Conjecture = an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
One example is William Craig's Kalam Argument.
- 1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
....................................................................
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator
P4 & 5 take a BIG LEAP into the transcendental mode which cannot follow from P1, 2 & 3 [scientific] since they are of a different senses.
What is meant by 'transcendental' as with 'transcendent'
- Transcendental as with transcendent.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcendent
1a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING
1b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
1c : in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence
"being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge"
Kant argued rigorously, whatever is "being beyond the limits of all possible experience" i.e. a thing-in-itself is an illusion. Nevertheless, it is a useful illusion for morality and to drive science forward and I believe for therapeutic reasons.
In terms of credibility and objectivity, the Scientific facts [empirical] from the scientific FSRK are the most credible and objective, index at 100/100, while theological claims [blind faith] are at the other extreme, i.e. negligible objectivity and credibility [say 0.01/100].
Scientific facts at best are polished conjectures [Popper].
Since P1-P3 are based on more refined polished conjectures of science, the P4 and P5 that followed are thus, lesser-polished-conjectures, and are fundamentally conjectures.
Therefore the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument above is conjectural of very low credibility and objectivity.
Discuss??
Views??