Date: Tue Sep 5, 2000 2:21pm
Subject: Freethoughtmecca & Auckland University Islamic Society
Greetings students from the Auckland University Islamic Society (AUIS). This is in response to the post left by a student from AUIS in the Freethoughtmecca guestbook on August 31st. The FTMecca G-book can be found at http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/geobook.html
Regardless, here is my response to those whose favorite vice is "[d]estroying measly atheists."
AUIS wrote:
Salaam. Heya Freethought man, I must say, I'm
impressed with some of your stuff...
Thank you, but please acknowledge that there is not just one man behind the Freethoughtmecca. Indeed all praise is due to Al-lat and her many incarnations, but the men and women (and at least one Eunich) on the ground who work hard to snuff out the light of Islam are several. Freethoughtmecca is put together by many people, from all over the world, which is why it is called a Global Conspiracy. I am just one kaafir of many. Consider me like the deputy Freethoughtmeccan; the khalifa of kufr.
Here's the current Knesset at FTMecca:
Sadiqi az-Zindiki (Alaihee Salaam)
Ghazali Abd'Hubali ad-Dajjali Shabazz (Razhi-ash-Shaytanu
Anhu)
Tariq Munafiq
Salman Rushdie
Ehud Barak
Bill Clinton
Louis Farrakhan
Atal Vajpayee
Mushrik Kemal Ataturk Jr
but bro, you can't just attack strawman,
Actually, we can do just that. With all due respect, the attitude at the Freethoughtmecca is that, as has been said in the past, Islam is ridiculous; hence we ridicule Islam. All sarcasm aside, I'm constantly trading ideas with the aforementioned Sadiqi az-Zindiki on the possibility of creating a site that takes a serious stick to the head of Islam. Until then, there is the FTMecca, where satire is used as a weapon against truth; where fitna is seen as being superior to adab; where we make an effort to call the halal haram, and call the haram halal. If you;d like me to engage in serious debate with you, I'm more than willing, and we'll get the debate on FTMecca (assuming it is entertaining or of some educational value; and assuming you don't win).
sure, there are a couple of pathetic Muslims out there,
Yeah, no kidding.
but surely, if you want to discredit Islam, you have to do it via a reasoned argument.
I've been mocking Islam in this email, but for this part I'll be straight and serious. There has been no serious effort on the FTMecca site to discredit Islam. The webmaster(s) of the site and the site's supporters are mostly apostates from Islam. The rest are those who do not set their lives to revolve around belief in an ancient tribal superstition. There is no major effort to bring an intellectual criticism to the table; rather our attitude is simply to point and laugh.
Look, tell you what, why don't you post some arguments to our newsgroup (I've given the address) and I wouldn't mind doing a formal debate with you over the internet. So whaddaya say? Are you in for it? Anyway, take care.
Fair enough. Though, is your newsgroup at [email protected] or http://members.muslimsites.com/auckland-l/ (I'm serious)? I'm very interested in a serious debate, as it will give some more exposure to the Freethoughtmecca. Inshal-lat, with enough exposure we will finally get noticed by our famous one-eyed Jewish hero: Sammy Davis Jr (did you think I was referring to the Dajjal?).
Sincerely,
Dionisio (Denis)
Giron
== FAQTULULLAH! If there was a God, I'd swear by His name that He didn't exist!
From: Imran Aijaz Asalaamu'alaikum. Well, well, well ... if it isn't Denis Giron. I've
been meaning to ask you a few questions about your page at the Internet
Infidels site:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
You article on "Islamic Science" is fatally flawed, but anyhow, we can
debate about that later.
I'm very interested in a serious debate, as it will give some
more exposure
You've got me. Since you're "just one kaafir of many", I am willing
to debate with you concerning the existence of God, since that seems to
be the primary issue at the moment.
P.S - I don't think you're subscribed to the newsgroup (or are you?),
but if you're not, then you won't receive this message via the egroups.com
address, that's why I've sent you a CC to your personal e-mail address.
Anyway, waiting to hear from you.
Wasalaam,
Imran Aijaz
From: Denis Giron al-Kaafir al-Akbar Greetings... I just sent an email to [email protected] attempting
to subscribe to the group. I set up the email mulhid@i... as the email
with which I subscribed, as I have plenty of space to recieve messages.
However, I will most likely send my messages from kaafir@g..., and just
recieve my messages at mulhid@i.... If it sounds confusing, I'm only doing
this in this manner because kaafir@g... is a very crowded mailbox, while
mulhid@i... is totally empty. However, sending emails from mulhiad@i...
is very difficult, so it'll be easier if I just read my email from there,
and send them from my godisdead account. Sorry if this bored you all; I'm
just answering questions before they are even asked (in typical arrogant
munafiq fashion).
Now, in an email, Imran Aijaz asked "how do you want to do the debate?
What format do you suggest?" I dunno; does anyone else have any ideas?
I'm pretty open to anything. As I understand it you want to discuss the
existence of Allah/God in particular, and I assume the whole issue of Ilhad
vs Islam. I guess if you have some arguments (such as proofs of the existence
of God), present them here, and I'll give my reply. If you have a different
idea, please let me know.
Jazakal-uzza khair wa shukran for inviting me.
Sincerely,
From: Imran Aijaz Asalaamu'alaikum.
OK Denis, I will be doing a cosmological defense for the existence of
a Personal Creator of the universe, viz., the Kalam Cosmological Argument
for the existence of God as was initially defined by Imam al-Ghazali. The
basic syllogism presented by al-Ghazali was:
1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence.
Now, this is the skeletal formation of the proof, I will unpack the
support for the premises as the dialogue progresses, in light of whatever
objections you may have. So until I hear from you, I leave you with this
to think about.
Oh, just one more thing, since this is a newsgroup, there are some basic
and simple rules to abide by. I'll be re-posting a version of the FAQ to
you, so you can familiarize yourself with the few regulations that we have.
Wasalaam,
Imran Aijaz
From: Denis Giron Al-Kaafir Al-Akbar Before I begin, I want to ask Imran Aijaz if I am yet a member of the
group. I wonder because Mr. Aijaz sent his last email to both the group,
and my email address (mulhid@i...). However, for some reason, I only got
one copy when I should have gotten two! Should I resubscribe? Am I subscribed
to the list yet?
Moving on with the debate, Imran Aijaz wrote:
Okay, I'm going to look up some stuff on the Cosmological argument tonight
when I get home. Until then, I'll just comment on a flaw I feel is present
in the set up of the above skeletal proof. To begin with, one might argue
that God must've had a beginning. Undoubtedly, the response would be that
premise one explicitly refers to objects that began to exist, and from
there the Muslim could assert that God has no beginning (without proof).
To follow in those steps, the Atheist could deny the validity of premise
2, and assert that the universe had no beginning. Any reference to the
big bang would be a bit fallacious, as this is merely a theory with regards
to the matter within the universe (i.e. the stars, planets, moons, debris,
et cetera), but not the actual open space itself.
Furthermore, many Atheists/Naturalists would dispute the idea that anything
that has a beginning has a cause (premise 1). Please consider the writings
of Richard Dawkins ("Blind Watchmaker," "River out of Eden," et cetera).
This is not something that has been proven; rather it is an assertion.
It would seem that in order for me to accept this proof, I would have to
first believe that objects with a beginning have a cause; something I don't
actually believe. It seems that the proof is built on a questionable premise,
where it is "proven" that the universe has a cause simply by stating that
it has a cause. Indeed, you are begging the question.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.
-Dionisio (Denis) Giron
P.S.: I have not recieved any mail directly from the AUIS egroup, thus
I assume I am not yet a member.
== FAQTULULLAH! If there was a God, I'd swear by His name that He didn't
exist!
From: Imran Aijaz Asalaamu'alaikum. OK Denis. I'll make sure you're on the list by adding
you via the egroups website. So that's taken care of. Now, moving on to
some of your comments:
Okay, I'm going to look up some stuff on the Cosmological argument
tonight when I get home. Until then, I'll just comment on a flaw I feel
is present in the set up of the above skeletal proof. To begin with, one
might argue that God must've had a beginning. Undoubtedly, the response
would be that premise one explicitly refers to objects that began to exist,
and from there the Muslim could assert that God has no beginning (without
proof).
