The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[punkforchrist]

I’ve always defended the soundness of this argument, but I think we can defend the second premise based on a philosophical inductive argument, in addition to the arguments that William Lane Craig already offers.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

(1), of course, is simply reiterating that being cannot arise from non-being. Things may still be random, e.g., quantum fluctuations, but they arise from the energy (which is something) already contained within the quantum vacuum. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, I believe is the best reason to accept this premise.

(2), on the other hand, has been ably defended by four independent lines of evidence. I’d like to add what I think is a simple, yet philosophically cogent inductive argument. It goes like this:

1. The things we observe that have an ending also have a beginning.
2. The universe’s past has ended in the present.
3. Therefore, the universe probably had a beginning.

(5) is a fairly uncontroversial premise, especially on an A-theory of time. We might support (4) by offering various illustrations. Imagine I tell you I just finished reading a book. You ask me when I started, and I respond by saying, “I never started it. I just ended it.” You would either look at me like I were crazy, or simply jesting. The fact is that our observations tell us that things that end are also things that begin at some point. So, why should the universe be an exception to the rule? I’m inclined to think that in order to avoid (6), one must offer very strong reasons to accept its negation instead.

Thoughts?

 

[Touchstone]

I’ve always defended the soundness of this argument, but I think we can defend the second premise based on a philosophical inductive argument, in addition to the arguments that William Lane Craig already offers.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

(1), of course, is simply reiterating that being cannot arise from non-being. Things may still be random, e.g., quantum fluctuations, but they arise from the energy (which is something) already contained within the quantum vacuum. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, I believe is the best reason to accept this premise.

(2), on the other hand, has been ably defended by four independent lines of evidence. I’d like to add what I think is a simple, yet philosophically cogent inductive argument. It goes like this:

1. The things we observe that have an ending also have a beginning.
2. The universe’s past has ended in the present.
3. Therefore, the universe probably had a beginning.

(5) is a fairly uncontroversial premise, especially on an A-theory of time. We might support (4) by offering various illustrations. Imagine I tell you I just finished reading a book. You ask me when I started, and I respond by saying, “I never started it. I just ended it.” You would either look at me like I were crazy, or simply jesting. The fact is that our observations tell us that things that end are also things that begin at some point. So, why should the universe be an exception to the rule? I’m inclined to think that in order to avoid (6), one must offer very strong reasons to accept its negation instead.

Thoughts?

Why should we think (1) is true? Please be precise in telling me what “begins to exist” means. The hallmark of WLC is vague terms that lend themselves to convienient equivocations.

If we suppose “begins to exist” qualifies as, say sugar crystals forming on a string when water around the sugar evaporates, I think we are construing “begins to exist” as “rearrangement of existing matter and energy”.

What would you point to as an example of “begins to exist” that is not just the rearrangement of existing matter and energy?

-TS

 

[punkforchrist]

Touchstone:

. . . What would you point to as an example of “begins to exist” that is not just the rearrangement of existing matter and energy?

The rearrangement of matter and energy would involve physical laws. Both premises of the KCA refer, not to physical laws, but to the universe’s coming into being. So, this is based on the metaphysical principle that something cannot come from nothing.

 

[Touchstone]

The rearrangement of matter and energy would involve physical laws. Both premises of the KCA refer, not to physical laws, but to the universe’s coming into being. So, this is based on the metaphysical principle that something cannot come from nothing.

I’m not aware that that is a metaphysical truth, that something cannot come from nothing. Do you take it to be a metaphysical truth, and if so, quo waranto?

The justification for “something cannot come from nothing” is often grounded in physical experience. That’s quite understandable, as there are innumerable things which we understand to “begin to exist” (sperm and egg combining to form a zygote developing into an embryo, for example) as the result of physical causation. But that’s perfectly worthless as grounds for a metaphysical proposition like you’ve offered here, which is why I ask.

In response to my question I get one of two answers:

a) look around you, do you observe anything coming into existence that isn’t the effect of some cause?

b) “something cannot come from nothing” is a brute ETA: metaphysical] assertion.

You’ve chosen b), it seems. OK, if this is not just a brute assertion, what is the justification for it?

If it is a brute assertion, why should anyone go further than 1) in your argument. If brute assertions obtain, literally any conclusion can be proved via the “brute metaphysical assertion”.

