• **
  • 5 Posts
    • View Profile
Why use a more modest version of premise one in the KCA?
« on: September 11, 2019, 06:53:54 pm »

I am currently reading "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (2nd edition)", and in the section on the KCA, they use a more modest version of premise one :
Rather than use
1. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause",
they say "
1'. "If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause".

It is not the first time that I see Premise 1' being used rather than Premise 1.

My question : what is the usefulness of this more modest version? What problem/objection does it allow to avoid, if any?

I'm not sure I get the idea, because the same exact reason in support of P1 are given for P1' (from what I have read elsewhere, when Craig talks about it).



  • **
  • 472 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why use a more modest version of premise one in the KCA?
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2019, 09:47:28 am »
If the universe had no beginning, then there is no beginning to have had a cause. 1’ is thus a more careful argument, not presuming that the universe had a beginning. It may not be trivial, because the origins of time, the universe, and possibly God, are not easy to know. Physicists measure time as the movement of atoms, but God might measure time as the growth of spirit, which is unrelated to time we can measure using physical means.

There is a tremendous chasm between what God knows and what the creatures can know. The creatures are doing their best to notice their own limits, and their worst to presume any knowledge must be communicable to their small minds. The trouble in thinking about origins is that men’s minds are limited to physical analogies, but as Jesus said all things are based on spirit. The spirit men can know is their own soul; none knows it yet.