My response is as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, since God did not begin to
exist, He does not have a cause.
2. An infinite regress of causes is impossible.
3. Even if, for arguments sake, I grant that God has a cause, it still
is a fatal blow to atheism because there is a Supernatural Deity of somekind,
irrespective of the possibility that this Deity is caused or not, you cannot
be an atheist by definition, even if that objection is valid.
Again, these are comments, I will unpack more details as we go along.
To follow in those steps, the Atheist could deny the validity
of premise 2, and assert that the universe had no beginning. Any reference
to the big bang would be a bit fallacious, as this is merely a theory with
regards to the matter within the universe (i.e. the stars, planets, moons,
debris, et cetera), but not the actual open space itself.
I agree, refuting the second premise would put the argument into academic
arrest. Nevertheless, I believe it is much, much more plausible to think
that the universe began to exist in the light of two arguments:
1. Empirical confirmation which supports the Big Bang theory.
2. The impossibility of an infinite regression of temporal events.
Furthermore, many Atheists/Naturalists would dispute the idea
that anything that has a beginning has a cause (premise 1). Please consider
the writings of Richard Dawkins ("Blind Watchmaker," "River out of Eden,"
et cetera).
An appeal to authority does not constitute a refutation of that proof.
I can, in a similar fashion, refer to David Hume, who stated "But allow
me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything
might arise without cause: I only maintain'd, that our Certainty of the
Falshood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration;
but from another Source." This, he wrote in a letter to John Stewart. Also,
John Locke once said, "...man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare
nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two
right angles."
We can support this premise, as follows: since nothing does not exist,
nothing is completely lacking in qualities. Nothing, then, cannot have
any causal power – the ability to be a cause producing some thing, hence
nothing cannot be the cause of anything. The denial of the causal principle,
that something can come from nothing, is equivalent to the claim that something
can be caused by something that completely lacks causal power, i.e., by
something that cannot be a cause, which is logically inconsistent. Hence,
the denial of this principle leaves you with a contradiction.
An indirect proof which takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum can
be employed to support the causal premise, like the one above.
This is not something that has been proven; rather it is an
assertion. It
See my comments above.
would seem that in order for me to accept this proof, I would
have to first believe that objects with a beginning have a cause; something
I don't actually believe. It seems that the proof is built on a on a questionable
premise, where it is "proven" that the universe has a cause simply by stating
that it has a cause. Indeed, you are begging the question.
No, it is proven that the universe had a cause by the deductive syllogism
that I presented. In deductive arguments, if the premises are true, then,
the conclusion must be true. So, IF, you accept the two premises of the
argument, you cannot reject the conclusion. Now with respect to supporting
the causal premise, I've commented briefly above. I am not assuming that
which I set out to prove, if I did, then yes, it would be question-begging,
but I gave an argument to believe the causal premise (see above).
Once your responses are more detailed, I can proceed further.
P.S - I'll make sure you're on the group, so keep an eye out.
Wasalaam,
Imran Aijaz
From: Denis Giron Al-Kaafir Al-Akbar Imran and the students at AUIS, here is my second installment as part
of the great debate.
Denis:
Imran:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, since God did not begin
to exist, He does not have a cause.
You have only made me look like a psychic by doing exatcly what I predicted
you would do (i.e. you "assert[ed] that God has no beginning"). This is
something that you have merely stated rather than proved (though I acknowledged
that proving such a claim is highly difficult; still, that's your problem,
not mine). You're trying to prove that God exists, and you start by telling
me about God, and your definition, without justifying any of it. In short,
you've assumed his existence to prove his existence. That is indeed fallacious.
2. An infinite regress of causes is impossible.
With all due respect, you should consider (or reconsider) first year
calculus and an introduction to modern set theory. There, concepts of the
infinitely large and infinitely small are routinely handled.
As are also the ideas of infinite series, sets with infinite numbers of
members, infinite regression, infinite recursion, potential infinity, actual
infinity, infinite orders of infinities, etc. Furthermore, in light of
the previous statement, also going back to your original premise ("Whatever
begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence."), one would argue that
you're getting involved in special pleading. A relative question that illustrates
this special pleading would be: How is it that you claim that 'God' could
exist 'forever', but the "regress of causes" cannot stretch
back endlessly? In short, one might argue that anything that's eternal
-- e.g. "God" -- is by definition an "iinfinite regress of causes" if you
assume that the thing obeys the laws of causality.
3. Even if, for arguments sake, I grant that God has a cause,
it still is a fatal blow to atheism because there is a Supernatural Deity
of somekind, irrespective of the possibility that this Deity is caused
or not, you cannot be an atheist by definition, even if that
objection is valid.
Actually, the idea of claiming that God had a beginning was to illustrate
the flimsyness of the argument. You claim that God is uncaused; if I so
chose, I could argue that "God" had a cause. It was just an exercise to
show that we can launch unsupported assertions all day. However, if we're
going to accept either side as true, somebody has to present some proof.
Do I believe God is caused? I don't even believe God exists. If you're
going to claim he is uncaused, you have to explain this somehow.
Again, these are comments, I will unpack more details as we
go along.
Ditto akhi, ditto. =)
Denis:
Imran:
1. Empirical confirmation which supports the Big Bang theory.
Yes, there is an identifiable t = 0. But one cannot claim that the universe
"began" to exist at that point, because of the first law of thermodynamics.
This law actually bars the possibility of creation ex nihilo, as you're
insinuating. There are theories that there was a universe before the big
bang, that collapsed and formed the "material" for this big bang. Furthermore,
any "causing" of the Big Bang would have to have occurred when t was negative.
But t cannot be negative if we are going to hold to your idea that this
was the beginning. While the Universe itself came into being, you have
not shown that the "pointmass" which exploded into time and space had to
have come into being. Basically, alll this means is that the universe *as
we know it* came into being at the Big Bang, according to the Theory.
Whether there was a universe before hand for said explosion to come from
is, as of yet, unknown (despite the aforementioned theory about a previous
universe that collapsed).
2. The impossibility of an infinite regression of temporal
events.
This begs the question "is an infinite regression of temporal events
possible?" You've assumed an answer, yet there is no evidence
to that affect.
An appeal to authority does not constitute a refutation of
that proof.
Agreed, though I was merely pointing you in the direction of some writers
who present interesting thoughts on all this.
We can support this premise, as follows: since nothing does
not exist, nothing is completely lacking in qualities. Nothing, then, cannot
have any causal power – the ability to be a cause producing some thing,
hence nothing cannot be the cause of anything.
Agreed, this is the parmenides argument, but then if this is the case
the concept of creation ex nihilo goes out the window. Furthermore, you're
still committing the "special pleading" fallacy by asserting that such
rules do NOT apply to your unsupported explaination for the cause of the
big bang. Understand?
Denis:
Imran:
Agreed, although you have not shown that the premises in your argument
were true; rather you only asserted such. Let me give you an example of
an argument that is sound, but equally ambiguous:
(1) IPU is the only being that has the power of UPI. (2) A tree can
only come into existence after being created by a being that has the power
of UPI. (3) Therefore, all trees were created by IPU.
This argument is sound, but there are all kinds of unsupported claims
and ambiguous terms in there, thus making it IMPOSSIBLE to decide whether
or not the premises are true. While this analogy may seem absurd to you,
it relates to your argument. You tell me that certain things are impossible
without proving it. You seek to prove the existence of a being represented
by an ambiguous word: "God," then you go on to tell me about "God" with
out supporting these claims.
These are the flaws in your argument. Regardless, I have a question
for you. Judging by what I have just written, you may argue that it is
now impossible to go any further with this argument (at least until you
present some evidence for some of your claims). If this is the case, I'm
willing to assume, for argument's sake, that you did prove that the universe
is caused. If that has been proven, what does this mean? How do you go
on to prove that God, rather than 3 green elves from dimension X, is the
cause of this big bang? I'm sincerely curious.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca
P.S.: I have yet to get any messages via the auis egroup... are you
sure I'm on it now? I'll keep you posted; please do the same.