I accept your restriction of (1) to purely metaphysical groundings, based on what you’ve said here, although as I’ve said, it seems like trading equivocation for caprice. But I note that in your first post, you do want to conflate metaphysical dynamics with metaphysical dynamics. Your (4)-(6):

1. The things we observe that have an ending also have a beginning.
2. The universe’s past has ended in the present.
3. Therefore, the universe probably had a beginning.

If this is not induction across the physical/metaphysical divide, I can’t think why you would think (6) is anything more than a stark non-sequitur. How do you obtain (6) if you aren’t committed to extruding physical dynamics into your metaphysic?

-TS

 

[punkforchrist]

I’m not aware that that is a metaphysical truth, that something cannot come from nothing. Do you take it to be a metaphysical truth, and if so, quo waranto? . . .

Yes, the causal principle is metaphysical in nature. I believe this can be demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary. If nothing were to exist, then not even the potentiality for something to come into being would exist. And, since potentiality is a necessary precondition for a thing’s actualization, something cannot come from nothing.

Moreover, I agree with Craig that the idea that something could come from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least there’s a hat and the magician (and, of course, the rabbit), but if the universe comes from nothing, there’s just nothing at all.

If this is not induction across the physical/metaphysical divide, I can’t think why you would think (6) is anything more than a stark non-sequitur. How do you obtain (6) if you aren’t committed to extruding physical dynamics into your metaphysic?

My reservations about your objection against metaphysical inferences based on physical observations aside, (6) is only a conclusion in support of the universe’s beginning, and not the metaphysical causal premise.

 

[Touchstone]

Yes, the causal principle is metaphysical in nature. I believe this can be demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary. If nothing were to exist, then not even the potentiality for something to come into being would exist. And, since potentiality is a necessary precondition for a thing’s actualization, something cannot come from nothing.

That doesn’t help at all. Potentiality as a necessary precondition is derived in one of two ways, both illicit:

a) it’s a stolen concept from the physical world.

b) it’s tautological, purely analytical in nature – brute logic unattached to any (name removed by moderator)uts from reality.

If you have another basis for “potentiality is a necessary precondition for actualization”, I’m eager to hear it. If not, and you’d like to rely on a), you can anticipate my response – equivocation on physics/metaphysics.

If you’d like to justify it with b), you can anticipate my reaction to that too – merely true in a tautological sense, unattached from reality.

Here’s two quick examples to give that objection some substance.

• Consider this metaphysical principle:

(1) Actuality is sometimes uncaused, needing not even potentiality as its predicate.

That’s a brute metaphysical assertion. How would you dismiss this assertion?

(2) A syllogism:

2a) All widgets are wadgets
2b) X is a widget
2c) :. X is a wadget

Is 2c) a true proposition, to you? Is it valid in form and sound in its premises? 1) is completely detached from grounding in reality. I’ve got a valid syllogism with an inscrutable premise. It’s true by its structure, but only by its structure. My (2a) is analogous to your (1). This is the devastating weakness of “metapysical principles” – your (1) is a good example of a tautology with delusions of metaphysical grandeur.

Of course actuality implies potentiality as a predicate – it’s definitional. That how we understand actuality in the physical world, the world you live in and experience. I believe you’ve mistaken definitions derived from the physical world for metaphysical truths. If it’s not a tautological justification you have for (1), or the impossibility of its negation, then whence the warrant for it?

Is it just “self evident”? If so, I deny that it is, and will say it’s only self-evident in physical terms. We’ve no basis for the “evident” part of “self-evident” as a metaphysical principle.

Moreover, I agree with Craig that the idea that something could come from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least there’s a hat and the magician (and, of course, the rabbit), but if the universe comes from nothing, there’s just nothing at all.

Here, again, you are dealing in stolen concepts. That line of reasoning is predicated on physical causality. You’re saying (via Craig), “look at this scenario in the physical world… metaphysics works just like that!”. It’s equivocation across the physical/metaphysical boundary, one more time. “Magic” is another stolen concept from the physical world. Do you know what “magic” means in metaphysical terms? If so, I’d like to know!

Webster describes “magic” as “the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces”. Here, again, the physical world and its laws as the referent for the concepts you invoked. A “natural”, “physical” description.

