The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

[John J. Bannan]

[bluegreenearth]

Alright. I'll grant, for the sake of the argument, that a non-spatio-temporal quantum field can be considered separate from the universe.

Okay, so do you see further problems with premises 1-3 that you want to discuss before moving on to premise 4?

You may proceed to premise 4, but I reserve the right to be smarter later if I've overlooked something.

[bluegreenearth]

Alright. I'll grant, for the sake of the argument, that a non-spatio-temporal quantum field can be considered separate from the universe.

Okay, so do you see further problems with premises 1-3 that you want to discuss before moving on to premise 4?

You may proceed to premise 4, but I reserve the right to be smarter later if I've overlooked something.

[The Tanager]

You may proceed to premise 4, but I reserve the right to be smarter later if I've overlooked something.

Of course. I would also appreciate you sharing it so that I don't overlook anything in my own considerations.

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

Next, they consider the possibility that the footprint was made by an unknown species. They may not know precisely what this new species of animal might be but could speculate based on the properties of the footprint. After measuring the size, shape, and depth of the footprint, the scientists predict that they will discover a new species of rodent in the area with a foot that matches this print. After some time, they finally observe the animal and discover their prediction was correct.

That's what the theists are doing. They are saying the cause needs certain characteristics. They then say this matches a being that fits other lines of reasoning which we have traditionally called God. As to the hypothetical immaterial quantum field the key characteristic that would seem to rule it out as a candidate is that the cause of spatio-temporal matter needs to be personal. Here are the arguments Craig offers in favor of this characteristic:

*Note that I am looking at these anew with the proposed immaterial quantum state (although I'm not entirely sure what that entails), so I'm not claiming (at least at the moment) that it obviously fails these arguments.

Argument 1

There are two types of causal explanation: scientific (in terms of laws and initial conditions) and personal (agents and their volitions). A first state of spatio-temporal matter cannot have a scientific explanation because there is nothing physical before it. It cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. Therefore, it can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation.

Argument 2

The personhood of the First Cause is powerfully suggested by the other properties argued for (which we could go over, if you wish). The seemingly only two candidate concepts that can be described as immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless are abstract objects and an unembodied mind. But abstract objects are not involved in causal relations. Therefore, the cause of spatio-temporal matter must be an unembodied mind.

Argument 3

Only personal, free agency can account for a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then the effect would be eternal. How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause. How could the cause exist without the effect? The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation. In this, the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions, initiating new effects by choice. In agent causation, the agent-cause could be eternal and the effect temporal.

Okay, so a lot to go through, but I'm interested in your initial thoughts, which will help me to look at these arguments with fresh eyes.

[bluegreenearth]

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

Next, they consider the possibility that the footprint was made by an unknown species. They may not know precisely what this new species of animal might be but could speculate based on the properties of the footprint. After measuring the size, shape, and depth of the footprint, the scientists predict that they will discover a new species of rodent in the area with a foot that matches this print. After some time, they finally observe the animal and discover their prediction was correct.

That's what the theists are doing. They are saying the cause needs certain characteristics. They then say this matches a being that fits other lines of reasoning which we have traditionally called God.

That is not analogous. The wildlife biologist is building upon existing knowledge of an animal category containing a variety of species that have already been demonstrated to exist and using that information to make a testable prediction about a new species within that same animal category. Theists are imagining a type of cause that has never been demonstrated to exist or make a testable prediction.

As to the hypothetical immaterial quantum field the key characteristic that would seem to rule it out as a candidate is that the cause of spatio-temporal matter needs to be personal. Here are the arguments Craig offers in favor of this characteristic:

*Note that I am looking at these anew with the proposed immaterial quantum state (although I'm not entirely sure what that entails), so I'm not claiming (at least at the moment) that it obviously fails these arguments.

Argument 1

There are two types of causal explanation: scientific (in terms of laws and initial conditions) and personal (agents and their volitions). A first state of spatio-temporal matter cannot have a scientific explanation because there is nothing physical before it. It cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. Therefore, it can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation.

