Kant: "The Universe Has a Beginning is False"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theist apologist like WLC are so confident their reliance on
'The Universe has a beginning' to argue for God's existence is convincing.
WLC even wrote an article where he relied on Kant's argument ignorantly.

According to Kant "The Universe Has a Beginning" is False as presented below;

Immanuel Kant's antinomies, from the Critique of Pure Reason, are contradictions which he believed follow necessarily from our attempts to conceive the nature of transcendent reality. -wiki

The Antinomies are Categorized as follows;

• 2 The mathematical antinomies
  • 2.1 The first antinomy (of space and time)
    2.2 The second antinomy (of atomism)
  3 The dynamical antinomies
  • 3.1 The third antinomy (of spontaneity and causal determinism)
    3.2 The fourth antinomy (of necessary being or not)
    -wiki

What is of interest for this OP the First Antinomy;

• The first antinomy (of space and time)
  Thesis:
  The world has a beginning in time, and is also limited as regards space.
  
  Anti-thesis:
  The world has no beginning, and no limits in space; it is infinite as regards both time and space.

Both the thesis and anti-thesis appear to be true from their respective perspective [stand point] BUT to Kant, both the above conflicting thesis and anti-thesis are false;

An important and fundamental aspect of Kant’s rejection of each of these sets of arguments rests on his view that each of these conflicts is traceable back to a fundamental error, an error that can be discerned, according to Kant, in the following dialectical syllogism:

• P1 If the conditioned is given, then the whole series of conditions, a series which is therefore itself absolutely unconditioned, is also given
  
  P2 Objects of the senses are given as conditioned
  
  P3 Consequently, the entire series of all conditions of objects of the senses is already given.

(cf. A497/B525).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... #WorRatCos

How to resolve the above impasse;

In each of these antinomial conflicts, reason finds itself at an impasse.
Satisfying the demands placed by our rational capacity to think beyond experience,
the thesis arguments offer what appears to be a satisfying resting-place for explanation.
The antithesis charges that such a strategy fails to find any confirmation, and, citing the unjustified flight into an intelligible realm, lodges itself squarely in the domain of “experience.”
In each of these cases, the conflicts are resolved by demonstrating that the conclusions drawn on both sides are false.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... #WorRatCos

Btw, the above are merely crude points. It is not easy to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's argument.

My point;
"The Universe Has is Beginning is False"
thus does not follow to the theists' conclusion "God exists" using the above premise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No counter views [especially from theists] to the above?

[nothing]

How to resolve the above impasse;

In each of these antinomial conflicts, reason finds itself at an impasse.
Satisfying the demands placed by our rational capacity to think beyond experience,
the thesis arguments offer what appears to be a satisfying resting-place for explanation.
The antithesis charges that such a strategy fails to find any confirmation, and, citing the unjustified flight into an intelligible realm, lodges itself squarely in the domain of “experience.”
In each of these cases, the conflicts are resolved by demonstrating that the conclusions drawn on both sides are false.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... #WorRatCos

Btw, the above are merely crude points. It is not easy to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's argument.

My point;
"The Universe Has is Beginning is False"
thus does not follow to the theists' conclusion "God exists" using the above premise.

The point is correct (typo aside).
Thus can it not be said the truth must always be in plain sight?
Remember this question and consider from another point of view:

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.
-Religion
In the beginning BANG! created the heavens and the earth.
-Science

thus concerning:

In each of these cases, the conflicts are resolved by demonstrating that the conclusions drawn on both sides are false.

Replace 'conclusions' with 'premises' (one is bound by the other) and find both science and religion are united in a shared ignorance.

Would an all-knowing god not know all: not to believe?
Would so-called satan not require belief in order that
a "believer" somehow become bound to believe
evil is good / satan is god?

How can both god and satan require belief?

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s)
indefinitely, ad infinitum, space- and/or time-invariant.



viz. "BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER" and/or "BELIEF" in god
is wholly undermined, while clarifying a scientific method:

TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge all BELIEF(s)
i. to TRY both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: true and/or not (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...indefinitely approaches all-knowing ad indefinitum...

Undermines all "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict(s) by discerning the root of all human suffering
as perpetual absolution-of-belief: the identity/property derived of the mythical Edenic tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, with principle regard and respect to the first and primordial
admonishment of Genesis 2:17 satisfied, thus clarifying any/all Judaic/Christian/Islamic
(amal. "Abrahamic") context(s) as they must relate to the existence of any/all manner and forms
of human suffering.

Beliefs are thus like fruits... some are appealing, and appear good for food,
but unless one knows the root of the tree from whence it grew,
they are liable to eat of a fruit whose root yields suffering and death (over time).

Who are they, then, who are so willing to "BELIEVE"? And what? The believers are actually ignorant
and thus disobedient (albeit unconsciously) by having absolutely no conscious regard
and/or concern for any conceivable "Abrahamic" god given all "BELIEVERS"
certainly know not from which tree they even eat (!),
for being "BELIEVERS" by their own free admission (!).

Re-examine in the context of "BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"
and nothing need be left to the imagination: the primordial problem
is present in the very present division itself: "us vs. them"
and the blame, and blame, and blame, just as Adam did Eve.