But what dynamics obtain in metaphysics. What does “metaphysical magic”, look like, a term that we can apply here? I haven’t a clue, and I strongly suspect that you do not either. It’s just borrowing terms and constraints from our natural experience and pushing them into transcendent metaphysics, where there’s no basis whatsoever for supposing they obtain.

My reservations about your objection against metaphysical inferences based on physical observations aside, (6) is only a conclusion in support of the universe’s beginning, and not the metaphysical causal premise.

OK, fair enough. But (4)-(6) remain evidence that you are unaware of the problem of equivocating between physical dynamics and metaphysical dynamics. Such inferences are perfectly unverified, and can’t obtain from anything more than intuition (so far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong), and are those no more valuable than our unvalidated intuitions about ultimate reality. If you’re going to accept unvalidiated intuitions about ultimate reality, you don’t need to bother with any kind of syllogism or proof.

-Touchstone

 

[crowonsnow]

Craig’s argument is semantically clever but hardly meaningful. He obviously meant it for the choir. He could have just as easily, for example, claimed that anything that ‘ceases to exist’ must have a cause.

Craig’s argument rests on the implied premise that “nothing” is somehow a demonstrable bit of reality when in fact it is a nonsensical concept. Perhaps he confuses a quantity of zero with nothingness. We simply cannot have a zero quantity of matter/energy anywhere or at anytime.

And why doesn’t a cause need a cause? Etc.

 

[crowonsnow]

And, since potentiality is a necessary precondition for a thing’s actualization, something cannot come from nothing.

Semantically correct, but as a matter of observation you have it backwards.

 

[punkforchrist]

Touchstone:

If you have another basis for “potentiality is a necessary precondition for actualization”, I’m eager to hear it. If not, and you’d like to rely on a), you can anticipate my response – equivocation on physics/metaphysics.

This is the main objection you have, from what I can tell. I would simply refer anyone who’s interested to our original discussion of the validity/invalidity of inferring metaphysical conclusions based on physical observations.

crowonsnow:

Semantically correct, but as a matter of observation you have it backwards.

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Do you agree that X has to have the potential to be Y in order for X to become Y?

 

[Touchstone]

This is the main objection you have, from what I can tell. I would simply refer anyone who’s interested to our original discussion of the validity/invalidity of inferring metaphysical conclusions based on physical observations.

(2) I think is even more problematic than (1), in my view, but (1) is problematic enough to make it impotent, in my view, so that’s fine. If you accept “intuitive metaphysics”, I think (1) can pass muster, but then so can any intuition about metaphysics. The days are long gone, I think, when intuitive metaphysics just got a free pass.

-TS

 

[punkforchrist]

Touchstone, I don’t want to come across as having abruptly ended the conservation. It’s just that many of these points have been covered on other threads. As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone, I don’t want to come across as having abruptly ended the conservation. It’s just that many of these points have been covered on other threads. As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

It’s no problem, and I agree it points right back at the same objections as arise against the other (neo)Thomistic proofs. Others who accept those metaphysics as a given can continue on to some other objection to or acceptance of the argument.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve always defended the soundness of this argument, but I think we can defend the second premise based on a philosophical inductive argument, in addition to the arguments that William Lane Craig already offers.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a sound demonstratio quia argument. The middle term is not the cause of the universe’s beginnings, but, is the reason why we know that cause belongs to the universe.

(1), of course, is simply reiterating that being cannot arise from non-being. Things may still be random, e.g., quantum fluctuations, but they arise from the energy (which is something) already contained within the quantum vacuum. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, I believe is the best reason to accept this premise.

This appears to be quite reasonable as well. The terms, “begins to exist”, or “comes to be” have been rather non-vaguely defined for quite a long time. Simply stated, that which comes to be is: that which now exists that heretofore did not exist, as an effect or, result, of substantial change.

(2), on the other hand, has been ably defended by four independent lines of evidence.

So it would seem, unless a theory of an undulating universe was somehow proven. IOW, Big Bang —> Big Crunch —> Big Bang, etc. (I assume you are referring to scientific theories about the beginning of the universe, right?)

I’d like to add what I think is a simple, yet philosophically cogent inductive argument. It goes like this:

1. The things we observe that have an ending also have a beginning.
2. The universe’s past has ended in the present.
3. Therefore, the universe probably had a beginning.

