(April 13, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:From the "Objections so bad..." link I mentioned above...Quote:2. The universe began to exist
Fallacy - equivocation.
Uses a different definition of the phrase "began to exist" than in the first premise.
The first premise is describing things we observe in the universe that are a rearrangement of existing matter/energy. THis is creation ex material.
While, in premise 2, you are describing creation ex nihilo.
Objection #7: The argument equivocates on “begins to exist.” In premise (1) it means to begin “from a previous material state,” but in premise (2) it means “not from a material state.”
Response to #7: In order to defeat the allegation of equivocation all one needs to do is provide a univocal meaning for the phrase in both its occurrences. That's easy to do. By “begins to exist” all I mean is “comes into being.” Everything that comes into begin has a cause, and the universe came into being. No equivocation here!
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z45k3DhOvd
