Reply #62: It's taking a formal view of a formal argument. [View All]

Specifically:

(a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause;
(b) If the universe began to exist, then
(c) the universe must have a cause.

is a formal argument, and, as such, it is correct.

If someone were asked to evaluate the correctness of the syllogism in your first example (ignoring the use of the word "must"), then they would be wrong to say that the syllogism is wrong. It's always valid to question the premises. The power of logic is that, say, a correct syllogism can greatly simplify a task. The premises may be far easier to prove than a direct proof of the conclusion.

The claim in the paper does not say anything about there "having to be a beginning." It says that science has found that there is a beginning to the universe. The need for a cause then follows from the premises.

I don't accept his claim, I'm just saying that his reasoning is correct. I don't believe his premise is correct.