better. Second, this is to assume that if there is a God, he has no purpose for leaving a majority of the universe uninhabitable. To make this argument is to assume that a designer would create a universe capable of holding as much life as possible, with no other purpose involved, and I don't see why this would be the case.

All in all, the fine-tuning argument is more dangerous than the cosmological argument as far as being something to latch onto. It certainly adds evidence towards God, but it is not without some risk in latching onto. Like the cosmological argument, it uses the fact that we exist to explain our need for God.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

While the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) may sound complex, the premise is simple. It's quite possibly the most common argument used in debates today, and has been around since the time of St. Aquinas, however originating with the Islamic theologians of the Kalam tradition. Below you can see it in its form:

The Kalām cosmological argument:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;

   Therefore:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)

I'd like to explain for those who aren't familiar with the argument the paths that can be taken when moving through the premises, and what it shows us.

Premise one states that "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." This, at first glance, seems about as trivial as it gets. When applied to the universe, it is most commonly thought of as the Big Bang. The Big Bang in itself would not be thought of as the cause, since we have no reason to believe a 'Big Bang' could cause itself. Oftentimes the definition of causality is brought up here as an objection, since typically a cause comes before the effect, and since the Big Bang is believed to be the beginning of both space and time, it is argued, there is no 'before,' per say, in reference to the Big Bang. This seems to dodge the point however. If one believes that the Big Bang doesn't need a cause, and just happened, we have no reason to believe another universe couldn't just spontaneously appear at any time. 


Furthermore, the first premise does not say, "Everything that exists has a cause," as is sometimes summarized in atheist-theist debates by the atheist side. The objection of, "What caused God?" inevitably comes up then, and this as seen as a never-ending argument showing nothing. But this is not how it is worded, since God, if he does indeed exist, does not have a beginning. Furthermore, it is worded carefully to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause, avoiding this oft brought up dilemma. 


Premise two also seems trivial if one is to accept the Big Bang theory as correct, but it could be that we are just seeing a small fraction of the entire universal history if the Big Bang is a reoccurring thing. I would reword premise (2) to state: The universe, or any form of the universe, has a beginning of its existence. Since the universe is defined as everything that exists this would encompass any other aspects, such as some pre-universal minefield of explosive ready-to-spawn universes, a cyclical model, where the universe is an oscillating from Big Bang to Big Bang, waves of energy that are eternally moving around, waiting to explode, aliens who learned how to create universes, etc, etc, till your imagination cannot think of any other way.


The most important part of this argument, however, is to note the logical and philosophical impossibility of an actual infinite regress of past events. This is exceedingly important, because it shows us that at some point time had to have begun. The typical example used for this is called Hilbert's Hotel, which I will illustrate like this. Say we choose to represent time in the past as persons in a hotel. If we want to represent ten years in the past, we would place ten people in the hotel. In order to get back to zero persons, or the present, we would take out person by person till we're back to zero. Makes enough sense. So if we are to represent an infinite regress, we would have to place an infinite many people in the hotel. Logistics of the analogy aside, you would never be able to reach the present, because you would always have an infinite amount of people still remaining in the hotel. No matter if you took out 1, 10 or a million people, you'd still by the definition of infinity still have an infinite amount of people in the hotel. The analogy is meant to show an actual infinite like this can't exist in nature.


You can also show this point many other ways, like lining up an infinite stack of dominoes, and picking one to be the 'present.' If you knocked down the first domino, you would have to traverse infinitely many dominoes to reach the present, and you'd never reach it. 


Or, if you want to prove it to someone you don't like - ask them to prove it for you by counting from negative infinity to zero. I'm sure they'll figure out soon enough it can't be done. 


This is used to show why any form of the universe cannot be infinite, and at some point must have had a cause. However we need a very special type of circumstance to explain this. We need something that is powerful enough to create a universe, and able to interact within time, in fact, to create time. However, we need this cause to not actually be a event in time itself, because then we would lead to a regress. For example, the cause itself  cannot be some 'waves of energy' as it was put by someone at my work. If the waves are finitely old, then they still just push back our need for a cause, but if they are infinity old, they violate the infinite progression. 


In terms of what we know of how things work, we need something that is more-or-less impossible to find. Something that is outside of time, yet able to interact with it, and immensely powerful, if not omnipotent. Whatever happened needed to decide to begin the universe in the finite past.


What I find most compelling is the lack of good responses to this, in my opinion. I've seen it refuted, but not by addressing the lack of an infinite regress. Some will maintain an infinite regress is possible, and if that's the case, then Kalam isn't that hard. But somehow you need to go from the infinite, or endless vat of time to the finite. It is argued that there is no time before the Big Bang - very well, that makes it easier. But if it is argued there was something happening, it would be causal, because something exists. I have a hard time seeing how to create time, at some point in the past, unless this was done intentionally, by something unhindered by time. I really can't see a way to avoid the problem of avoiding an infinite regress in any scenario, but perhaps i'm just naive.


After arriving at the conclusion of this argument, if you do accept those to premises as unavoidable,we can see that any possible universe would need an uncaused first cause, and no universe could exist without it. From this, the argument becomes somewhat like the Ontological Argument, something Kant addresses as to why he doesn't find the cosmological argument convincing (Kant was a theist though, but for other reasons). Kant, like others, will balk at the idea of a being being necessary. It's a hard concept to wrap one's head around, that God is in fact a necessary being.