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state as an initial condition is a possible scientific explanation that does not require anything physical before it.

Argument 2

The personhood of the First Cause is powerfully suggested by the other properties argued for (which we could go over, if you wish). The seemingly only two candidate concepts that can be described as immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless are abstract objects and an unembodied mind. But abstract objects are not involved in causal relations. Therefore, the cause of spatio-temporal matter must be an unembodied mind.

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state seems to qualify as immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless.

Argument 3

Only personal, free agency can account for a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then the effect would be eternal. How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause. How could the cause exist without the effect? The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation. In this, the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions, initiating new effects by choice. In agent causation, the agent-cause could be eternal and the effect temporal.

Okay, so a lot to go through, but I'm interested in your initial thoughts, which will help me to look at these arguments with fresh eyes.

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state could experience a random fluctuation that produces a first temporal effect. As for the effect being eternal, it is my understanding that the heat death of the universe does not mean it will no longer exist. It is possible for the universe to continue existing in that post heat death state for an eternity as far I understand it.

FYI - It might be a few days before I am able to respond to any reply you have to this post.

[The Tanager]

That's what the theists are doing. They are saying the cause needs certain characteristics. They then say this matches a being that fits other lines of reasoning which we have traditionally called God.

That is not analogous. The wildlife biologist is building upon existing knowledge of an animal category containing a variety of species that have already been demonstrated to exist and using that information to make a testable prediction about a new species within that same animal category. Theists are imagining a type of cause that has never been demonstrated to exist or make a testable prediction.

I was claiming it was analogous (not identical) in this way:

The biologist in your scenario sees that the data does not fit any known existent being and hypothesizes, from that data, that a being with characteristics X, Y, and Z would need to exist. They later gain physical corroboration of their hypothesis (which is good but not necessary to rationally believe in such a being). One could perhaps be helped by existing knowledge of animals of a similar type, although that could also artificially limit one's search, ruling out characteristics that one may not want to.

The theist sees the data of the cause of spatio-temporal matter, sees that it does not fit any known existent being and hypothesizes, from that data, that a being with characteristics X, Y, and Z would need to exist. Theists also point to corroboration of certain characteristics from other lines of argument (which would be good but not necessary to rationally believe in such a being).

Argument 1: Scientific or Causal Explanations

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state as an initial condition is a possible scientific explanation that does not require anything physical before it.

Isn't science the study of the physical world? Scientific explanations are inherently physical. That's why I've wondered what a non-spatio-temporal quantum state even means; if it's even a logical concept (by definition).

Argument 2: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state seems to qualify as immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless.

But is it an abstract object, an unembodied mind, or is the argument a false dilemma?

Argument 3: Eternal cause/Temporal effect

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state could experience a random fluctuation that produces a first temporal effect. As for the effect being eternal, it is my understanding that the heat death of the universe does not mean it will no longer exist. It is possible for the universe to continue existing in that post heat death state for an eternity as far I understand it.

I think eternity here means having no beginning, whether or not it has any end. This scenario would put the fluctuation universe as a temporal effect. One question I'd have is why think a non-spatio state without any agency could cause physical things to happen. But I also think how something works is a different question from if it works. The larger question I'd have here is that while this scenario is logically possible, how probable is it? That these fluctuations are random is but one possible interpretation of quantum physics. Why should we think this is how non-material quantum states work?

[bluegreenearth]

I was claiming it was analogous (not identical) in this way:

The biologist in your scenario sees that the data does not fit any known existent being and hypothesizes, from that data, that a being with characteristics X, Y, and Z would need to exist. They later gain physical corroboration of their hypothesis (which is good but not necessary to rationally believe in such a being). One could perhaps be helped by existing knowledge of animals of a similar type, although that could also artificially limit one's search, ruling out characteristics that one may not want to.