== FAQTULULLAH! If there was a God, I'd swear by His name that He didn't
exist!
From: Imran Aijaz Asalaamu'alaikum.
DENIS
IMRAN
Why do I reject the possibility of an infinite regression of causes?
OK, now's the time to explain. We'll start with C: Suppose the cause of
my existence is contingent. Then it will itself require a cause. If that
cause in turn is contingent, then it will need a cause, and so on for every
contingent cause we come to. Thus begins the regress, a chain of contingent
causes that either goes on to infinity or else stops at a non-contingent
first cause. Simple.
Personally, I don't see any great difficulty in stopping a temporal
infinite regress. Consider, then: If there is an infinite regress of causes
operating in time, then an infinite amount of time preceded (and presumably
will follow as well) the present. This seems clearly true, since an infinite
series of causal events would require an infinite amount of time to occur
in. But if an infinite amount of time preceded the present, then we are
currently at the end of an infinite amount of time; this follows as a trivial
analytic point. Yet it presents a conflict because what it means for a
sequence to be infinite is for it to be without end, and the actuality
of an infinite regress seems to entail the existence of an infinite sequence
with an end. Therefore we are led to reject the possibility of an infinite
regress because it implies something obviously false, in the inference
pattern known as Modus Tollens. We can only conclude that there is a non-contingent
first cause which is the ultimate cause of everything else in
DENIS
IMRAN
f(x) = 1/x; if you increase x indefinitely, you are increasing it without
limit, and as x becomes very large, the function f(x) becomes very small.
The graph of the function (a hyperbola) gives us a straight line which
is tangential to the curve at infinity, nevertheless, this will never be
actualized, it will never be the case.
Aristotle argued greatly that no actual infinite can exist, but he believed
that the universe was eternal. When the great Arab Philosopher, Abu Yusuf
al-Kindi came along, he turned Aristotle's concept of infinity against
him, and was among the first people who argued for creation, ex nihilo.
Al-Kindi's argument for a finite universe was based on the impossibility
of an actual infinite. Modern proponents of the argument like William Lane
Craig present the following reasoning:
(1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
Until Cantor's work in set theory, mathematicians rejected the existence
of an actual infinite as a mathematical concept. But Cantor himself denied
the existential possibility of the actual infinite. Another famous mathematician
and expert in set theory, David Hilbert, wrote: "... the [actual] infinite
To avoid getting too detailed, I will leave it at this and wait for
possible objections ...
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of it's existence.
Or, in other words,
1. For all x, if x exists contingently, then x has a cause of its existence.
The only time I will begin to consider the cause of the universe to
be God is once we agree the universe has a cause of it's existence.
DENIS
IMRAN
~ If x is eternal, x is an infinite regress of causes ~
is simply a non sequitur. How you derive that conclusion is beyond me.
Please explain.
DENIS
IMRAN
The "Who made God?" question is a textbook example of the compound question
fallacy. A fallacious compound question occurs when one ignores questions
that should be asked first. For example, "have you stopped beating your
wife?" is fallacious when it is has not been established that one has ever
beaten one's spouse. Likewise, "Who made God?" presupposes the prior question
"Is God a created being?"
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
And furthermore, my a priori arguments against infinite regression still
stand. They are independent of empirical confirmation.
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
(i) Empirical confirmation suggests that it is more plausible
to believe in an eternal universe than a finite one.
(ii) Refute my a priori arguments against an infinite temporal regression
of past events.
Until you do that, I shall consider my two premises to be true which
brings me to the sound conclusion that the universe has a cause of it's
existence.
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
http://members.muslimsites.com/auckland-l/ngroup.htm
Just to make sure, I have sent you a CC of this posting.
Wasalaam,
Imran Aijaz
From: FreethoughtMecca Debate Team To Imran, and the entire AUIS. First, I apologize for taking so long
to respond. I'm sure you're all involved in school as well, thus I assume
you understand that sometimes a person can get a bit tied down. I promise,
however, that I'll always try to respond within the week that I get the
message. :)
Okay, now, before I get to your points, I have one major question: what
do you mean when you say that the universe has a cause? I attacked this
conclusion without really considering the various possible meanings. For
example, do you mean a conscious or deliberate cause, or a natural cause?
The way I see it, rain has a cause, or to be more specific, rain is caused
by something (this "something" being heat which causes the water to evaporate
and collect in the sky, et cetera). I would definitely agree that
That abstract point aside, let's bring on the debate...
IMRAN
I'm glad we agree that this is not a proof, and furthermore that there
is no proof for this comment. :)
I would argue that since an infinite regression of causes is impossible,
the regress must be finite, and one which stops at the first cause which
is uncaused itself.
Consider the sequence of negative integers ending at 0:
...,-3,-2,-1,0
This sequence is unbounded on the left, going to minus infinity.
But it is bounded on the right by 0. This infinite sequence "ends,"
so your insinuation above that there is no such infinite sequence is false.
Analogously, consider the infinite sequence of times t(n), n = -1, -2,
... where our current time is t(0) = 0:
...,t(-3),t(-2),t(-1),t(0) t(n-1) < t(n) for n = 0,-1,-2,...
Same principle. Unbounded on the left, "regressing" toward t =
minus infinity, but bounded ("ending") on the right by t(0) = 0, our present
time. Each t can represent a causal event. The infinite sequence
represents an infinite regression of causal events.
Also, an infinite regress of causes does not imply an infinite amount
of time since the time intervals between the causes may have a finite sum.
Even if this sum is unbounded, there would be no event X in the past such
that an infinite time has passed from X until now. There is no "first"
event in this
Considering your argument, the sequence of fractions
... 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1
would perhaps be more appropriate. The sequence is infinite to
the left, corresponding to an infinite sequence of events, but is also
bounded at the left by 0, corresponding to a finite time in which those
events can occur. This disproves the statement "an infinite series of causal
events would require an infinite amount of time to occur in" (which is
insinuated above, and found elsewhere in your post).
In short, the argument that an infinite regression is impossible is
a big point of contention here; and as long as you're allowing for uncaused
things (like God) to exist, I think that arguments requiring the universe
to be caused are going to fall flat, as it seems like an obvious case of
special pleading.
Also, I have another question. Who is to say that the cause of the universe
is the first cause? Even if an infinite regress is impossible (which it
is not), there is still the possibility that the cause of the universe
is itself caused. Would you agree that saying that "the cause of the universe
is the first cause" is to make a leap in logic?
At this point, it's important to understand that I am not even talking
about God, my aim is to establish that the universe has a cause for it's
existence. Once this is done, we can proceed further and analyze what kind
of a cause it is.
Excellent point, and I apologize for jumping the gun by attacking your
belief in God when it was not part of the discussion at this time. You
may very well have proven that the universe is "caused," though that depends
in what sense you mean. I would only agree with that in the sense that
there was a cause for the Big Bang (but this was not proven, rather I just
believe this).
However, before you jump on the opportunity of the fact that I believe
the universe has a sort of "cause," it is important to acknowledge that
in Quantum Mechanics, many things are considered uncaused, including the
big bang. I had a Physics professor try to explain this to me once. I came
out on the stupid end of the stick, because philosophical and logical points
don't necessarily translate into mathematical and scientific points. This
is something both of us need to learn, and also this is why the philosophical
conclusions of Arab thinkers from Baghdad don't always result in empirical
truth. Quantum Mechanics, which scientists almost unanamously agree is
currently the most accurate predictive theory in the history of physics,
is based on uncaused events and all the evidence they have currently points
to the idea that events at very small distances or over very short periods
of time, can routinely be and in fact must be uncaused. If you want to
know more, I'll try to get some books on it, but please realize that these
concepts are difficult and counterinutitive and may take quite a bit to
understand. Furthermore, I can't really say that I understand them that
well. So if you want to avoid the QM issue, that's fine. I agree to the
possibility that the universe may have a cause (though I want you to define
"cause"), but we must both acknowledge that we are throwing QM out the
window.
Why do I reject the possibility of an infinite regression of causes?