The truth is always in plain sight: eve is in the word believe, hence
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers".

[bahman]

No counter views [especially from theists] to the above?

The universe is either eternal (has no beginning) or has a beginning. It cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.

[HexHammer]

It must logically have a beginning, but it's much much older than what we think, it might be trillions^trillion

[Veritas Aequitas]

How to resolve the above impasse;

In each of these antinomial conflicts, reason finds itself at an impasse.
Satisfying the demands placed by our rational capacity to think beyond experience,
the thesis arguments offer what appears to be a satisfying resting-place for explanation.
The antithesis charges that such a strategy fails to find any confirmation, and, citing the unjustified flight into an intelligible realm, lodges itself squarely in the domain of “experience.”
In each of these cases, the conflicts are resolved by demonstrating that the conclusions drawn on both sides are false.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... #WorRatCos

Btw, the above are merely crude points. It is not easy to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's argument.

My point;
"The Universe Has a [is] Beginning is False"
thus does not follow to the theists' conclusion "God exists" using the above premise.

The point is correct (typo aside).
Thus can it not be said the truth must always be in plain sight?
Remember this question and consider from another point of view:

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.
-Religion
In the beginning BANG! created the heavens and the earth.
-Science

thus concerning:

In each of these cases, the conflicts are resolved by demonstrating that the conclusions drawn on both sides are false.

Replace 'conclusions' with 'premises' (one is bound by the other) and find both science and religion are united in a shared ignorance.

In a way, both Theism [as a religion] and Science are false but it depends.

Theism claim that God exists as real is definitely false.

Science meanwhile qualify the Big Bang is a speculation and theoretical which cannot be tested.
Thus Science never claim the BB is absolute real.
However it would be a false claim if Science claims the BB is absolutely real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No counter views [especially from theists] to the above?

The universe is either eternal (has no beginning) or has a beginning. It cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.

Note Kant argued both claims of 'the Universe is eternal' or 'Universe has a beginning' are false.
Kant went a few layers deeper from common knowledge to argue his point.
You need to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's POV to counter his argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It must logically have a beginning, but it's much much older than what we think, it might be trillions^trillion

'Beginning' is just a word in the linguistic perspective.
The term 'beginning' is merely a convenient term to represent a phase of reality.
Do you have any idea of the philosophical question on the term 'beginning'?
Questioning a 'beginning' will always lead to an infinite regress, i.e. things always begin from some basis never by itself.

The most one can say is,
X has a beginning which is conditioned upon Y.
There is no way Y can begin by itself from nothing.

[bahman]

No counter views [especially from theists] to the above?

The universe is either eternal (has no beginning) or has a beginning. It cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.

Note Kant argued both claims of 'the Universe is eternal' or 'Universe has a beginning' are false.
Kant went a few layers deeper from common knowledge to argue his point.
You need to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's POV to counter his argument.

I don't need to understand his argument. He is clearly wrong. You cannot reach to eternal past.

[Skepdick]

I don't need to understand his argument. He is clearly wrong. You cannot reach to eternal past.

It's epistemically - true. You can't know if it's ontologically true.

[bahman]

I don't need to understand his argument. He is clearly wrong. You cannot reach to eternal past.

It's epistemically - true. You can't know if it's ontologically true.

I am talking about something which cannot be real, eternal past. I am not talking about an abstract idea which cannot be real.

[Skepdick]

I am talking about something which cannot be real, eternal past.

Yes. That's ontology. It may or may not have limits.

I am not talking about an abstract idea which cannot be real.

Yes. That's epistemology. It has limits.

[bahman]

I am talking about something which cannot be real, eternal past.

Yes. That's ontology. It may or may not have limits.

I am not talking about an abstract idea which cannot be real.

Yes. That's epistemology. It has limits.

How about this: The reality is coherent, ontology. The idea of eternal past is incoherent, epistemology. Therefore, eternal past cannot be real ontologically since it cannot even be true epistemologically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The universe is either eternal (has no beginning) or has a beginning. It cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.

Note Kant argued both claims of 'the Universe is eternal' or 'Universe has a beginning' are false.
Kant went a few layers deeper from common knowledge to argue his point.
You need to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's POV to counter his argument.

I don't need to understand his argument. He is clearly wrong. You cannot reach to eternal past.

Note the OP is about Kant's claim.
So you need to understand [not necessary agree with] with argument.
How can you counter Kant's or anyone's argument if you do not understand their argument in the first place.

Kant's point is;
you cannot reach to eternal past, and
you cannot reach to a finite beginning as well.

You are merely assuming your claim without proofs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How about this:
The reality is coherent, ontology.
The idea of eternal past is incoherent, epistemology.
Therefore, eternal past cannot be real ontologically since it cannot even be true epistemologically.

How about this?
"The reality is coherent, ontology of independence" is incoherent.
The reality is coherent, epistemologically and empirically.
The idea of finite beginning is incoherent, epistemology.
Therefore, finite beginning cannot be real epistemologically and empirically since it cannot be true empirically.