The biologist may see that the data does not fit any known "species" but does see where the data at least corresponds to a known group or class of animals. While this existing knowledge limits the search, this limitation is a moot point because it is not until the animal is actually observed that the biologist claims to know its identity.

The theist sees the data of the cause of spatio-temporal matter, sees that it does not fit any known existent being and hypothesizes, from that data, that a being with characteristics X, Y, and Z would need to exist. Theists also point to corroboration of certain characteristics from other lines of argument (which would be good but not necessary to rationally believe in such a being).

There is no "data of the cause" because the physics breaks down before any cause can be identified. So, I'm not sure how you are justifying the claim that the cause has to be consistent with characteristics X, Y, and Z.

Argument 1: Scientific or Causal Explanations

Isn't science the study of the physical world? Scientific explanations are inherently physical. That's why I've wondered what a non-spatio-temporal quantum state even means; if it's even a logical concept (by definition).

I'm not presenting a scientific argument, though, it expands upon known scientific facts.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what an omniscient and omnipotent mind that exists outside of space-time even means and not sure if it's even a logical concept either. So, your objection applies to your own claim as well.

Argument 2: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state seems to qualify as immaterial, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless.

But is it an abstract object, an unembodied mind, or is the argument a false dilemma?

I think you are presenting a false dilemma because, as far as I understand it, a non-spatio-temporal quantum field would exist in the same state as an unembodied mind but without being a conscious.

Argument 3: Eternal cause/Temporal effect

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state could experience a random fluctuation that produces a first temporal effect. As for the effect being eternal, it is my understanding that the heat death of the universe does not mean it will no longer exist. It is possible for the universe to continue existing in that post heat death state for an eternity as far I understand it.

I think eternity here means having no beginning, whether or not it has any end. This scenario would put the fluctuation universe as a temporal effect. One question I'd have is why think a non-spatio state without any agency could cause physical things to happen. But I also think how something works is a different question from if it works. The larger question I'd have here is that while this scenario is logically possible, how probable is it? That these fluctuations are random is but one possible interpretation of quantum physics. Why should we think this is how non-material quantum states work?

Well, since this isn't a scientific argument, it isn't any more necessary to know how a non-material quantum state could possibly work than it is necessary to know how an unembodied mind could possibly work. As for calculating the probability, it wouldn't be of any use because neither claim is falsifiable at this point. Regardless of whatever the probability might be for each, the one with the highest probability could still be false while the one with the lowest probably could still be true or they could both be false. Therefore, the only thing a probability calculation will do is encourage confirmation bias. However, inductive reasoning would suggest the cause to be something less complex than an omniscient and omnipotent mind given the fact that all previous unsolved mysteries in the universe turned out to be caused by something simpler than that. However, it would be fallacious to claim the cause would have to be something simple. This is why I remain agnostic about the cause.

[The Tanager]

The biologist may see that the data does not fit any known "species" but does see where the data at least corresponds to a known group or class of animals. While this existing knowledge limits the search, this limitation is a moot point because it is not until the animal is actually observed that the biologist claims to know its identity.

Even without the physical observation, the scientist is more rational in thinking a new "species" exists and left this evidence, even if they don't know all the details about the unseen being.

There is no "data of the cause" because the physics breaks down before any cause can be identified. So, I'm not sure how you are justifying the claim that the cause has to be consistent with characteristics X, Y, and Z.

I shouldn't have said the "data of the cause". What I mean is that we see the existence of spatio-temporal matter, we have certain laws of logic, we have the concept of causation, that kind of data. That our current scientific understanding breaks down before the Big Bang doesn't speak against that data.


Argument 1: Scientific or Causal Explanations

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state as an initial condition is a possible scientific explanation that does not require anything physical before it.

Isn't science the study of the physical world? Scientific explanations are inherently physical. That's why I've wondered what a non-spatio-temporal quantum state even means; if it's even a logical concept (by definition).

I'm not presenting a scientific argument, though, it expands upon known scientific facts.