OK, now's the time to explain. We'll start with C: Suppose the cause of
my existence is contingent. Then it will itself require a cause. If that
cause in turn is contingent, then it will need a cause, and so on
for every contingent cause we come to. Thus begins the regress, a chain
of contingent causes that either goes on to infinity or else stops at a
non-contingent first cause. Simple.
Agreed. The possibile worlds are either one that has an endless chain
going into infinity, or one where the chain stops at a first cause which
is eternal. Philosophically speaking, this is given.
Personally, I don't see any great difficulty in stopping a temporal
infinite regress. Consider, then: If there is an infinite regress of causes
operating in time, then an infinite amount of time preceded (and presumably
will follow as well) the present. This seems clearly true, since an infinite
series of causal events would require an infinite amount of time to occur
in.
Please refer to what I wrote above regarding infinity. I say this, because
this seems clearly false. When you are talking about time, the analogy
to keep in mind here is either the real numbers or a subset thereof (if
time is continuous) or the integers or a subset thereof (if time is discrete).
Ignoring quibbles about the existence of foliations in spacetime, let's
assume that we can label each spacetime event uniquely with a number which
is its "time". For instance, if the universe is eternal, then we
might model time as t taking any values in (-infinity,+infinity). Or if
the universe had a beginning at t=0, we could model it as the interval
[0,+infinity).
However, consider the case where t takes values in (0,infinity) -- i.e.,
t>0. In that case, for any time t there is always some time t' that
comes before it (t' No, that is not true. This is why I suggested that you study transfinite
set theory. You are treating infinity as an number here which may
serve as a well-defined boundary to a set. But infinity is not a
number. If you consider the set of all real numbers, it does NOT
have a boundary at +infinity or -infinity. It does not have an end.
Likewise, a subset of that interval, say (-infinity,T) where T is some
real number is also an OPEN set, that does not have an upper bound. I'm
a novice in mathematics, but even I know this (no offense).
Yet it presents a conflict because what it means for a sequence to
be infinite is for it to be without end,
Not necessarily. The set [0,1] is bounded above and below, but
contains infinitely many events. Please refer to all that is mentioned
above.
and the actuality of an infinite regress seems to entail the existence
of an infinite sequence with an end.
No. If you apply your same arguments to the real numbers, then
you would be able to (incorrectly) conclude that it's impossible for the
real numbers to exist! After all, given any real number T, there
is an infinite regress of real numbers that precede it. Continuing
your logic, you would say that T is at the end of an infinite number of
real numbers, and thus there cannot be an infinity of real numbers.
But the sets (-infinity,T), (infinity,T], and (-infinity,infinity) are
all infinite sets of real numbers.
The thing to keep in mind here: make sure your arguments about
infintie sets of events apply equally to infinite sets of numbers.
Therefore we are led to reject the possibility of an infinite regress
because it implies something obviously false, in the inference pattern
known as Modus Tollens.
I would disagree strongly, for reasons which you can see above. With
all due respect, it's a bit premature to start referring to inference patterns
when you premises are trivially flawed.
We can only conclude that there is a non-contingent first cause which
is the ultimate cause of everything else in the regress. So we here discharge
our assumption of C with the result that, if the cause of my existence
is contingent, then there exists a non-contingent first cause.
This is something you have not shown. I apologize if I sound as though
I am repeating myself, but you totally mistreated the concept of infinity,
thus your conclusion does not stand.
IMRAN
I myself am a novice in calculus and other fields of mathematics (in
fact, I hate mathematics). I apologize for jumping the gun then, but now
I am more convinced that your understanding of infinity is rather poor.
Not only have I done calculus and set theory, I have studied the
concept of infinity in great depth. The concept of the infinite that is
taught in first year calculus is of a potential infinite,
I don't know what a "potential infinite" is. "Potential infinitity"
sounds like something you'd debate in a philosophy class, not study in
a math class. Mathematics is not concerned with things that "potentially
exist" (or for that matter, with "existence" at all, as far as physical
existence goes at any rate). In mathematics, infinity is a lot more
closely related to boundedness. If for every number T you can find
a number T' that comes after it, then you can say inductively that there
are infinitely many numbers. Or, if you are trying to claim that there
is no such thing as infinity, let me just recommend that you write the
largest possible number on paper. What would stop you from adding +1 to
it?
and such a collection is increasing *towards* infinity as a limit,
but it never gets there, hence, a more appropriate term would be indefinite
and not infinite.
Once again, infinity isn't a number. Strictly speaking, you don't
say that things are "increasing towards infinity" (as if infinity was a
number you can get closer and closer to), you say that things are "increasing
without bound". If you want to use the term infinity precisely, you
use it to refer to _cardinality_ (e.g., the cardinality of this set is
uncountably infinite).
Aristotle argued greatly that no actual infinite can exist, but he
believed that the universe was eternal.
There is certainly no NUMBER that is equal to "infinity". (Well,
unless you're pulling tricks with topology.) Regardless, this is not a
contradiction, of course. There is no real number that is equal to
infinity, but that doesn't mean that the set of real numbers is finite.
When the great Arab Philosopher, Abu Yusuf al-Kindi came along, he
turned Aristotle's concept of infinity against him, and was among the first
people who argued for creation, ex nihilo.
Al-Kindi's argument for a finite universe was based on the impossibility
of an actual infinite. Modern proponents of the argument like William Lane
Craig present the following reasoning:
(1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
Well, whether "an infinite temporal regress of events" or "an infinite
ordinal regress of real numbers" is to be considered an "actual infinite"
is merely semantics. But insofar as it is true, (1) is false, since
I can with complete logical consistency construct the real numbers, and
can further argue for a one-to-one correspondence between temporal events
and a subset of the real numbers. Furthermore, Craig's spin on the cosmological
argument was thoroughly refuted by Michael Martin in the latter's book,
"Atheism: A Philosophical Justification." I'm more than willing to type
it up if you're interested.
Until Cantor's work in set theory, mathematicians rejected the existence
of an actual infinite as a mathematical concept. But Cantor himself denied
the existential possibility of the actual infinite. Another famous mathematician
and expert in set theory, David Hilbert, wrote: "... the [actual] infinite
is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides
a legitimate basis for rational thought ..."
That hardly constitutes a proof.
Much of this weaselling is likely due to a lack of definition for "an
actual infinite". I would say that, from context, an "actual infinite"
is what you get if you try to treat infinity like a NUMBER. For instance,
suppose we take some physical field, like "temperature at a given point
in space". I would argue that it is meaningless to claim that it's
possible for the temperature at a point to be equal to a "number" called
"infinity". However, there is no problem in claiming that, say, if
you go in some direction the temperature increases without bound.
Likewise, I certainly wouldn't say that time could have begun at some
time in the past labelled "infinity", but I would say that time could have
extended indefinitely without bound into the past. And THAT is what
people mean when they talk about the universe being "infinitely old".
IMRAN
Like what? It's only a problem if you try to pretend it's a number.
But as the cardinality of a set, there's no problem.
Al-Kindi and other proponents of the Kalam argument claimed that
an *actual* infinite cannot exist in *reality*, in the world of stars,
rocks, trees and men. I agree.
That's nice. But it's nowhere near a proof, let alone something
that most people will agree with.
I want an actual physical argument, based on empirical evidence, that
temporal ordering cannot be described by the real numbers. Navel contemplation
doesn't count. Sitting around insisting "it can't exist" doesn't
count. Some of the Greek philosphers were real good at constructing
"proofs" of "how the universe `must' be" based on "self-evident truths",
but they were empricially WRONG. Thus citing Arab Philosophers who read
these Greek texts at the Bayt al-Hikma in Baghdad does not make them any
more true.
Failing a physical argument, I want a mathematical argument that leads
to internal self-contradiction. (However, make very sure that you
understand the concept of "infinity" in mathematics before attempting this.
Make sure you don't "disprove" the construction of the real numbers, for
instance.)
Zeno's paradoxes also give weight to the impossibility of an infinite
regression of events. But that's for another posting.
Zeno's "paradoxes" were slain when calculus was invented.
Now, I do not want to assume the existence of God at this stage.
I am not saying, "Look, everything except God has a cause of it's existence!"
