Argument for a Beginningless Existence

[noctalla]

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.

[noctalla]

Well, either no one has yet found any problems with my argument or no one finds it particularly interesting.

So, I'm just going to add a couple of points. Initially, I said that this argument addresses the issue of whether there was a first cause or if there is infinite regression. While, at first blush, the argument seems to support infinite regression, I'm going present an alternative to the first cause/infinite regress dichotomy, that still might hold if this argument is valid. To do this, we have to distinguish between a state of infinite regression and a static state with potential but no events. I will also posit that no events = no time. And if we have a state of unchanging potential, then we do not need to appeal to an actual infinity in the form of infinite causal regress. Therefore, we need neither rely on a first cause from absolute nothingness, nor an infinite causal chain, in order to explain why there is something rather than nothing. Having cake and eating it too?

[Surgenator]

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. 

Agreed.

[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). 

False.

[iii] This potentiality, whatever its properties, cannot be absolutely nothing.

Why not?

[iv] Therefore, something has always existed.

[noctalla]

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. 

Agreed.

[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). 

False.

Why is this false?

[iii] This potentiality, whatever its properties, cannot be absolutely nothing.

Why not?

Potential is something. 

[iv] Therefore, something has always existed.

[Surgenator]

Agreed.
False.
Why is this false?
Why not?
Potential is something. 

Time would not exist in an absolutely nothing. Since you already consider the possibility of change, you introduced time into the equation. Therefore, you have already assumed something exist and conclude that something exist.
PS. You should learn how to quote properly

[noctalla]

Time would not exist in an absolutely nothing. Since you already consider the possibility of change, you introduced time into the equation. Therefore, you have already assumed something exist and conclude that something exist.
PS. You should learn how to quote properly

'Tis true. I should learn how to quote properly.

While it is true that if there was an absolute nothingness, there would also be no time, I have not presupposed time. I have only presupposed the possibility of time. Until change occurs, there is no time, even if there is potential for change. Did you read my first reply to my post where I outlined a a possible state of existence that postulated properties without events?

[Esquilax]

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.

[Surgenator]

Time would not exist in an absolutely nothing. Since you already consider the possibility of change, you introduced time into the equation. Therefore, you have already assumed something exist and conclude that something exist.
PS. You should learn how to quote properly

'Tis true. I should learn how to quote properly.

While it is true that if there was an absolute nothingness, there would also be no time, I have not presupposed time. I have only presupposed the possibility of time. Until change occurs, there is no time, even if there is potential for change. Did you read my first reply to my post where I outlined a a possible state of existence that postulated properties without events?

The potential for change already assumes a something.

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

[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?

[bennyboy]

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.