Philosophy Now Forum

First, let's read the argument:

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible. But what is the more serious problem is the second premise. We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?t=41405

In the article;
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
....................................................................
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

The first part of the argument is not a problem if conditioned and qualified within a human-based scientific framework.

The problem is the 2nd part when there is a LEAP [without solid justifications] to
4 that cause is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:40 am Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?t=41405

In the article;
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
....................................................................
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

The first part of the argument is not a problem if conditioned and qualified within a human-based scientific framework.

The problem is the 2nd part when there is a LEAP [without solid justifications] to
4 that cause is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

What do you think of my counterargument?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible.

Not logically, it isn't.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

Colloquially it means exactly that.

Did you exist 100 years ago? No.
Do you exist now? Yes.

You began to exist. You were born and you are <100 years old.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm First, let's read the argument:

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible.

But anyone can say anything. However doing so never means that what one is saying has absolutely any truth at all in it. For example, one could say nothing to something is possible but this does not necessarily mean that nothing to something is possible at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm But what is the more serious problem is the second premise.

To me, each and every problem is just a question posed for a solution. So, to me, there are absolutely no problems at all here, let alone less nor more so-called serious problems.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

1. Once upon a time human beings were also sure that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, but look at how that ended up.

2. What do you mean by something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that that thing began to exist?

Also, will you provide any examples of things that had a beginning but did not what you call begin to exist?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 4:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:40 am Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?t=41405

In the article;
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
....................................................................
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

The first part of the argument is not a problem if conditioned and qualified within a human-based scientific framework.

The problem is the 2nd part when there is a LEAP [without solid justifications] to
4 that cause is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

What do you think of my counterargument?

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible. But what is the more serious problem is the second premise. We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

From the scientific perspective conditioned and qualified upon the science-cosmology FSK, there is nothing wrong with the argument.

P1 is an acceptable scientific assumption, i.e. all empirical effects has a cause.
In P2, the universe began to exist from the Big Bang as verified, inferred and justified scientifically.
Therefore the universe has a scientific-FSK-cause, i.e. the Big Bang.

There are no better scientific theories to counter the Big Bang Theory.
The scientific FSK is the most credible, true, factual and objective at present.

Your counter above is merely crude reasoning based on semantics alone. It should belong to the 'Recyle Bin'.

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:16 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 4:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:40 am Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?t=41405

In the article;
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
....................................................................
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

The first part of the argument is not a problem if conditioned and qualified within a human-based scientific framework.

The problem is the 2nd part when there is a LEAP [without solid justifications] to
4 that cause is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

What do you think of my counterargument?

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible. But what is the more serious problem is the second premise. We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

From the scientific perspective conditioned and qualified upon the science-cosmology FSK, there is nothing wrong with the argument.

P1 is an acceptable scientific assumption, i.e. all empirical effects has a cause.
In P2, the universe began to exist from the Big Bang as verified, inferred and justified scientifically.
Therefore the universe has a scientific-FSK-cause, i.e. the Big Bang.

There are no better scientific theories to counter the Big Bang Theory.

There is, however, the Truth, which will always override these Truly absurd and ridiculous scientific theories, presumptions, and guesses.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:16 am The scientific FSK is the most credible, true, factual and objective at present.

Even if this was true, which obviously is not, the so-called scientific fsk still comes up with the most Truly absurd, nonsensical, and illogical False theories, like the one shown above here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:16 am Your counter above is merely crude reasoning based on semantics alone. It should belong to the 'Recyle Bin'.

But what "veritas aequitas" says, writes, and claims should be kept for all to look at and see, right "aequitas veritas"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:16 am The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:16 am The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Well, if The Big Bang is the start of the material, the cause is immaterial.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Time then cause is timeless.
If The Big Bang is the beginning of Space then the cause is spaceless.
If the cause of The Big Bang exists then it exists - synonymous with being.

So.... a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being.

I know you don't like the word "God" but...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible.

Not logically, it isn't.

What do you mean?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

Colloquially it means exactly that.

Did you exist 100 years ago? No.
Do you exist now? Yes.

You began to exist. You were born and you are <100 years old.

We are talking about the beginning of the universe. It is wrong to say what was before. So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:16 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 4:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:40 am Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?t=41405

In the article;
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
....................................................................
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

The first part of the argument is not a problem if conditioned and qualified within a human-based scientific framework.

The problem is the 2nd part when there is a LEAP [without solid justifications] to
4 that cause is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator

What do you think of my counterargument?

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible. But what is the more serious problem is the second premise. We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

From the scientific perspective conditioned and qualified upon the science-cosmology FSK, there is nothing wrong with the argument.

P1 is an acceptable scientific assumption, i.e. all empirical effects has a cause.
In P2, the universe began to exist from the Big Bang as verified, inferred and justified scientifically.
Therefore the universe has a scientific-FSK-cause, i.e. the Big Bang.

There are no better scientific theories to counter the Big Bang Theory.
The scientific FSK is the most credible, true, factual and objective at present.

Your counter above is merely crude reasoning based on semantics alone. It should belong to the 'Recyle Bin'.

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Do you know that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm First, let's read the argument:

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible.

But anyone can say anything. However doing so never means that what one is saying has absolutely any truth at all in it. For example, one could say nothing to something is possible but this does not necessarily mean that nothing to something is possible at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm But what is the more serious problem is the second premise.

To me, each and every problem is just a question posed for a solution. So, to me, there are absolutely no problems at all here, let alone less nor more so-called serious problems.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

1. Once upon a time human beings were also sure that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, but look at how that ended up.