(5) is a fairly uncontroversial premise, especially on an A-theory of time. We might support (4) by offering various illustrations. Imagine I tell you I just finished reading a book. You ask me when I started, and I respond by saying, “I never started it. I just ended it.” You would either look at me like I were crazy, or simply jesting. The fact is that our observations tell us that things that end are also things that begin at some point. So, why should the universe be an exception to the rule? I’m inclined to think that in order to avoid (6), one must offer very strong reasons to accept its negation instead.

I noticed that you watered down term (6). You could have said, “Therefore, the universe had a beginning.” Do you not fully believe in (4) and/or (5)?

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

Out of nothing comes nothing.

Its mind boggling to me that somebody would ask for a justification for such a simple concept.

Let me explain this in a more explicit way.

If there is “no” being, then we cannot predicate to non-being that which pertains to the reality of beings such as “change”, “cause”, “effect”, “actuality”, “potentiality” and “possibility”; since such things cannot meaningfully be advocated by that which does not exist, because it does not exist. Thus there is no potentiality for the existence of any given thing outside of the reality of being; since potentiality has no existence by itself; because potentiality is not an actual “being”. If something has the potential to become or begin, it is because something that already has the reality of “being” is the cause of that potentiality.

There is no other simpler way to put it.

To try and argue contrary to these facts, to such an extent as to ask for evidence, is to hold to a radical skepticism to such a ridiculous degree that one can no-longer hold any warrant either in real logic or real science. In other words, you are destroying your dignity as a reasonable person, since you are attacking the very nature of real and non-real; which are vital distinctions that lay at the very foundation of our ability to reason.

Please don’t embarrass yourselves any longer. Just accept the truth. Its far too gut churning and embarrassing to watch you make such bad mistakes. It unacceptable for anybody who considers themselves to be reasonable. I’m sick and tired of it.

 

[Touchstone]

Out of nothing comes nothing.

Its mind boggling to me that somebody would ask for a justification for such a simple concept.

It’s just straightforward critical reasoning being applied. There’s nothing complicated about the question: what is the warrant for this assertion? If there is warrant for it, then provide it. If there’s not, then it either gets classified as axiomatic – necessary or self-evident – or just unwarranted.

Let me explain this in a more explicit way.

If there is “no” being, then we cannot predicate to non-being that which pertains to the reality of beings such as "change

", “cause”, “effect”, “actuality”, “potentiality” and “possibility”; since such things cannot meaningfully be advocated by that which does not exist, because it does not exist. Thus there is no potentiality for the existence of any given thing outside of the reality of being; since potentiality has no existence by itself; because potentiality is not an actual “being”. If something has the potential to become or begin, it is because something that already has the reality of “being” is the cause of that potentiality. Ok, so what it “potentiality”, and how does it work? What gives ‘potentiality’ its ‘potentiality-ness’? In terms of physics this is a fairly coherent concept; we can describe potentiality in terms of potential energy, for example, and understand that background factors in nature provide “pontentiality”. Splitting an atom the right way can exploit the energy that holds the nucleus together, to devastating effect if caused in a cascading chain.

I won’t go into more examples than that, but our concept of “potentiality” in terms of physics comes by way of experience and empirical knowledge. But what do we know of metaphysical potentiality, and how do we know it? It turns out these are exceedingly dificult to answer with any substance, and very easier to answer with pat answers: *I just know, *or I trust my intuition. If that’s the answer then it’s my turn to be boggled in the mind by such hubris – man’s intuition as metaphysical oracle! Heh.

There is no other simpler way to put it.

punkforchrist’s first premise is a good example of the problem of promiscuity in language, divorced from real-world experience that is problematic throught the entire landscape of metaphysics, and acutely in Thomistic metaphysics:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This is a tautology masquerading as a premise. Philosophically, we would says this is “tautologically true” or “trivially true”. And that is a charitable way of speaking about it when our goal is to make statements about reality, for such a premise as (1) is perfectly unattached to any observation or interaction with reality. It is a definition, restated as:

1a. Whatever has a cause has a cause.

