Kant: "The Universe Has a Beginning is False"

[Skepdick]

How about this: The reality is coherent, ontology.

Coherence is an epistemic notion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

The idea of eternal past is incoherent, epistemology. Therefore, eternal past cannot be real ontologically since it cannot even be true epistemologically.

It's quote the opposite. Your brain has finite memory - so epistemically speaking there's no way of knowing infinity, even if the universe was (ontologically speaking) infinite.

To "know infinity" requires a greater infinity.

[bahman]

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.

Ok, I will try that.

Kant's point is;
you cannot reach to eternal past, and

True.

you cannot reach to a finite beginning as well.

Not true.

You are merely assuming your claim without proofs.

No. You cannot reach to eternal past. Why? By definition of eternal past.

[bahman]

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.

No. The idea of finite beginning is coherent.

Therefore, finite beginning cannot be real epistemologically and empirically since it cannot be true empirically.

It doesn't follow.

[bahman]

How about this: The reality is coherent, ontology.

Coherence is an epistemic notion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

Yes, like any other concept that we use when we want to convey a message. It however tells us something about reality if it is applicable that in this case it is applicable, reality is coherent.

The idea of eternal past is incoherent, epistemology. Therefore, eternal past cannot be real ontologically since it cannot even be true epistemologically.

It's quote the opposite. Your brain has finite memory - so epistemically speaking there's no way of knowing infinity, even if the universe was (ontologically speaking) infinite.

To "know infinity" requires a greater infinity.

You don't need infinite memory to understand the absurdity of eternal past. You cannot reach it because you define it so.

[Skepdick]

You don't need infinite memory to understand the absurdity of eternal past. You cannot reach it because you define it so.

You can't "reach" any past - you can only remember it. That's precisely how memory works.

[bahman]

You don't need infinite memory to understand the absurdity of eternal past. You cannot reach it because you define it so.

You can't "reach" any past - you can only remember it. That's precisely how memory works.

By reaching, I mean if the travel to the past was possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

you cannot reach to a finite beginning as well.

Not true.

How can you reach the finite beginning?
Surely not physically?

The only means you can do so is to infer by crude speculation based on psychology.

There is a problem with the term 'beginning' which is merely for convenience but has not real referent.
You cannot rely on some problematic term to ground your argument.

Show me when and how any thing began to exists as it-in-itself.
Example, show me when and how the Earth began to exist as Earth?

[Skepdick]

By reaching, I mean if the travel to the past was possible.

But it's not possible. You can't even reach 1 second into the past - you can only remember 1 second into the past.

[bahman]

you cannot reach to a finite beginning as well.

Not true.

How can you reach the finite beginning?

We could imagine the beginning. There are trace of the beginning. Physicist know about this.

Surely not physically?

Yes. But we can use the laws of nature to see what was in the past.

The only means you can do so is to infer by crude speculation based on psychology.

No, it is based on evidence. There was a beginning.

There is a problem with the term 'beginning' which is merely for convenience but has not real referent.

The beginning is real. You need a bit of imagination to argue about it.

You cannot rely on some problematic term to ground your argument.

What is that?

Show me when and how any thing began to exists as it-in-itself.
Example, show me when and how the Earth began to exist as Earth?

We know that with laws of physics dust around a star could get become planets. We can even simulate it.

[bahman]

By reaching, I mean if the travel to the past was possible.

But it's not possible. You can't even reach 1 second into the past - you can only remember 1 second into the past.

It is matter using your imagination, using the facts, and see how things look like in the past. You can reach to an argument. There was a moment before. This moment either is the beginning or there was a moment before it. Etc. This leads to a regress unless you cut it at a point, so-called the beginning.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not true.

How can you reach the finite beginning?

We could imagine the beginning. There are trace of the beginning. Physicist know about this.

You use imagination to ground your argument??
Can you see the irrationality in this?
In that case it follows your conclusion is merely imaginary.

Btw, even with Physics, it is Science which is merely a polished conjecture.
There are no way you can establish a real justifiable 'beginning' in the absolute sense you are claiming for.

Surely not physically?

Yes. But we can use the laws of nature to see what was in the past.[/quote]
"see" with your eyes and visual sense?
Nope, what you are doing is inferring mentally from crude reason.
It is not something real.

The only means you can do so is to infer by crude speculation based on psychology.

No, it is based on evidence. There was a beginning.

You keep saying that but where is your proof?
What you are doing is inferring from evidence and not proving directly from evidence.

There is a problem with the term 'beginning' which is merely for convenience but has not real referent.

The beginning is real. You need a bit of imagination to argue about it.

Imagination again?
Btw, the absolute beginning is an illusion, there is no way you can even imagine an illusion.

You cannot rely on some problematic term to ground your argument.

What is that?

• 1. The term 'beginning' is problematic - no way of proving it is real as demonstrated above.
  2. The absolute ultimate "beginning" exists as real - your claim.
  3. Your claim of an ultimate beginning is problematic

Show me when and how any thing began to exists as it-in-itself.
Example, show me when and how the Earth began to exist as Earth?

We know that with laws of physics dust around a star could get become planets. We can even simulate it.

Yes, it is recognized dusts around a star become a planet.
It is not only dusts, but the supposed first atom, particle or quarks that determine the supposedly 'beginning' of a physical thing and this is too complex to determine when is the beginning of a thing.
But where, when and how is the "beginning" of the planet, say Earth.
At what point is sufficient dusts, stone, rock, meteorite crashing together qualify as a planet?