Perhaps you are using terms more loosely or I'm using them incorrectly. How is a non-spatio-temporal state a possible scientific explanation when science is the study of physical things? Scientific explanations are physical laws and physical initial conditions needed for physical things to interact, change, etc. The non spatio-temporal quantum state is not a physical anything.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what an omniscient and omnipotent mind that exists outside of space-time even means and not sure if it's even a logical concept either. So, your objection applies to your own claim as well.

It's not the same. (These are quick definitions I'm jotting down to keep us moving, but they can be corrected if they need to)

Your proposed claim: A scientific (having to do with physical things) non-spatio-temporal (i.e., non-scientific) quantum state. It seems to be scientific and non-scientific, but perhaps those terms equivocate here.

My proposed claim:

I didn't say anything about the entity necessarily being omniscient or omnipotent.

Mind = having consciousness, knowledge, will, sentience, etc.
Outside of space = not consisting of matter
Outside of time = not experiencing reality as a movement from past to present to future

Which one is illogical? If you agree that all three, separately are logical (even if non-existent), then how do they contradict each other?


Argument 2: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind

I think you are presenting a false dilemma because, as far as I understand it, a non-spatio-temporal quantum field would exist in the same state as an unembodied mind but without being a conscious.

An unembodied mind that isn't conscious is nothing. That's like saying something exists in the same state as a married thing without being married. Immaterial, etc. beings that are unconscious sound like what we call abstract beings like numbers. What distinguishes this proposed quantum state from being an abstract object?


Argument 3: Eternal cause/Temporal effect

However, inductive reasoning would suggest the cause to be something less complex than an omniscient and omnipotent mind given the fact that all previous unsolved mysteries in the universe turned out to be caused by something simpler than that.

While I'm not so sure about that, this argument says nothing about the cause being omniscient and omnipotent.

As for calculating the probability, it wouldn't be of any use because neither claim is falsifiable at this point. Regardless of whatever the probability might be for each, the one with the highest probability could still be false while the one with the lowest probably could still be true or they could both be false. Therefore, the only thing a probability calculation will do is encourage confirmation bias.

I'm not advocating coming up with figures. These claims are theoretically falsifiable, but I might be missing your point there. I happily admit these conclusions aren't certain. Hardly any belief we hold is (perhaps pure mathematics is?). Yet we still hold those uncertain beliefs over others. I think it is perfectly rational to do so, while always being willing to change one's mind should reason take you elsewhere. I'm not sure how that encourages confirmation bias.

Logical possibility, alone, is not enough to rationally counter what we experience about things like causality and agency/non-agency. I seek reasons to turn the tide. I don't see good reasons to believe quantum physics overturns these things. But I'm open to seeing them.

[bluegreenearth]

Argument 1: Scientific or Causal Explanations

A non-spatio-temporal quantum state as an initial condition is a possible scientific explanation that does not require anything physical before it.

Isn't science the study of the physical world? Scientific explanations are inherently physical. That's why I've wondered what a non-spatio-temporal quantum state even means; if it's even a logical concept (by definition).

I'm not presenting a scientific argument, though, it expands upon known scientific facts.

Perhaps you are using terms more loosely or I'm using them incorrectly. How is a non-spatio-temporal state a possible scientific explanation when science is the study of physical things? Scientific explanations are physical laws and physical initial conditions needed for physical things to interact, change, etc. The non spatio-temporal quantum state is not a physical anything.

Science is a method for acquiring a functional knowledge base. The study of physical things is called Physics which uses the scientific method to try and acquire knowledge about the physical universe. However, as I previously indicated, a non-spatio-temporal state is not a scientific explanation but a speculation that extends beyond traditional Physics. As such, it is not strictly bound to the known physical laws any more than an unembodied mind is bound to anything scientific.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what an omniscient and omnipotent mind that exists outside of space-time even means and not sure if it's even a logical concept either. So, your objection applies to your own claim as well.

