[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Qooroo"]These are all assumptions.Qooroo
no actually they are not. They were either backed up by evidence, or are themselves properly basic.
Can you clarify how each wasn't an assumption? Cause I saw no evidence or properly basic-ness.
Let us see: premise 1 of the kalam argument, whatever begins to exist has a cause. This is not an assumption, it is just a reaffirmation of the first principle of metaphysics that being does not come from nonbeing. To say otherwise is worse than magic because when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat, you still have the hat and you still have the magician Premise 2 of the kalam argument: the universe began to exist. This is simple, if the amount of moments before right now is infinite, then we should not be here right now because before any moment can arrive, existence must traverse the moment before it, and before that moment can arrive, existence must traverse the moment before that one. So in order to for the present moment to arrive, it must traverse an infinite amount of moments, hence we should not be here right now. Premise 1 of the teleological argument, either the fine-tuning of the universe is due either to chance, physical necessity, or design. surely you cannot give a 4th alternative? Premise 2: It is not due to chance or physical necessity. after all, they are far too improbable (1 in 10^120 for the cosmological constant), and there isn't a shred of evidence for the many-worlds hypothesis, and there isn't a shred of evidence for any mechanism controlling these constants conclusion: therefore it is due to design none of those are assumptions.
Log in to comment