Argument for a Beginningless Existence

[noctalla]

The potential for change already assumes a something.
If you want to talk about infinite regression, we can talk about that.

What's wrong with that? Given that something exists, either it always existed, or some potential must have existed which enabled it to come into existence. What other possibilities could there logically be?
I think we have to accept that either infinite regression or universal eternity is the reality, and we are philosophically fucked as soon as we try to address that.

Surgenator is trying to show that I am presupposing my conclusion within my argument. If true, this would be a logical fallacy (specifically, begging the question or circular logic). However, I do not believe that the argument does this, and I tried to say why I think it does not make this presupposition in my previous post.

[Mudhammam]

I don't know if this argument has been made before (it probably has) but I thought I'd present it here and solicit some critiques. The argument is neither atheist nor theist in nature, but attempts to address the issue of first cause vs. infinite regression. 

[i] the Universe Exists. 
[ii] It could not have been the case that there was a state of affairs in which the Universe did not have the potential to exist (or the Universe would not currently exist). 
[iii] This potentiality, whatever its properties, cannot be absolutely nothing.
[iv] Therefore, something has always existed.

I would agree that absolute nothingness has no potentiality to change into something because to "have" any attributes implies a substratum upon which a change of any sort is able to occur, and whatever this substratum is, by definition it certainly cannot be said to be absolute nothingness (since to be anything is to be something). I don't think that your conclusion is necessarily incorrect, and it seems to follow from your three premises, but I might take fault with [ii]. Things get a bit thorny when you begin to speak about a "state of affairs" prior to the Singularity. Either it represents the boundary of all being, in which case there literally is nothing beyond it to ponder, or it represents a discontinuity so radical that any material or spatio-temporal antecedents to the big bang lie outside the scope of any possible investigation. 

[robvalue]

I don't wish to stamp all over discussion, but it's my opinion that applying standard thinking techniques is going to fail hard when we approach the extremes of the universe. All of science has come up against a hard barrier, and trying to waltz through it with a pipe in your mouth is definitely fun, but in the end it's just speculation. By all means go ahead, but I'm just noting that I don't see anything real that can possibly be gained through such discussion.

Reality is complicated, and if we don't have something we can get our grubby mits on, we have no way of knowing if we've run a marathon in the right or wrong direction.

[Alex K]

I don't know if this argument has been made before (it probably has) but I thought I'd present it here and solicit some critiques. The argument is neither atheist nor theist in nature, but attempts to address the issue of first cause vs. infinite regression. 
[i] the Universe Exists. 
[ii] It could not have been the case that there was a state of affairs in which the Universe did not have the potential to exist (or the Universe would not currently exist). 
[iii] This potentiality, whatever its properties, cannot be absolutely nothing.
[iv] Therefore, something has always existed.

Excuse me for not answering earlier, but I had to sleep and other pressing needs.
I don't know what potentiality to exist means. Could you elaborate? Also, do you assume time to exist independent of the universe?

[Mudhammam]

I don't wish to stamp all over discussion, but it's my opinion that applying standard thinking techniques is going to fail hard when we approach the extremes of the universe. All of science has come up against a hard barrier, and trying to waltz through it with a pipe in your mouth is definitely fun, but in the end it's just speculation. By all means go ahead, but I'm just noting that I don't see anything real that can possibly be gained through such discussion.
Reality is complicated, and if we don't have something we can get our grubby mits on, we have no way of knowing if we've run a marathon in the right or wrong direction.

I don't disagree, but when it comes to concepts or definitions that are so basic, such as "being" or "not-being," "is" or "is not," "motion" or "rest," "change" or "persist," etc., it seems to me reasonable to ask what these mean in relation to the totality of being, refining our ideas as the material world is further apprehended, of course (Ironically, as far as science has come from the ancient Greeks, the questions they asked are the ones physicists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists, etc. continue to debate).  

[Mystic]

Something always had to exist is obvious fact everyone who sincerely reflects knows. The thing it's either the building blocks of the universe always existed in some form or another, or a Creator who brought the universe into being existed. The fact that time is temporal by logical arguments (see the thread about eternal originator to time) and material universe will go back to the first point of time and time being a property of the universe, then it obviously was created by a Creator who is eternal. To believe time just appeared and automatically started on a eternal material thing is illogical, rather it's initial start would be the first point of time, call it time zero, but it had to have an eternal originator, because no point of time expands back forever.

[Mudhammam]

@Mystic

"Time is temporal" is redundant. Time may be eternal. There is no logical argument or empirical evidence that precludes the possibility that time only exists in instants rather than instants in time. You have no evidence that time is a "property" of anything other than internal and external records in which your mind constructs a continuous line from A to F and presumes ABCDE to no longer exist in some sense. There is no more reason to think that the moment you perceive as "now" requires a Creator than the "now" we conceive as an event in the deep past. Now simply is. Past and future are concepts we rely on to measure duration, and that is itself largely ambiguous.

[noctalla]

@Alex K - I am reluctant to put forth any particular attribute that the potentiality itself may have, other than non-nothingness. To do so would be making an argument from ignorance, as I have no evidence on which to draw. If someone were to object to the argument on the grounds that the proposed potentiality is a logical absurdity, I could put forth candidate scenarios for what the potentiality might look like. This could take the form of a God or it could be some sort of multiverse of the type Lawrence Krauss describes in A Universe From Nothing (he answers a question about universe producing quantum fluctuations at about 57:33 in this lecture entitled A Universe From Nothing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs). My argument is not meant to address particular attributes of the potentiality. That is a question I hope, in time, science will answer.

As for any assumption that time exists independent of the universe, I tried to be as careful as I could, not to assume any particular temporal properties of the universe. Time may exist outside of our observable universe (if there is a multiverse for example) Or it may not. I think the argument stands in either case.

@Nestor - I am being intentionally vague when I use the term 'state of affairs'. I tried to chose a term that did not carry a burden or make any assumptions about time (as I explained above). You state: "Either it represents the boundary of all being, in which case there literally is nothing beyond it to ponder, or it represents a discontinuity so radical that any material or spatio-temporal antecedents to the big bang lie outside the scope of any possible investigation." I'm not sure I agree. There may be other options. Proposed models of origins in theoretical physics might one day be validated by experimental data. One hopes anyway.

@MysticKnight "Something always had to exist is obvious fact everyone who sincerely reflects knows." - I don't agree with this. I think we shouldn't assume that those things which appear obvious are in fact true, even upon sincere reflection. They still need to be supported with evidence and argument. Let's not forget we are human and we can make mistakes. Not everyone who sincerely reflects on something comes up with the right answer. History is littered with obvious facts that have turned out to be wrong. Let's not commit hubris.