(February 6, 2014 at 2:58 pm)FreeTony Wrote: I do understand his argument, honestly. What I'm saying is you can't infer the properties of one thing from another, which is what he is trying to do.
P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2 The universe begins to exist. It is therefore in the set of everything that begins to exist, but that it has a cause has not been tested, therefore P1 is not necesarrily true. It must be tested in order for P1 to hold, but once tested there is no need for the argument.
Craig's contention that the universe has a cause for it's existence is not entirely an extrapolation from common experience. He believes that Big Bang cosmolpgy supports this view, and would likely use further arguments like fine-tuning to bolster that. Granted, all bullshit. And I hope I'm not coming off as a complete ass here. :/
