Copied and pasted from the thread over in the CYOT section:
This is Craig's latest version:
(1) If the universe began to exist, then its beginning has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The beginning of the universe has a cause.
Well, if that's the chosen form of the argument you'd like me to debunk, so be it.
The short version:A. In order for premise 2 to be remotely sound, premise 1 would be unsound.
B. In order for premise 1 to be remotely sound, premise 2 would be unsound.
C. In order for both premises to be remotely sound, an equivocation is committed.
The longer version:Concerning A.:Based on current human understanding, the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point. In order for premise 2 to be somewhat sound (read as probably more likely true than false), it would have to read "(2) The universe had a prime temporal point." In order for the syllogism to be valid, it would have to be reworded as follows:
(1) If the universe had a prime temporal point, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe had a prime temporal point.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.
Unfortunately, upon doing this, (1) becomes pure speculation and is less likely to be true than its previous form of "If the universe began to exist, then its beginning has a cause." which is itself very controversial. A syllogism with a premise that has not been established as true (as opposed to just more likely true than false) cannot be said to yield a true conclusion.
Concerning B.:Premise 1 is basically a version of the PSR. It's pretty uncontroversial to say that something which changed from a state of not existing to a state of existing, had a cause for that change. Other meanings are far more controversial, but that one is pretty obvious and what is meant by (1) in the argument. That meaning makes the first premise pretty uncontroversial, so we can rewrite premise 1 as the following:
(1) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
In order to have a valid syllogism with that premise, the argument would have to be rewritten as follows:
(1) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.
Unfortunately, upon doing this, (2) becomes pure speculation and beyond the current abilities of humans to figure out. Humans are still incapable of piercing the Planck time to figure out if (2) is even a coherent statement. Humans are completely incapable of demonstrating that (2) is true or false. For it to be sound, it must be demonstrably true. It doesn't meet that criteria, and therefore unsound.
Concerning C.:From B. above, we have a relatively uncontroversial version of (1), so I'll address that first. Going from a state of not existing to a state of existing, is beginning to exist. (1) can be rewritten as "(1) If the universe began to exist, then the universe's existence had a cause." Under that meaning of "began to exist" (1) is easily accepted as being sound.
From A. above, we have a relatively uncontroversial version of (2), so I'll address that now. Having a prime temporal point can referred to as beginning to exist. (2) can be rewritten as "(2) The universe began to exist." Under that meaning of "began to exist" (2) is easily accepted as being sound.
When we put the "new" versions of (1) and (2) together, we get the following syllogism:
(1) If the universe began to exist, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.
As you can see we're left with the original syllogism. It even makes use of uncontroversial versions of both (1) and (2). Unfortunately, it uses two different meanings of the phrase "began to exist". This is the fallacy of equivocation. If we rewrite the syllogism using the uncontroversial meanings, we're left with:
(1) If the universe sent from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the universe's existence had a cause.
(2) The universe had a prime temporal point.
(3) The universe's existence had a cause.
With this version, using the uncontroversial versions of the two premises, you can clearly see that the syllogism is invalid.
When people agree to premise 1, they are agreeing that something going from a state of not existing to a state of existing had a cause. When people (that are adequately informed) agree to premise 2, they are agreeing that the universe had a prime temporal point, not that it went from a state of not existing to a state of existing. That's the equivocation that can allow two true premises to lead to a false conclusion. The problem is sloppy language allowing for the equivocation.