It's not the same. (These are quick definitions I'm jotting down to keep us moving, but they can be corrected if they need to)

Your proposed claim: A scientific (having to do with physical things) non-spatio-temporal (i.e., non-scientific) quantum state. It seems to be scientific and non-scientific, but perhaps those terms equivocate here.

As I previously stated, a non-spatio-temporal quantum state is not a scientific explanation because it involves speculating above and beyond what is limited by the scientific method.

My proposed claim:

I didn't say anything about the entity necessarily being omniscient or omnipotent.

Mind = having consciousness, knowledge, will, sentience, etc.
Outside of space = not consisting of matter
Outside of time = not experiencing reality as a movement from past to present to future

Which one is illogical? If you agree that all three, separately are logical (even if non-existent), then how do they contradict each other?

The concept of a "mind" seems to require it to have a temporal existence because a coherent train of conscious thought from a mind requires a temporal sequence. Without a temporal sequence, there is no such thing as a coherent train of conscious thought. It would seem to be impossible for logical thought to occur without linear time to enable the step by step progression required to complete a logical thought. This would be like smashing all the syllogisms and the conclusion of the Kalam into an incomprehensible alphabet soup because every component of every individual syllogism and the conclusion would have to exist as a simultaneous thought without any progressive steps to order them into a coherent argument.

Argument 2: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind

I think you are presenting a false dilemma because, as far as I understand it, a non-spatio-temporal quantum field would exist in the same state as an unembodied mind but without being a conscious.

An unembodied mind that isn't conscious is nothing. That's like saying something exists in the same state as a married thing without being married. Immaterial, etc. beings that are unconscious sound like what we call abstract beings like numbers. What distinguishes this proposed quantum state from being an abstract object?

That may be true for an unembodied mind because consciousness is entailed in its definition, but a non-spatio-temporal quantum state does not entail consciousness in its definition because it is simpler than an unembodied mind. A non-spatio-temporal quantum state is not an abstract object either because it can exist outside a mind where abstract objects cannot. Therefore, a non-spatio-temporal quantum state can exist as neither a mind nor an abstract object but as its own thing.

Argument 3: Eternal cause/Temporal effect

However, inductive reasoning would suggest the cause to be something less complex than an omniscient and omnipotent mind given the fact that all previous unsolved mysteries in the universe turned out to be caused by something simpler than that.

While I'm not so sure about that, this argument says nothing about the cause being omniscient and omnipotent.

Fair enough. However, a non-spatio-temporal quantum state would still be simpler than an unembodied conscious mind.

Logical possibility, alone, is not enough to rationally counter what we experience about things like causality and agency/non-agency. I seek reasons to turn the tide. I don't see good reasons to believe quantum physics overturns these things. But I'm open to seeing them.

What we experience in our observed reality is all confined within the boundaries of the universe, but Dr. Craig's version of the Kalam is attempting to describe something that potentially exists outside the boundaries of the reality we observe. Therefore, what good reason do we have to believe any proposed explanation for the cause of the universe is more plausible than another imagined explanation given those limitations and restrictions? In the end, what all this comes down to is a willingness to arbitrarily place your faith in one particular unfalsifiable explanation over every other unfalsifiable explanation. I don't have a problem with people who simply claim to have faith that an unembodied mind caused the universe. I just don't understand the audacity of some theists who claim to have a better justification for believing an unembodied mind caused the universe than the consensus of professional experts in the fields of Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology who understand this stuff far better than anyone else yet remain agnostic about the cause of the universe. Seriously, does Dr. Craig really think he knows something those experts don't?

[The Tanager]

Science is a method for acquiring a functional knowledge base. The study of physical things is called Physics which uses the scientific method to try and acquire knowledge about the physical universe.

All of the natural sciences study physical things. Physics is one branch of that.

Argument 1: Scientific or Personal Explanations

However, as I previously indicated, a non-spatio-temporal state is not a scientific explanation but a speculation that extends beyond traditional Physics. As such, it is not strictly bound to the known physical laws any more than an unembodied mind is bound to anything scientific.