But (1) isn’t stated as (1a) which is much more clear, because it’s clearly problematic, and the sophistry of (1) is made evident by comparing it to (1a). What do we mean by “begin”, then? Why, we mean something which is caused by something else! This is very useful in our own physical world; we might say a human life “begins” when a sperm and an ovum unite to form a zygote. A Zygote doesn’t just “poof” into existence, we understand. No, it requires causal elements – the sperm, the egg, the chemical context for them to interact and for the sperm to fertilize the egg.

But we’ve perfectly ZERO knowledge – forget knowledge, we’ve got ZERO EVIDENCE about how causality works in terms of metaphysics, how “something” comes from “nothing”. The strong temptation is just to use the ideas we hav about the real world and steal those concepts, supposing, just because we just feel that’s how it is, that metaphysical causality is like physical causality. Totally unwarranted in terms of reasoning and epistemology, but very hard to resist, as we are creatures that have a hard time just plodding on without some answers to such questions.

As I pointed out to punkforchrist, even our physical concepts of potentiality and causality are problematic. A zygote doesn’t “begin to exist” de novo, ex nihilo. Matter and energy that already exist in the form of sprem, egg, and surrounding materials are just rearranged into a zygote. Nothing fundamentally new is created (*First Law of Thermodynamics *and all that).

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

To try and argue contrary to these facts, to such an extent as to ask for evidence, is to hold to a radical skepticism to such a ridiculous degree that one can no-longer hold any warrant either in real logic or real science.

It’s not ridiculous at all – evidence from interaction with reality is how we validate and test any knowledge we have. What’s ridiculous is to call any of the premises in the Kalam “facts” – that’s a totally unjustified use of the term. You might call them “intutions” or “notions”, but to call them “facts” is to cover them with a kind of epistemic credential they do not have. “Fact” is something we attach as a description of observed reality. You can complain all you want that “metaphysics isn’t amenable to facts”, a complaint which I can sympathize with, but would say doesn’t change the problem that metaphysics isn’t amenable to facts. That’s where the “meta-” comes from in ‘metaphysical’.

In other words, you are destroying your dignity as a reasonable person, since you are attacking the very nature of real and non-real; which are vital distinctions that lay at the very foundation of our ability to reason.

I think it’s quite the opposite. Skepticism is borne of a commitment to being disciplined about the very thing you are concerned about: distinguishing reality and its nature, form the non-real, the imaginary. Metaphysical intuitions are a hole in rational thinking you can drive just about any fanciful imagination through, so long as it is nominally coherent logically. It’s a perfect device for thoroughly confusing real and non-real, and worse, for utterly blurring the line of distinction betweent he two.

If you take a look at the historical timelines of metaphyiscal skepticism and technological advances, you see a striking correlation. Correlation does not establish causation, but it’s not my aim to show causation here, but rather to suggest that metaphysical skepticism is problematic to our “very ability to reason” is ludicrous on its face, at least in light of the “fruits of reasoning” we have in abundance around us today (think about the technology you are using to read this post, if you don’t get that).

Please don’t embarrass yourselves any longer. Just accept the truth. Its far too gut churning and embarrassing to watch you make such bad mistakes. It unacceptable for anybody who considers themselves to be reasonable. I’m sick and tired of it.

Ah yes, “just accept the truth”. That has the ring of disciplined reasoning to it, doesn’t it? That’s the line I get from young earth creationists, too. Should I listen to their demands as well as yours?

I understand the frustration at the epistemic poverty of metaphysics. But if you think about it, the “regress of explanation” has to stop somewhere for any being of limited knowledge and intellect. For us, there must be a “knowledge horizon” we cannot posisbly see beyond. We want to, we really want to, but what is over the horizon is over the horizon (see, I can do the tautology thing!). It takes discipline and objectivity and ruthless skepticism to keep the distinctions clear between what we can verify and know to be real and actual, fromt that which we merely imagine, and desire as answers to important, nagging questions. Acknowledging our epistemological limitations provides the very clarity you esteem in distinguishing the real from the unreal, and provides the groundwork for systematic, accumulating knowledge about what is real.

-Touchstone

 

[MindOverMatter]

It’s not ridiculous at all.

To be skeptical to the extent as to suggest the possibility that being has the potential to come from non-being, suggests to me that you don’t even know the basics of sound reasoning or skepticism.You don’t even know what being is. And if you don’t know what being is, then on what basis do you say that something is possible and not possible? From your line of reasoning there is nothing that is impossible, thus logic goes out the window. If anything is possible, where does skepticism come in to the picture?

