• MoK
    306
    First, let's read the argument:

    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning
    2. The universe began to exist
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its beginning

    This argument is discussed in good detail here. So what is my objection to this argument? The second premise is not the only scenario as one can also say that the material has existed since the beginning of time. To elaborate let's consider the current state of the universe to be S(t) which by the state I mean the configuration of material at a given time. The state of the universe at the former time is then S(t-1) etc. until we reach the beginning of time S(0). I claim that this state is related to the configuration of some sort of material at the beginning of time. So, the second premise is not the only scenario unless one answers my objection. Therefore, the argument does not follow.
  • noAxioms
    1.5k
    The 6th century argument perhaps had some teeth back in the day, but it presumes a model of the universe (that of being an object contained by space and time) that is today a fringe model at best. That of course doesn't detract Craig whose paying audience is hardly versed in modern cosmology theory, so they of course eat it right up, despite the fact that the same argument can be used against whatever was the cause. Craig doesn't care that the argument doesn't hold water. He cares that he gets his check for asserting it anyway.

    It's sort of like proving the Earth rests on a turtle since anything that holds something up must itself be held up by something. The model worked back in the day, but is today about as naive as the Kalam thing.

    So premise 1 is a premise that only applies to objects IN the universe, and even then it isn't necessarily true except under fully deterministic interpretations of physics.
    Premise 2 totally goes against the consensus view among cosmologists where time and space are contained by the universe instead of the other way around. Such a model does exist, and it necessarily denies things predicted by the prevailing view such as the big bang or black holes.

    one can also say that the material has existed since the beginning of timeMoK
    The universe is not posited to have been built from 'material'. Any material did not show up on the scene until several epochs beyond the big bang.

    So we're in agreement about the lack of soundness of the argument, but for different reasons.
  • RogueAI
    2.8k
    So premise 1 is a premise that only applies to objects IN the universe, and even then it isn't necessarily true except under fully deterministic interpretations of physics.noAxioms

    Nothing caused the the universe to come into existence? How does that work?
  • Wayfarer
    22k
    Interesting that arguments over whether the Universe has an origin in time is one of Kant’s ‘antinomies of reason’ (insoluble questions) and also a question declared unanswerable in Buddhism. It’s kind of a shame that so many important ethical issues are believed to hinge on such a question.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.