The argument says that we know of two kinds of explanations: scientific and personal. It's logically possible that a third kind of explanation exists, but is there evidence that gives us reason to seriously consider it?

The concept of a "mind" seems to require it to have a temporal existence because a coherent train of conscious thought from a mind requires a temporal sequence. Without a temporal sequence, there is no such thing as a coherent train of conscious thought. It would seem to be impossible for logical thought to occur without linear time to enable the step by step progression required to complete a logical thought. This would be like smashing all the syllogisms and the conclusion of the Kalam into an incomprehensible alphabet soup because every component of every individual syllogism and the conclusion would have to exist as a simultaneous thought without any progressive steps to order them into a coherent argument.

I don't see why this is the case. Logic is not time-dependent; the truths are always there. One would see the whole picture including any components, logically prior and logically after parts, etc. Temporal beings need time to complete a logical thought, but non-temporal beings, if they exist, wouldn't.


Argument 2: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind

That may be true for an unembodied mind because consciousness is entailed in its definition, but a non-spatio-temporal quantum state does not entail consciousness in its definition because it is simpler than an unembodied mind. A non-spatio-temporal quantum state is not an abstract object either because it can exist outside a mind where abstract objects cannot. Therefore, a non-spatio-temporal quantum state can exist as neither a mind nor an abstract object but as its own thing.

Why do you think abstract objects cannot exist outside the mind?


Argument 3: Eternal cause/Temporal effect

Fair enough. However, a non-spatio-temporal quantum state would still be simpler than an unembodied conscious mind.

Here was the argument (in a premise-conclusion form):

P1. If the changeless cause can account for a first temporal effect (i.e., the universe), then it must do so through agent causation.
P2. The non-spatio-temporal quantum state does not account for the universe through agent causation.
C. Therefore, the non-spatio-temporal quantum state is not the changeless cause of the universe.

I don't see how the quantum state being less complex changes this.

What we experience in our observed reality is all confined within the boundaries of the universe, but Dr. Craig's version of the Kalam is attempting to describe something that potentially exists outside the boundaries of the reality we observe. Therefore, what good reason do we have to believe any proposed explanation for the cause of the universe is more plausible than another imagined explanation given those limitations and restrictions? In the end, what all this comes down to is a willingness to arbitrarily place your faith in one particular unfalsifiable explanation over every other unfalsifiable explanation.

There is some explanation that must fit the evidence. Whether the candidates are "imaginary" (i.e., unproven by other means) is irrelevant. How we get one explanation over the other is through logic applied to the evidences. That is not arbitrarily placing one's faith in one explanation (falsifiable or not) over another.

I don't have a problem with people who simply claim to have faith that an unembodied mind caused the universe.

I do, if you mean what many people mean by "faith".

I just don't understand the audacity of some theists who claim to have a better justification for believing an unembodied mind caused the universe than the consensus of professional experts in the fields of Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology who understand this stuff far better than anyone else yet remain agnostic about the cause of the universe. Seriously, does Dr. Craig really think he knows something those experts don't?

While those scientists are excellent scientists, they often aren't trained in philosophy and often are bad philosophers. When the discussion is scientific, I'll trust them over non-scientists like Craig. When the discussion is philosophical (and here it is), then I'm not going to trust them. I'm also not going to just trust Craig. I'm going to look at the arguments.

[bluegreenearth]

All of the natural sciences study physical things. Physics is one branch of that.

Regardless, science is the method those disciplines use to acquire knowledge.

Argument 1: Scientific or Personal Explanations

The argument says that we know of two kinds of explanations: scientific and personal. It's logically possible that a third kind of explanation exists, but is there evidence that gives us reason to seriously consider it?

I'm not particularly concerned with how the non-spatio-temporal quantum state explanation is classified as long as it is logically possible.