What is that they say about being so open minded that your brain falls out?

Touchstone:

I understand the frustration at the epistemic poverty of metaphysics.

-Touchstone

You have a very distorted view of what metaphysics is and what legitimate skepticism is.

If nothing exists, then potentiality does not exist, for potentiality is not a being in itself. I would not be a true skeptic if i was to suggest otherwise. Blind denial is not reasonable skepticism; it is simply denial. Metaphysics deals with first principles and is the foundation of all other sciences, for it deals with being as being. Thus it is the science of being.

 

[Touchstone]

To be skeptical to the extent as to suggest the possibility that being has the potential to come from non-being, suggests to me that you don’t even know the basics of sound reasoning or skepticism.You don’t even know what being is.
I believe I have a working grasp of “being” natural terms. In metaphysical terms, though, you are right, I don’t know what “being” is. This is a great chance to enlightenment me; what is being, in metaphysical terms, please? What are the conlcusions of your “first philosophy”, as Aristotle might have called it, your “study of *being qua being”? *What is the ousiai of being?

If you can explain that, I will consider myself enlightened, thank you.

And if you don’t know what being is, then on what basis do you say that something is possible and not possible?

They say “that’s a trite comment to use in such a situation”.

You have a very distorted view of what metaphysics is and what legitimate skepticism is.
OK, well a good way to show that would be by laying out what metaphysics *really *is and what legitimate skepticism *really *is.

If nothing exists, then potentiality does not exist, for potentiality is not a being in itself. I would not be a true skeptic if i was to suggest otherwise. Blind denial is not reasonable skepticism; it is simply denial. Metaphysics deals with first principles and is the foundation of all other sciences, for it deals with being as being. Thus it is the science of being.

It’s a fine goal, but largely intractable, so far as I can see. And fraught with all kinds of traps in which people suppose that tautologies are somehow more than trivially true as definitions – punkforchrist’s premise (1), for example, here. What gets the breathless description as a “first principle” is a kind of trick played on the self using the vagaries of language… tautology mistaken for metaphysical truth.

So I’m not one to claim that “if nothing exists then potentiality exists”, to choose the negation of what you offered above. Indeed, that’s just a contradiction terms. But a contradiction in terms, just like a tautology, tells us precisely NOTHING about the real world. It only tells us about our struggles to use language effectively toward coherent concepts. So the objections I raise are not “something is cause by nothing”, or its negation *per se, *but rather that the terms and concepts people use in talking about metaphysics are demonstrably confused, fanciful, ungrounded. And very often, just stolen from physical concepts and wantonly applied to metaphysics.

Reasoning depends critically on language as the conveyance for concepts. And it is here that metaphysics falls down into a hole and breaks its back. We don’t have the first clue how to talk about metaphysics in a grounded way – look, there… “grounded”, a physical concept! I’m stealing concepts in just trying to talk around the edges of this.

-TS

 

[crowonsnow]

I’m not quite sure what you mean. Do you agree that X has to have the potential to be Y in order for X to become Y?

Only if you’re inventing rules to fit your argument.

I’m simply stating that some observation is first required on your part in order for you to infer potentiality. If you make potentiality primary you violate your own methodology.

Potentiality is not required for anything at any time except in some invented nonsensical methodology, which is really no methodology at all.

 

[punkforchrist]

JDaniel:

I noticed that you watered down term (6). You could have said, “Therefore, the universe had a beginning.” Do you not fully believe in (4) and/or (5)?

I do believe both premises, but (4) is based on induction, so I decided to express the conclusion probabilistically.

crowonsnow:

I’m simply stating that some observation is first required on your part in order for you to infer potentiality. If you make potentiality primary you violate your own methodology.

Ultimately, I believe that actuality precedes potentiality. It’s just that in order for something to change, it must possess the potentiality to make that change. Many observations could be offered. Think of a seed, which must first have the potential to become a plant in order to become a plant.

Potentiality is not required for anything at any time except in some invented nonsensical methodology, which is really no methodology at all.

I disagree. Potentiality is an indispensable aspect of our observational experience. “The embryo can become a fetus,” already necessitates actuality and potentiality.