2. What do you mean by something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that that thing began to exist?

By this, I mean that the singularity (the beginning state of the universe) simply existed at the beginning without a need for any cause. This is an example of how things could start.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:22 pm Also, will you provide any examples of things that had a beginning but did not what you call begin to exist?

The universe.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm First, let's read the argument:

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible.

But anyone can say anything. However doing so never means that what one is saying has absolutely any truth at all in it. For example, one could say nothing to something is possible but this does not necessarily mean that nothing to something is possible at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm But what is the more serious problem is the second premise.

To me, each and every problem is just a question posed for a solution. So, to me, there are absolutely no problems at all here, let alone less nor more so-called serious problems.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

1. Once upon a time human beings were also sure that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, but look at how that ended up.

2. What do you mean by something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that that thing began to exist?

By this, I mean that the singularity (the beginning state of the universe) simply existed at the beginning without a need for any cause. This is an example of how things could start.

This is not an example of how things could start at all.

This is absolute nonsense.

1. The Universe has to have a beginning, before there could even be some so-called beginning state of the Universe.

2. If singularity was some so-called beginning state of the Universe, then who and/or what caused this state to begin, or are you just say that some so-called singularity, or beginning state of the Universe, existed eternally previously?

3. If yes, then this is just the Universe, Itself, in some particular previous eternal state.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:02 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:22 pm Also, will you provide any examples of things that had a beginning but did not what you call begin to exist?

The universe.

So, now, to you, the Universe, which you claim was in some so-called 'beginning state' was actually eternally like this, either prior to before It began to exist or was just the eternal Universe, Itself.

Also, you "bahman" here are showing, once again, that the more you are questioned and challenged over your claims, in order for me to gain more clarity and a better understanding, you just end up appearing more puzzled and confused, well to me anyway.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:52 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible.

Not logically, it isn't.

What do you mean?

What this means is that the saying and claim 'nothing to something' is not logically possible, or not a logical possibility.

As well as that saying and claim not being physical possible, nor a physical possibility.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

Colloquially it means exactly that.

Did you exist 100 years ago? No.
Do you exist now? Yes.

You began to exist. You were born and you are <100 years old.

We are talking about the beginning of the universe.[/quote]

Maybe so, but you are saying and claiming some Truly absurd, as well as some Truly nonsensical and illogical things here.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:02 pm It is wrong to say what was before.

Why?

Because you have heard one who believes, absolutely, that the Universe began, but when questioned and/or challenged over this belief of theirs they then said and claimed, 'It is wrong to say what was before?'

For those who come back with this reply, they sound the "priest/preacher" when questioned and/or challenged over who or what created God, when saying and claiming that God created Everything/the Universe.

Saying and claiming, 'It is wrong to say and ask, 'What was before?' is just that person's way of trying to get out of explaining what they obviously do not fully understand, and thus cannot explain.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:02 pm So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

This is about one of the stupidest questions that I have seen here for a while.

Obviously, if the Universe did not begin to exist, and just existed in some state for eternity prior to being in another state, then the Universe is eternal.

How much simpler and easier could this be to fully comprehend and understand?

Look I will say and claim this once again. The Universe is infinite, and eternal.

And, this cannot be refuted.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:52 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible.

Not logically, it isn't.

What do you mean?

Nothing from something is the principle of explosion.
From falsehood anything follows.

The empty category (nothing, also known as the empty type, or simply falsehood) implies a non-empty category (something).

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:52 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:48 pm We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

Colloquially it means exactly that.

Did you exist 100 years ago? No.
Do you exist now? Yes.

You began to exist. You were born and you are <100 years old.

We are talking about the beginning of the universe. It is wrong to say what was before. So the question remains: Whether the universe began to exist or just existed at the beginning.

Distinction without a difference.

Did the universe exist 50 billion years ago? No.
Does it exist now? Yes.

I can say that without blinking an eye because the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

+-13.8 billion years ago is when the universe began to exist.

If you are referring to anything beyond that time-horizon you are NOT talking about the universe.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:54 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:16 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 4:28 pm
What do you think of my counterargument?

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

So what are the problems within this argument: The first premise is not obvious as one can also say nothing to something is possible. But what is the more serious problem is the second premise. We are sure that the universe has a beginning but something that has a beginning does not necessarily mean that it began to exist.

From the scientific perspective conditioned and qualified upon the science-cosmology FSK, there is nothing wrong with the argument.

P1 is an acceptable scientific assumption, i.e. all empirical effects has a cause.
In P2, the universe began to exist from the Big Bang as verified, inferred and justified scientifically.
Therefore the universe has a scientific-FSK-cause, i.e. the Big Bang.

There are no better scientific theories to counter the Big Bang Theory.
The scientific FSK is the most credible, true, factual and objective at present.

Your counter above is merely crude reasoning based on semantics alone. It should belong to the 'Recyle Bin'.

The problem [you don't seem to grasp] is when theists fallaciously extend the scientific-FSK-cause [oil] to a theological-FSK-cause [water], the cause is God, the omni-whatever who sent His message and immutable commands via sons, prophets, messengers and answer prayers, etc.

Do you know that the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe?

What you are asking here is like asking, 'Do you know that God is the beginning of the Universe?'

Even when there exists absolutely no proof at all for both rhetorical questions here, some people would ask such questions.

Now, if you want to continue on claiming here that there was a beginning to the Universe "bahman", then how about you back up and support this belief of yours with some actual proof? In fact I will even allow you to just provide some actual evidence, only, for your claim and belief here.