Fine, that is understood, but eventually you will need to change the
words to something else. You will still have to justify why SOME
THING (the thing that caused the universe) doesn't need a cause, but the
universe does.
IMRAN
~ If x is eternal, x is an infinite regress of causes ~
is simply a non sequitur. How you derive that conclusion is beyond
me. Please explain.
Simple. You first assume that this thing obeys the laws of causality.
i.e., that it can itself be described as a sequence of causes and effects.
Then if that thing is eternal, then *by definition* it is an infinite sequence
of causes and effects.
Now, you could argue that God is atemporal and acausal, but then you'd
have to argue how this can give rise to the illusion of God causing things
to happen. And then you'd have to justify why the same reasoning
can't be applied to the universe being atemporal and acausal but with the
illusion of causality. (Substitute "God" with "causal agent of the
universe" if you like.) Regardless, this argument is getting far too mathematical,
and far too redundant. (no offense)
IMRAN
This isn't a fatal flaw, it's a rhetorical question pointing out a flaw
in common arguments for the necessity of God. If you argue that the
universe requires a "maker", then you have to either explain (a) what made
the maker or (b) why the arguments in favor of requiring a maker for the
universe don't apply to the maker itself.
The "Who made God?" question is a textbook example of the compound
question fallacy. A fallacious compound question occurs when one ignores
questions that should be asked first. For example, "have you stopped beating
your wife?" is fallacious when it is has not been established that one
has ever beaten one's spouse. Likewise, "Who made God?" presupposes the
prior question "Is God a created being?"
Atheists who ask you "Who made God?" in response to your arguments aren't
_assuming_ that God is a created being. Rather, they're trying to
adopt YOUR assumption (that the universe was created) and asking you to
justify why your assumption doesn't apply to the universe's creator. Like
I said, it's a RHETORICAL question.
I have no problem with the possibility of God not being created, but
I have a problem with claiming that the universe HAS to have been created
but turning around and claming that God didn't have to be created.
IMRAN
That depends on what you mean by an "oscillating model". If you're
talking about some kind of "bounce" model where the universe contracts
to a very small (but nonsingular) state and re-expands, then possibly.
However, we can't say *anything* about what would happen if the universe
actually crunched to a singularity. It's possible that it could re-expand
into a new universe in a repeatable way. Or it might not.
And furthermore, my a priori arguments against infinite regression
still stand. They are independent of empirical confirmation.
Heh. Arguments "from pure reason" are rather dangerous, since
people don't have to agree with your base assumptions. However, it seems
when we are discussing an ambiguous concept like God, this is all we have.
Regardless, all this math is making this debate terribley boring. (again,
no offense)
IMRAN
Explain the difference between "causality" and "temporality". Explain
how an atemporal being can have a temporal or causal effect. For that matter,
prove that our universe is not atemporal. (This is not self-evident,
and depends in detail upon what one means by "temporal". See for instance
Barbour's attempts to formulate the laws of physics in an inherently atemporal
way, or the atemporal aspects of the Big Bang in the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary
proposal coming from the Euclidean metric.)
And I agree with people like Hawking who write that to ask what happened
before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91
north latitude! On the creationist theory under discussion, the Creator
sans the world would exist changelessly and, given some relational view
of time, therefore timelessly and at the Big Bang singularity create both
the universe and, concomitantly, time. For the Creator sans the universe,
there simply is no time because there are no events; time begins with the
first event, not only for the universe, but also for God, in virtue of
His real relation to the universe. The act of creation is thus simultaneous,
or coincident, with the origination of the universe.
No offense, but that sounds like the biggest load of meaningless philosophical
B.S. I've seen in some time. What does it mean? You're saying that
the Creator "caused" the universe but didn't exist before the universe?
Or that the Creator existed before the universe but no time passed "until"
the universe was create? What does "until" mean? What does
"simultaneous" mean when you're talking about something atemporal?
Was the Creator atemporal but "became" temporal when the universe came
into existence? What does "became" mean in the absence of temporality?
Trying to explain how the illusion of temporality might arise from an
inherently atemporal system might work, but trying to mix temporality and
atemporality is quite another thing.
Probably none of these questions really get at what you're saying because
what you're saying doesn't seem to actually mean anything. It sounds
like you're throwing a bunch of words at the issue in order to evade the
question of "If the universe had to have a Creator then why didn't the
Creator have to have a Creator?"
IMRAN
You're mistaken.
First, singularities aren't mathematically "objects of infinite density".
Mathematically, what happens is the density increases without bound as
you approach the singularity. For that reason, one naively takes
the limit and says that the density becomes infinite as you reach the singularity.
But the singularity isn't even a place in spacetime -- it's like a "hole"
in spacetime -- so it's impossible to define a field (such as density field)
that describes anything physical there. It's like trying to take
the limit of 1/x as x->0 when 1/x is only defined on the interval (0,infinity)
-- the limit doesn't exist, not becausee the function blows up at 0, but
because 0 isn't part of the domain of the function. In short, *general
relativity can make no physical predictions about singularities* -- physical
quantitites like density are simply undefined.
Second, Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a singularity. In general
relativity, that's what you get, but everyone expects general relativity
to fail at high curvatures before you get there. What is expected
is that "something different" will happen at high curvatures that can't
be described by classical geometry, and that it will later lead to the
classical GR picture of an expanding universe. In short, *general
relativity can make no statements about whether the universe had a beginning*.
Third, even if the universe _did_ have a beginning, this does not imply
the creation of matter out of "nothing". It's not like the universe
was empty and suddenly matter appeared within it. It's not even like
"suddenly the universe appeared" -- in order for that sentence to even
make sense, you have to assume that there was a moment of time in which
the universe didn't exist followed by a moment of time in which it did.
What it's like is "the universe -- including time -- had a beginning",
in the sense that there is no time that precedes some given time in the
universe.
(Of course, another possiblity is one that I raised earlier: time
could be analogous to the interval (0,infinity), in which the universe
is finitely old at any given time but _didn't_ have a beginning, because
for any time there was some time before it.)
e mpirical confirmation points extremely strongly towards the finitude
of the universe.
It's not clear whether you mean finitude in time, or space, but you
are wrong either way. As for finitude in space, it's true that we can only
observe a finite amount of space, but we have no reason to believe that
this implies that space is finite. Even if it were infinite, in an
expanding universe we would only be able to see a finite amount of it at
any time. As for finitude in time, the recent "accelerating expansion"
results suggest that the universe will continue to expand forever (according
to general relativity). That covers empirical support for infinity
into the future. For infinity into the past, if you extrapolate GR
backwards you of course get a finite age for the universe, but like I said,
GR is expected to be WRONG before you get back that far.
And whats more, if you think otherwise, you will have to refute my
a priori arguments against an infinite regress of temporal events as stated
above.
Any mathematician who believes it's possible to do mathematics using
the real numbers or even the integers will contest your "argument".
but you have not accepted the second premise. If you will not accept
it, then you must show me that:
(i) Empirical confirmation suggests that it is more plausible
to believe in an eternal universe than a finite one.
No, we don't have to show that. The point is to show that your
argument is invalid. Which conclusion is "more plausible" doesn't
enter into it.
(ii) Refute my a priori arguments against an infinite temporal regression
of past events.
Done.
Until you do that, I shall consider my two premises to be true
What empirical evidence supports your premises?
All in all, this debate is getting to the point where the public will
suffer a headache while reading it. :(
Do you want to continue, or just move on with the assumption (which
is outside the realm of modern science) that the big bang had a cause?
-Dionisio (Denis) Giron
From: Imran Aijaz Asalaamu'alaikum. The debate has gotten quite large, thus I am going
to split
This part of my rejoinder will cover the causal premise, viz., that
whatever
DENIS
IMRAN
1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of it's existence.
as stated in your previous posting. I stated how the denial of this
So, avoiding unnecessary comments on this any longer, I shall take it
for
--
Imran Aijaz
================================================
From: Imran Aijaz Asalaamu'alaikum.
In this posting, I shall give "a priori" arguments to support the premise
that
Basically, the reasoning employs a form of a reductio ad absurdum (reduction
(i) If the series of past events is beginningless, then it constitutes
If we postulate an eternal universe, that means the number of temporal
{infinity <-- ... -3,-2,-1, 0} ['0' is the current moment]
Two points follow from such a postulation (of an eternal universe):
(x) The number of temporal events is an actual infinite collection.
