4 ms·

Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But

Both P1 and P2 of Craig's argument are problematic, although I admittedly have a hard time following the transfinite gymnastics one way or the other for P2. But for P1 it's not clear to me that there is a logical problem with something coming into existence uncaused, and we unfortunately have nearly 0 experience with something coming into existence to provide enough empirical support.

joshuamcginnis 2y ago
Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause. Have you experienced something different?
- Vecr 2y ago
  Only if you don't think there's there's a singularity (or singularity-replacement) in the future. Maybe against Wheeler? I can't remember. But anyway, if there's a singularity (or suitable singularity-replacement) in both the future and the past you might be able to use something like Hawking's No-Boundary Condition theory to claim P2 is false. Not that I do, but P2 is not rock-solid from a logic standpoint.
  - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
    In layman terms, what are the current cohesive and logical arguments for existence having no beginning?
    - Vecr 2y ago
      1) We exist (or at least you do, Cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am") 2) Since we exist, something had to have lead to us 3) The thing that lead to us was either lead to in turn, or "just existed" 4) If you don't accept that something can "just exist", that leads to infinite regress (before A there was B, before B there was C... on to infinity) 5) It's not too presumptuous to prevent infinite regress by saying "the universe" is what "just existed". Since the possibility of the universe "just existing" was established by the previous reasoning, you can think if that's a reasonable stopping place when it comes to predictive power. Hawking suggested it was though the "projection" he used for making the argument was complex and and don't fully understand it. As far as I can tell, his argument was that the universe appearing to have a beginning was "merely" thermodynamic, and in the final quantum theory the beginning and the end would be closed, making the universe fully self contained. (Something about gravitational entropy fully canceling out all other entropy, making the universe sum to zero, with both the "beginning" and the "end" summing to the exact same value as each other (zero)).
- jhickok 2y ago
  I understand that many people believe that, but I don't take it that there is broad consensus-- or any consensus-- that the Big Bang represents the beginning of anything save our the beginning of what we can reasonably infer and observe. I think most self-respecting astrophysicists would respond to the question "Was there anything prior to the Big Bang?" with an "I don't know". Regardless, P1 is still required to make Craig's KCA work, because P2 is compatible with the universe just happening. Editing to account for your later comments: >There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause. That isn't quite the same scenario. The sort of causation we observe (which is actually compatible with no causation, a la Hume) is more like shuffling around of existing matter and does not translate to direct evidence for or against the hypothesis that something can come into existence uncaused.
  - joshuamcginnis 2y ago
    No one is claiming to know what happened prior to the Big Bang. Whatever existed before time had to be infinite. If you read my logic carefully, I believe I make a perfectly reasonable case for 1. the universe existing (which I think most people would agree, we are living in an existence) and 2. that existence having a start (e.g. the universe is expanding, light gets redder the longer it travels, etc) 3. Anything that comes into existence has a cause. I think when you combine the scientific evidence with the logic and continue down that line, you can make a good faith argument for an intelligent creator.
    - vjerancrnjak 2y ago
      If you take general relativity and evidence for it then you’d have to accept there is no beginning or end, there’s spacetime. No time is passing and all events are embedded in timeless spacetime. If you take quantum field theory, all reality spawns somehow out of immaterial fields without any cause. Others from Advaita stream of thought have arrived at a place where the absolute is not God at all and don’t need physics to reason about that. In their terms we are all God with a problem of mistaken identity. Reality is already timeless, deathless.

joshuamcginnis 2y ago

Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause. Have you experienced something different?

Vecr 2y ago
Only if you don't think there's there's a singularity (or singularity-replacement) in the future. Maybe against Wheeler? I can't remember. But anyway, if there's a singularity (or suitable singularity-replacement) in both the future and the past you might be able to use something like Hawking's No-Boundary Condition theory to claim P2 is false. Not that I do, but P2 is not rock-solid from a logic standpoint.
- joshuamcginnis 2y ago
  In layman terms, what are the current cohesive and logical arguments for existence having no beginning?
  - Vecr 2y ago
    1) We exist (or at least you do, Cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am") 2) Since we exist, something had to have lead to us 3) The thing that lead to us was either lead to in turn, or "just existed" 4) If you don't accept that something can "just exist", that leads to infinite regress (before A there was B, before B there was C... on to infinity) 5) It's not too presumptuous to prevent infinite regress by saying "the universe" is what "just existed". Since the possibility of the universe "just existing" was established by the previous reasoning, you can think if that's a reasonable stopping place when it comes to predictive power. Hawking suggested it was though the "projection" he used for making the argument was complex and and don't fully understand it. As far as I can tell, his argument was that the universe appearing to have a beginning was "merely" thermodynamic, and in the final quantum theory the beginning and the end would be closed, making the universe fully self contained. (Something about gravitational entropy fully canceling out all other entropy, making the universe sum to zero, with both the "beginning" and the "end" summing to the exact same value as each other (zero)).
jhickok 2y ago
I understand that many people believe that, but I don't take it that there is broad consensus-- or any consensus-- that the Big Bang represents the beginning of anything save our the beginning of what we can reasonably infer and observe. I think most self-respecting astrophysicists would respond to the question "Was there anything prior to the Big Bang?" with an "I don't know". Regardless, P1 is still required to make Craig's KCA work, because P2 is compatible with the universe just happening. Editing to account for your later comments: >There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause. That isn't quite the same scenario. The sort of causation we observe (which is actually compatible with no causation, a la Hume) is more like shuffling around of existing matter and does not translate to direct evidence for or against the hypothesis that something can come into existence uncaused.
- joshuamcginnis 2y ago
  No one is claiming to know what happened prior to the Big Bang. Whatever existed before time had to be infinite. If you read my logic carefully, I believe I make a perfectly reasonable case for 1. the universe existing (which I think most people would agree, we are living in an existence) and 2. that existence having a start (e.g. the universe is expanding, light gets redder the longer it travels, etc) 3. Anything that comes into existence has a cause. I think when you combine the scientific evidence with the logic and continue down that line, you can make a good faith argument for an intelligent creator.
  - vjerancrnjak 2y ago
    If you take general relativity and evidence for it then you’d have to accept there is no beginning or end, there’s spacetime. No time is passing and all events are embedded in timeless spacetime. If you take quantum field theory, all reality spawns somehow out of immaterial fields without any cause. Others from Advaita stream of thought have arrived at a place where the absolute is not God at all and don’t need physics to reason about that. In their terms we are all God with a problem of mistaken identity. Reality is already timeless, deathless.