The concept of a "mind" seems to require it to have a temporal existence because a coherent train of conscious thought from a mind requires a temporal sequence. Without a temporal sequence, there is no such thing as a coherent train of conscious thought. It would seem to be impossible for logical thought to occur without linear time to enable the step by step progression required to complete a logical thought. This would be like smashing all the syllogisms and the conclusion of the Kalam into an incomprehensible alphabet soup because every component of every individual syllogism and the conclusion would have to exist as a simultaneous thought without any progressive steps to order them into a coherent argument.

I don't see why this is the case. Logic is not time-dependent; the truths are always there. One would see the whole picture including any components, logically prior and logically after parts, etc. Temporal beings need time to complete a logical thought, but non-temporal beings, if they exist, wouldn't.

If logic is not time-dependent, then the law of non-contradiction would not apply because something that does not exist in one moment and then begins to exist in the next moment would both exist and not exist when observed from a timeless state.

Argument 2: Abstract Object or Unembodied Mind

That may be true for an unembodied mind because consciousness is entailed in its definition, but a non-spatio-temporal quantum state does not entail consciousness in its definition because it is simpler than an unembodied mind. A non-spatio-temporal quantum state is not an abstract object either because it can exist outside a mind where abstract objects cannot. Therefore, a non-spatio-temporal quantum state can exist as neither a mind nor an abstract object but as its own thing.

Why do you think abstract objects cannot exist outside the mind?

It is true by definition. Abstract objects are defined as things that only exist as ideas inside the minds of sentient beings. Until abstract objects can be demonstrated to exist outside the mind, what would be a justified reason to believe they can?

Argument 3: Eternal cause/Temporal effect[/b]

Fair enough. However, a non-spatio-temporal quantum state would still be simpler than an unembodied conscious mind.

Here was the argument (in a premise-conclusion form):

P1. If the changeless cause can account for a first temporal effect (i.e., the universe), then it must do so through agent causation.
P2. The non-spatio-temporal quantum state does not account for the universe through agent causation.
C. Therefore, the non-spatio-temporal quantum state is not the changeless cause of the universe.

I don't see how the quantum state being less complex changes this.

What is the justification for presuming a changeless cause must be an agent?
What is the justification for presuming a non-spatio-temporal quantum state cannot cause the universe?

What we experience in our observed reality is all confined within the boundaries of the universe, but Dr. Craig's version of the Kalam is attempting to describe something that potentially exists outside the boundaries of the reality we observe. Therefore, what good reason do we have to believe any proposed explanation for the cause of the universe is more plausible than another imagined explanation given those limitations and restrictions? In the end, what all this comes down to is a willingness to arbitrarily place your faith in one particular unfalsifiable explanation over every other unfalsifiable explanation.

There is some explanation that must fit the evidence. Whether the candidates are "imaginary" (i.e., unproven by other means) is irrelevant. How we get one explanation over the other is through logic applied to the evidences. That is not arbitrarily placing one's faith in one explanation (falsifiable or not) over another.

The problem is that both an unembodied mind and a non-spatio-temporal quantum state both serve as explanations for the universe because they both claim to fit the evidence.

I don't have a problem with people who simply claim to have faith that an unembodied mind caused the universe.

I do, if you mean what many people mean by "faith".

In this case, I mean "faith" is the act of placing unjustified trust in one unfalsifiable logical explanation over any other equally unfalsfiable logical explanation for some arbitrary or biased reason.

I just don't understand the audacity of some theists who claim to have a better justification for believing an unembodied mind caused the universe than the consensus of professional experts in the fields of Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology who understand this stuff far better than anyone else yet remain agnostic about the cause of the universe. Seriously, does Dr. Craig really think he knows something those experts don't?

While those scientists are excellent scientists, they often aren't trained in philosophy and often are bad philosophers. When the discussion is scientific, I'll trust them over non-scientists like Craig. When the discussion is philosophical (and here it is), then I'm not going to trust them. I'm also not going to just trust Craig. I'm going to look at the arguments.

The problem with purely philosophical arguments is that they can never demonstrate the existence of anything in reality. Therefore, it is a category error to presume a philosophical argument is sufficient to demonstrate the "real" cause of the universe.