(y) We are at the end of the sequence of events, in other words, we
have
To demonstrate the beginning of the universe via indirect proof, one
would
o The Argument From The Impossibility Of An Actual Infinite
Using your terminology, let us label sequences of time as t(n), where
the
To illustrate why an actual infinite set cannot exist, I am going to
resort
Zeno asked us to imagine a race where Achilles and a tortoise are going
to
In order for Achilles to catch up to the tortoise he must approach those
If (t) is at 2 then (A) must traverse 1 to catch up.
If (t) is at 3 then (A) must traverse 2 to catch up.
If (t) is at 4 then (A) must traverse 3 to catch up.
If (t) is at 5 then (A) must traverse 5 to catch up ...
No matter how fast the turtle travels it seems assured that Achilles
will
With this illustration in mind, consider the mathematical formula expressing
4 - 1 = 4
Because there are an infinite number of bisections that can obtain by
Is it true, then, that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise
as long
d = rt
Given a certain finite distance (d) to be traversed in some length of
time
r = d/t
So, in order for Achilles to win the gold medal, he must have a rate
(r2)
r2 > r
Given this, it is impossible to see how the tortoise could win the race
as
Therefore, if an actually infinite number of things really exists then
such
Another one of my favourite paradoxes is that of Hilbert's Hotel. Craig
"Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore,
But Hilbert's Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave
it
For further details, see:
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/990102/hilberts.html
Well, dunno about you, but I'm convinced :-)
o The Argument From The Impossibility Of Traversing The Infinite.
Now comes a totally separate argument. Even if I grant that an actual
In an attempt to demonstrate the difference between the reality of an
For the sake of our discussion here, it will be necessary to elucidate
the
A = {Joe, Frank, Wendy}
Within set A (the set that includes a closed circle of friends) are
three
A1 = {Joe, Wendy}
As you can see, set A has three members while subset A1 only has two
A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
We can clearly see that any subset extracted from set A would have a
A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
We see that according to the principle that the "whole is greater than
its
0, 1, 2 . . . finite n
0, 1, 2, . . . finite n + 1
But why should one more number make any difference to the rest of the
set?
Regarding the achievement of infinity by successive addition, Bertrand
Bertrand Russell suspected that a true life Tristram Shandy paradox
could be
Observed History: 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, 5 days, ...
On the surface it would seem mathematically impossible for Shandy to
!0 + 1 = !0
The implication here is that since any number added to infinity is still
y(!0) + d(!0) = !0(t)
Russell believed that when the presence of infinity is seen all at once,
At this time I will briefly present two opposing views on Russell's
Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith presents the Tristram Shandy paradox
in
"the number of past days written about is a proper subset of the infinite
Smith maintains that the Tristram Shandy paradox is internally consistent
in
A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . . !0
then:
(1) The total numbers of proper subset A1 = The total numbers of set
A.
(2) But, proper subset A1 does not contain the numbers of proper subset
A2.
(3) Therefore, proper subset A1 contains the same numbers as set A while
at the
Smith shows that set theory validates the Tristram Shandy story and
shows
Theistic philosopher William Lane Craig, in response to Smith, asserts
that
"the problem with this argument seems to be that while an infinite number
of
Craig claims that instead of Shandy writing forever and catching up
on
On the question of an actual infinite, my sympathies are with Craig.
I think
First, if we observe what is really going on in the paradox then it
becomes
Second, if we grant Russell's solution by granting immortality to Shandy,
Having seen Bertrand Russell's attempt to prove the real possibility
of
These reasons constitute why an actual infinite cannot truly be achieved
by
Sooooo ... The original format of the argument I gave at the start of this posting
was
1. If X, then either A or B.
In other words, our presumptive hypothesis of a past that is beginningless
o Comments/Replies/Refutations Of Your Post
DENIS
IMRAN
DENIS
IMRAN
On the other hand, the concept of an infinite series of causes and effects
For an infinite sequence, this means that an infinite number of dominos
must
Hence, your holding onto the possibility of an infinite sequence of
causes
DENIS
If c(n), represents a cause, where n = -1, -2, -3 is the antecedent
cause of
... c(-3) --> c(-2) --> c(-1) --> c(0)
where you may substitute your own existence for c(0). If, there is an
If we postulate an infinite regress of causes
{...c(-3), c(-2), c(-1), c(0)}
The only way the atheist has a way out of this is to say the universe
is
Part 2a follows ...
--
Imran Aijaz
===========================================================
From: Imran Aijaz Asalaamu'alaikum. In this posting, I shall cover another version of
the Kal? argument for the existence of God, which avoids (partly)
some of the complex issues that were raised previously in our
debate. I'm still going through writing up responses to the
remainder of your post, and that will come out sometime later
this week, as long as no major calamity (such as my remembering
of a due assignment!) comes up. Anyway, seeing how Auckland has
been under the spotlight regarding alleged terrorist activites recently,
the spirit of jihad has been aroused, hence I am engaging in
cyber-jihad against ye kuff? ... the haywan? of the AUAC (Auckland
University Atheists Club) and the NZARH (New Zealand Association
of Rationalists & Humanists - the Bait-ul-Iblis on 64 Symonds
St, for those who are considering launching a bomb attack)
are presently hibernating - boredom being one of the reasons I
am launching yet another torpedo of kal? wizardry towards your group of
zan?iqah ... All?u Akbar! ... Let the battle begin ... @:-)
The form of this argument is concerned with existence in esse, in other
words, what I shall be discussing is simultaneous existence, and not causal
regression into the past as we are presently debating. We can schematize
the argument as follows:
Existence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Impossible.
(a) There is existence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is existence. This is undeniable, because one must exist in order
to deny that existence. Descartes "cogito ergo sum" is as far
as I shall take it with the defense of this premise, as I do
not really have respect for those who deny existence (such
as some candidates for chronic dementia treatment within the
Auckland University Atheists Club and the NZARH)
(b) There is possible existence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality, I would argue, can be exhaustively classified into three types
of being, which is what the defenders of this argument asserted:
(i) Impossible.
An impossible being cannot exist because it's attributes are logically
contradictory (i.e. square circles). A necessary being cannot not exist,
in other words, it must exist. A possible being has the possibility
for existence and non-existence. So far, so good ...
To see why there are possible beings, one must understand what a necessary
being would be, if, in fact, it did exist. Since it is impossible for a
necessary being not to exist, it cannot have any potentiality with regard
to existence. If it did, then its non-existence would be possible.
But necessary existence cannot be this way.
Thus, a necessary being can have no potentiality with regard to existence.
Its existence is (1) pure actuality. Further, a necessary being must be
(2) immutable [unchanging]; obviously, for change to exist,
there must be the potentiality for change. However, a purely
actual existence has no potentiality with regard to its actuality.
Therefore, a necessary being must be unchanging. Notably, the
attribute of (3) timelessness logically follows from immutability
because if there is no change, then there is no time. Also,
such a being must be (4) infinite [unlimited]. Only that which has
potentiality can be limited. But pure actuality does not have any potential;
so necessary existence is not limited, but unlimited. Furthermore, where
there is multiplicity, there is also limitation and potentiality. But since
a necessary being involves none of the latter, there can be no multiplicity
in its being; it must be completely (5) one. Lastly, necessary existence
must be (6) uncaused. Caused beings are moved from potentiality to actuality
and, therefore, change. But there is no change in an unchanging being.
Hence, a necessary being is uncaused.
In sum, a necessary existence must be:
(1) pure actuality
(2) immutable [unchanging]
(3) timeless [unbound by time]
(4) infinite [unlimited]
(5) one [without multiplicity]
(6) uncaused
Now it is known that reality can be categorized into three groups:
impossible, possible, and necessary. Impossible existence is eliminated
immediately because such cannot exist. So, if something exists at all,
it must be either a possible existence or a necessary existence.
Thus, it logically follows that whatever lacks the attributes
of a necessary being [#1 - #6 above] must be a possible being.
