Argument for a Beginningless Existence

[noctalla]

I'm not a fan of these philosophical or logical arguments, mainly because you can't talk your way around reality; the way we're going to come to sound conclusions about the world we live in, much to the horror of William Lane Craig and his fellow apologists, is through evidence, not inventing ways to linguistically navigate around a lack of evidence for whatever reason.

I partially agree. Evidence is crucial. However, without logical arguments, we cannot interpret or evaluate the evidence. Also, where there is a lack of evidence, I don't think we should stop exploring, even if our only tools are logic and imagination. Formulating such arguments can be a way to generate hypotheses, which later can be tested, when the evidence is at hand.

---

The potential for change already assumes a something.

If you want to talk about infinite regression, we can talk about that.

I agree the potential for change implies a something. However, that wasn't simply assumed, it was the conclusion of the argument. The only thing I actually presupposed was the existence of the universe. You're trying to short circuit the argument by denying premise [ii]. I'm happy for you to show that [ii] is false, but it seems to me that [i] logically leads to [ii]. Indeed, how could something exist, if it could not even potentially exist?