The most shocking discovery in mathematics is that any statement about all numbers (famous for being infinite) can be proven or disproven by testing only a finite number of number. The Busy Beaver function allows you to take a proposition P, evaluate the maximum number of states possible, and then spit out a number N such that if P is true for all the numbers from zero to N, then it is true for all numbers period. My point is that it isn't logically possible for the universe to be infinite in the past because mathematics isn't infinite. Nothing is infinite. Because nothing is infinite, time isn't infinite either. The burden of proof is on anybody who says that anything can be infinite especially in light of the fact that numbers (the most obviously infinite thing) aren't.

Ironically contra Craig I think the argument may even gain increased plausibility on a B-theory of time, as that helps the spatial analogy with Hilbert's Hotel.

>It is also doesn't appear to me that an essentially ordered chain of causes, that regresses infintely, is impossible.

Has nothing to do with Craig's argument.

But yes, the argument is defensible.

Last edited by Noble_monkey (12/22/2018 7:18 pm)

ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:

Noble_monkey wrote:

>It is also doesn't appear to me that an essentially ordered chain of causes, that regresses infintely, is impossible.

Has nothing to do with Craig's argument.

But yes, the argument is defensible.

Accidentally* And it may be defensible to the average but I think the skeptic could take it farther then the argument can handle.

What objections cant the argument handle? You have to explictly show how the objection refutes the argument.

Ouros wrote:

My problem is that I'm not sure what it would imply for science if it were valid: should we rule out scientific models of eternal universe?

Fair enough man. I would say that the evidence for a beginning, to our universe at least, seems strong, however.