But is there existence that lacks the attributes of a necessary
being? The answer to this question is undeniably yes. First,
the statement "there is no change" is self-refuting because
the very utterance must begin and then cease to exist (which implies
change). Second, matter is in constant fluctuation and can be separated
into parts (it has multiplicity with regard to being). Third,
there are beings that increase in age and are, therefore, limited
and temporal. Hence, since there is existence that lacks the
attributes of a necessary being, there must be possible existence.
(c) Possible existence is caused:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three options with regard to the nature of possible existence:
it is either self-caused, caused, or uncaused. Self-causation
is impossible; for a being to be self-caused, it must be in
potentiality so its actuality can be caused. Further, it must
be actual for it to cause its own existence. Therefore, a self-caused
being must be both in potentiality and actuality at the same
time, which is impossible. Also, a possible being cannot be
uncaused: I have already commented that the actuality of a possible being
is only potential at every moment.
Thus, if possible beings are uncaused (no cause), then the actuality
of every possible being would be derived from possibility alone.
If something moves from potentiality to actuality without the
causal action of another being, and that something is actual,
then mere potentiality (or possibility) was the ground for
that actuality. But that is absurd. Glasses have the possibility
to be filled with water, but the mere possibility for the glass
to be filled cannot actually fill the glass. Further, if mere possibility
makes things actual, then we would see every possibility being actualized.
But this is clearly false: possible beings like flying pigs and unicorns
do not exist. Thus, possibility does not ground actuality.
Possible beings, at every moment, must be moved from possibility
to actuality by some other actuality and cannot, therefore,
be uncaused. Now, if possible existence is neither self-caused
or uncaused, it logically follows that such existence is caused
to be (in esse) by some actuality other than itself.
At this point, a summary of the argument's progress is crucial. First,
it has been demonstrated that something exists and that there
is possible existence [the fact that there is change, temporality,
multiplicity, and limitation shows that there are possible
beings]. Second, it has been shown that possible beings require
a cause for moment-by-moment existence. Of course, the question
remains as to whether a necessary being actually exists, and that's what
I'm going to cover now ...
(d) There is necessary existence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To see why there is necessary existence, we must examine the nature
of possible existence. It has been demonstrated above that
the actuality of every possible being is only potential at
every moment. That is, at every moment, all possible beings
must be moved from potentiality to actuality in order to exist.
Now, let it be assumed that no necessary being exists, that only possible
beings exist. Given this scenario, everything (all at the same time) would
need to be moved form potentiality to actuality in order exist. But, if
everything is in a simultaneous state of potentiality with regard to being,
there would be no actualization of being; whatever is in potential with
regard to its own existence cannot actualize the existence of another
(because to one must already be actual in order to actualize something
else) So, if possible existence is the only type of being,
there would be no actualization of being, and therefore, everything
would cease to be. But things do exist! (as was demonstrated
above). So, possible existence is not the only type of existence.
But whatever exists is either possible or necessary. Hence,
there is necessary existence. This Necessary Being is purely
actual, immutable, timeless, infinite, one, and uncaused.
Now perhaps you will object here and say we do not need a Necessary
Being. There could be an endless chain of things mutually keeping
each other in being. This is wrong, because an endless chain
of possible beings does not ground the existence of anything.
(Keep in mind, we are discussing current moment-by-moment existence
here, not casual regression into the past) In this case, every
member of the chain would simultaneously be in a state of potentiality
with regard to its own being, and yet be the cause of another.
But whatever causes the existence of another must already be actual. So,
granted this scenario, things would be in both a state of potentiality
and actuality at the same time, which is logically impossible.
Consequently, there would be no causation within the chain
and, hence, everything would cease to exist. But things do
exist. So, even an infinite chain of possible beings does not
solve the problem.
This variation of the Cosmological Argument demonstrates that all possible
beings depend on a Necessary Being for their existence. This Being is purely
actual, immutable, timeless, infinite, one, and uncaused. Thus, we are
left with a Being who is:
(1) Purely Actual.
(2) Immutable.
(3) Timeless.
(4) Infinite.
(5) One.
(6) Uncaused.
Therefore, in light of the fore-going argument, I conclude it is rational
to believe God, as understood through the aforementioned attributes,
exists.
--
Imran Aijaz
From: FreethoughtMecca Debate Team Imran and the AUIS,
> When I speak of cause as related to al-Ghazali's syllogistic
Well a conscious and creative cause is something you have not proven.
> As I said before, my sole aim with the argument at this stage is
Fair enough.
> Nevertheless, you have accepted the causal
Correction: I've agreed to accept that the Universe may have had a beginning,
or been caused, but we have to both acknowledge that if we are going to
accept this, we are throwing Quantum Mechanics out the window. Neither
one of us have a major degree in Physics, and this is important, as siding
with this point means we are rejecting major scientific theories. This
is important.
> I stated how the denial of this principle would evoke a
What? Did I? I don't recall that. The major contradiction has been with
regard to saying that one thing cannot be eternal, but another can. We'll
get into that as my reply goes on.
[...]
> Basically, the reasoning employs a form of a reductio ad absurdum
This has been the major flaw in your argument. You have not shown this
to be true, rather you have merely asserted such, quite possibly due to
a poor understanding of the concept of infinity
> (iii) It cannot be a series formed by successive addition
Considering that this hinges on point two, and that point two is unproven,
you have not formed a sound argument.
[...]
> The Argument From The Impossibility Of An Actual Infinite
I already told you that Zeno's paradox is considered a dead issue since
Calculus (and even modern set theory). I'll try to show the problem here.
> Zeno asked us to imagine a race where Achilles and a tortoise
Are you serious? You mean to tell me that you don't see the flaw in
this analogy? Yes there is an infinite number of points on a given line
of the track, but that does not mean Achilles cannot catch up. If they
are gowing the same speed, then they will be covering the same units of
space (e.g. 1 inch per second), and in that case, Achilles will never catch
up. However, if the Tortoise is moving at one speed (1 inch per second)
and Achilles is cover a faster speed (20 inches per second), he will draw
closer and closer, and eventually pass him. The points the Tortoise will
cover, will be covered at a greater speed by Achilles, understand? Therefore,
this anaology does not dispute the fact that there is an infinite number
of points on a line (furthermore, this seems strikingly unrelated to the
discussion).
> No matter how fast the turtle travels it seems assured that
Why is that? What if Achilles is covering those points at a greater
speed? did you even think this one out? The problem with the analogy is
that it assumes that the two racers will cover the same distance in each
stride. If Achilles is moving faster, he's covering the points at a greater
rate. Also, in a given stride, each contestant will cover a limited amount
of space, but on that line of space, there is an infinite amount of points.
If Achilles covers a one-foot long space, you can divide that space up
infinitely. There are 10 tenths of a foot, 5o fiftieths of a foot, and
so on... 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, et cetera. I can't believe that you actually
think that this analogy refutes the fact that there is an infinite number
of points on a line. You do realize that Mathematics has made alot of progress
since Zeno's time (490 BCE), don't you? The fallacy revolves around
Zeno not ascribing an equal point unit to each racer. Achilles may cover
1/2 of a given amount of space, while the Tortoise only covered 1/5 of
an equal amount of space.
> It seems that we could multiply any whole number with an
Why do I get the feeling that you are still treating infinity as a number?
You do not achieve infinity, please get that idea out of your head.
> Therefore, if an actually infinite number of things really
And why is that? Draw a line that is four inches long. The line is four
inches, but within that line there are an infinite number of points. Do
you understand?
> Zeno's paradox shows that there cannot really be an actual
This is only assuming they are moving at the same speed. How can you
not see this?
> Another one of my favourite paradoxes is that of
Which happens to be another poor analogy. No offense, but it seems Hilbert,
Craig, and yourself, all make the error of treating infinity as a given
number.
> "Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms.
You've committed a fallacy. You're trying to redefine "infinity" to
fit your analogy. If all the rooms are full, i.e. if every last one is
occupied, then there is a given and finite number of rooms. Understand?
