Philosophy Now Forum

Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:

• 1.. If the [scientific] universe began to exist, then the [scientific] universe has a [scientific] cause of its [scientific] beginning.
  2. The [scientific] universe began to exist [scientifically] .
  3. Therefore, the [scientific] universe has a cause of its [scientific] beginning
  ....................................................................
  
  ....................................................................
  4. which is an Uncaused First Cause [unscientific] as
  5. A Personal Being [unscientific] with [unscientific]Freedom of the Will -a [unscientific]Personal Creator

Here is an interesting test.

For the scientific FSK we can move from 1 to prove the universe has a beginning to in 3 i.e. the scientific Big Bang.
From C3 we can work backward to P1.
This is applicable to all scientific conclusions, where it is not speculated, it can be tested repeatedly to be the same as in the Natural Sciences.

But in the case of Craig's Kalam where he took a deceptive leap across to the non-scientific P4 and P5, there is no way he work backward to P1.
If he tries to leap from P4 and P5 back to P1 he will have a a problem, because the scientific FSK will not allow him to work back unless he can produce empirical evidence as imperatively required by the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK will tell P4 and P5 to f.. off unless there are empirical evidence or empirical possibilities to work with.

Views?

He can leap acrossvwithbthecauurane that agrees d leapbpresupposes an advantage blunt will’s prerogative that it will bevpronmlformally be preferrablevtobgivforward, as the diminishing of memory will be compensated artificially into a virtual reality.