As I had argued, the idea of "beginning" is merely a convenience for communication purpose. The term 'beginning' has no real referent to it.

You are merely making an intellect mess trying to nail down what is the absolute ultimate 'beginning' of a thing which is an impossibility.

[bahman]

How can you reach the finite beginning?

We could imagine the beginning. There are trace of the beginning. Physicist know about this.

You use imagination to ground your argument??

There is in fact an argument for it: There was a moment before now (fact). This moment either is the beginning (there was no moment before) or there was a moment before it. Etc. This leads to a regress unless you cut it at a point, so-called the beginning.

Can you see the irrationality in this?

It is very rational. Don't you see the irrationality in what Kant suggests.

In that case it follows your conclusion is merely imaginary.

That is always the case. What is logically valid dictates something about reality.

Btw, even with Physics, it is Science which is merely a polished conjecture.

By conjecture they mean the state of matter on now dictates what happen in the past. The laws of nature are time reversal and deterministic.

There are no way you can establish a real justifiable 'beginning' in the absolute sense you are claiming for.

I provide an argument for it. There are evidence for it too.

Surely not physically?

Yes. But we can use the laws of nature to see what was in the past.

"see" with your eyes and visual sense?
Nope, what you are doing is inferring mentally from crude reason.
It is not something real.

You are kidding me.

The only means you can do so is to infer by crude speculation based on psychology.

No, it is based on evidence. There was a beginning.

You keep saying that but where is your proof?

I already provided an argument in favor of it in the first comment.

What you are doing is inferring from evidence and not proving directly from evidence.

Aren't you materialist?

There is a problem with the term 'beginning' which is merely for convenience but has not real referent.

The beginning is real. You need a bit of imagination to argue about it.

Imagination again?
Btw, the absolute beginning is an illusion, there is no way you can even imagine an illusion.

You cannot argue without imagination.

You cannot rely on some problematic term to ground your argument.

What is that?

• 1. The term 'beginning' is problematic - no way of proving it is real as demonstrated above.
  2. The absolute ultimate "beginning" exists as real - your claim.
  3. Your claim of an ultimate beginning is problematic

Well, lets see what is your counter-argument to my argument in the first comment.

Show me when and how any thing began to exists as it-in-itself.
Example, show me when and how the Earth began to exist as Earth?

We know that with laws of physics dust around a star could get become planets. We can even simulate it.

Yes, it is recognized dusts around a star become a planet.
It is not only dusts, but the supposed first atom, particle or quarks that determine the supposedly 'beginning' of a physical thing and this is too complex to determine when is the beginning of a thing.
But where, when and how is the "beginning" of the planet, say Earth.
At what point is sufficient dusts, stone, rock, meteorite crashing together qualify as a planet?

As I had argued, the idea of "beginning" is merely a convenience for communication purpose. The term 'beginning' has no real referent to it.

You are merely making an intellect mess trying to nail down what is the absolute ultimate 'beginning' of a thing which is an impossibility.

The term beginning has very explicit meaning, when there was nothing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We could imagine the beginning. There are trace of the beginning. Physicist know about this.

You use imagination to ground your argument??

There is in fact an argument for it: There was a moment before now (fact). This moment either is the beginning (there was no moment before) or there was a moment before it. Etc. This leads to a regress unless you cut it at a point, so-called the beginning.

• 1. Time [Space] are inter-twined with the human conditions - Kant.
  2. "Moment" and "before" are time related elements.
  3. "There was a moment before" is inter-twined with the human conditions.
  4. Your idea of 'beginning' [moment before] is time related
  5. Therefore your idea of "beginning' is not an independent thing but a human-conditioned thing.

Thus my point, the idea of 'beginning' is merely a convenience made up by humans for the purpose of communicating certain other ideas and concepts.
There is no beginning-in-itself or activated by a God.

[bahman]

You use imagination to ground your argument??

There is in fact an argument for it: There was a moment before now (fact). This moment either is the beginning (there was no moment before) or there was a moment before it. Etc. This leads to a regress unless you cut it at a point, so-called the beginning.

• 1. Time [Space] are inter-twined with the human conditions - Kant.
  2. "Moment" and "before" are time related elements.
  3. "There was a moment before" is inter-twined with the human conditions.
  4. Your idea of 'beginning' [moment before] is time related
  5. Therefore your idea of "beginning' is not an independent thing but a human-conditioned thing.

Thus my point, the idea of 'beginning' is merely a convenience made up by humans for the purpose of communicating certain other ideas and concepts.
There is no beginning-in-itself or activated by a God.

There are two type of time, psychological and physical. He is talking about psychological time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is in fact an argument for it: There was a moment before now (fact). This moment either is the beginning (there was no moment before) or there was a moment before it. Etc. This leads to a regress unless you cut it at a point, so-called the beginning.

• 1. Time [Space] are inter-twined with the human conditions - Kant.
  2. "Moment" and "before" are time related elements.
  3. "There was a moment before" is inter-twined with the human conditions.
  4. Your idea of 'beginning' [moment before] is time related
  5. Therefore your idea of "beginning' is not an independent thing but a human-conditioned thing.

Thus my point, the idea of 'beginning' is merely a convenience made up by humans for the purpose of communicating certain other ideas and concepts.
There is no beginning-in-itself or activated by a God.

There are two type of time, psychological and physical. He is talking about psychological time.

Nope, it is just "time".

Suggest you read this OP and give your views.
What is Really Real?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

It is the same argument, that there is no real independent beginning-in-itself.
Whatever is 'beginning' is conditional to the circumstances and entangled with the human conditions.