How would you know that the rooms are all full unless you knew the exact
number of rooms, and the exact number of people? You're treating infinity
as a number, thus your whole analogy falls apart right here. Your methodology
is highly erroneous. If anything, you merely proved something that I already
believed: that a hotel with an infinite number of rooms cannot exist. There
is a limited amount of space on earth, and a limited amount of building
materials, therefore, no matter how many rooms you add on, the number will
always be finite. However, there is the potential to add an infinite number
of rooms. Infinity does not exist with physical objects (or beings), but
it does exist with measurements. Time is a measurement, therefore you can
count backwards or forwards into infinity. What was the minute before time
t? And the minute before that? and the minute before that? And so on, and
so on.
> The Argument From The Impossibility Of Traversing The Infinite.
Ummm, that's because infinity is not a number. you do not "reach infinity"
or anything like that. You need to learn that infinity is NOT a number,
though you continually treat it as such. this has been the major problem
with the debate: you continuously treat infinity as a given (i.e. finite)
number, and that is a contradiction.
> Remember, preceding the current moment (the end of the sequence
You have not proved this, rather you're just asserting it. If that were
true, it would right here and now eliminate the possibility for the existence
of your infinite being: God. Was God here 1 million years ago? Was He here
ten billion years ago? What about ten billion times that; was He present
that many years ago? That many centuries ago? Time is merely a measurement,
not something physical, and you can count backwards infinitely.
> So, no matter how we formulate a subset, it must always
Here we go again. Please inform me as to what the "highest finite number"
is. Does this exist? It does not. There is no such thing as "the highest
finite number." Furthermore, even if there was such a thing as "the highest
finite number," there is a contradiction in what you are saying. If such
a thing existed you would not be able to count one more. If you were able
to count one more, than OBVIOUSLY you were NOT at "the highest finite number."
This next number you reach is one higher than the previous one, therefore
the previous one was not the highest. Understand?
> Regarding the achievement of infinity by successive addition,
And I agree 100%. However, we do not live infinitely.
> In the example given in Sterne's novel, we have the example of
Well, obviously, if it takes him a year to write a day, he'll continuously
be behind (and that gap will continuously grow). So no, Shandy could not
finish the book, that is unless he agreed to stop at a given point.
> As one observes the following equation, it appears to suggest
Agreed, though I think you are confusing yourself into actually believing
that "!0" is a real number.
> The implication here is that since any number added to
You're still treating infinity as a number. If you add 1 to something,
you are going to end up 1 more than your previous number, therefore your
previous number was finite. Infinity is the ability to continuously add
on, or take away from, endlessly.
> Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith presents the Tristram
Quick note: much of Smith's writings (including his arguments that blow
the cosmological argument out the water) can be found at the following
URL:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/
> Craig claims that instead of Shandy writing forever and
And I agree with Craig on this point. This is because time is elapsing
faster than Shandy is able to cover it.
> On the question of an actual infinite, my sympathies are
And I also agree that Shandy would never catch up, considering that
time is, as I just said, elapsing fatser than he can record it. So, this
makes me wonder who you are arguing with? Are you debating the Freethoughtmecca,
or Bertrand Russell? Red herring? Strawman?
> The question now becomes, "Will temporal segments of
I agree that the hypothetical Tristan Shandy will never catch up. However,
in the above you are STILL treating infinity as a number. I thought you
said you took modern set theory. You cannot reach, arrive at, or even approach
infinity because infinity is not a number.
> Having seen Bertrand Russell's attempt to prove the real
Regardless of time, the only way Shandy, or anyone else, could write
such a biography, is if they were able to record information before it
happens, i.e. write it faster than time is moving. so Russell was wrong;
I agree with you. What's your point?
> Quentin Smith agreed with Russell's contention and suggested
You have not shown this at all, nor has your analogy. You are still
treating infinity as a number, when it is not (to say infinity is a number
is to say it is afinite, and that would be a contradiction). You showed
that Russell and Smith was wrong, but you have not shown anything with
regards to the existence of infinity. You cannot "achieve" infinity, but
you can add into infinity, i.e. you can add an infinite amount of additions.
> Sooooo ... > In other words, our presumptive hypothesis of a past that is
Umm, excuse me, you have not shown this. You have put forth some totally
unrelated analogies, and as I showed, they fall apart before you can even
apply them simply because you continuously insist on treating infinity
as a number.
> I am attempting a reductio ad absurdum on the set
You did not demonstrate this. Zeno's paradox doesn't relate as it can
only work if we force the assumption that Achilles and the tortoise are
moving at the same speed (if not, we need to ascribe different point units
to each racer). Hilbert's hotel goes out the window right away considering
that it treats infinity as a finite number, thus the argument contradicts
itself. The Tristan Shandy story does not apply because obviously Shandy
will not catch up as time is moving faster than he is recording it. It's
more an issue of his slowness, and his continuous lagging resulting in
him being left further and further behind; this is not necessarily an issue
with regard to infinity (except for the fact that no matter how much time
Shandy has, he'll never catch up). In short, you have not shown that infinity
does not exist. I would agree that it does not exist physically, as all
things are finite, but with regards to measurements it does exist. Time
is measurement, thus you can count backwards in time infinitely, therefore
an infinite regress is very possible. Now for your domino analogy:
> On the other hand, the concept of an infinite series of causes
This is a bit like asking which comes first in an infinite regress.
What if it is understood that the dominoes were always falling, thus the
one you saw just fall, was dropped by one previous, and so forth. Just
the same, it applies to time. Before this minute, there was a minute before
it, before that there was a minute before that, and before that there was
a minute before that (such as 60 seconds before minute X took place). Something
always precedes X, and something always comes after, and X is just a given
point in infinity. This has already been covered. As was already said in
my previous contribution to the debate, if you apply your same arguments
to the real numbers, then you would be able to (incorrectly) conclude that
it's impossible for the real numbers to exist! After all, given any
real number T, there is an infinite regress of real numbers that precede
it. Continuing your logic, you would say that T is at the end of
an infinite number of real numbers, and thus there cannot be an infinity
of real numbers. But the sets (-infinity,T), (infinity,T], and (-infinity,infinity)
are all infinite sets of real numbers. The thing to keep in mind here:
make sure your arguments about infintie sets of events apply equally to
infinite sets of numbers. Also, with regard to dominoes, if we get to the
first domino, that does not mean the domino did not have a cause; it could
be caused by a finger, and the finger caused by something else, et cetera.
> Hence, your holding onto the possibility of an infinite
You have not shown this, and I don't think, with all due respect, you
can say this considering how poor your concept of infinity is. Your analogies
have been mostly unrelated; the best analogy was the domino one, but this
already appeared in a previous post from you, in a different form (minus
the dominos), and it was already answered, and I answered it again above
(there's a flaw in your logic that does not apply). This analogy actually
appears a third time, in a third form, in the following from you:
> If c(n), represents a cause, where n = -1, -2, -3 is the
I've said it before, and I said it a second time above, and now I will
say it for the third time: If you apply your same arguments to the real
numbers, then you would be able to (incorrectly) conclude that it's impossible
for the real numbers to exist! However, these points do exist within an
infinite realm. your logic is flawed; I'm sorry. Furthermore, not only
could such flawed logic discredit the existence of real numbers, but also
the existence of God. God is allegedly infinite, i.e. he was always here.
But by your logic His curent point in time could not be reached because
there was an infinite number of minutes of existence prior. Theists try
to say "God is outside of time," but that is absurd considering that time
is simply a measurement, not a realm you can step outside of. Just the
same, by your logic it could be argued that any point in time could not
exist, as there were an infinite number of minutes that preceded it. In
reality, all points are within the realm (or set) of infinity.
> The only way the atheist has a way out of this is to say the
You have refuted nothing. Nothing has been dismissed, and you have done
nothing but put forth faulty logic, unrelated analogies, and repeated cases
of special pleading. I've shown that in this email.
Now we move onto your third and final email ("The Great Debate III -
Another KCA For FTMecca." from Monday Sept 18).
> Existence:
This smells of the ontological fallacy (er, I mean argument). It sort
of insinuates a circular logic, where one argues that "it cannot not exist
because it must exist." However, I'll let you build on this, as I realize
this is merely a point being made IF such a thing existed.
> Further, a necessary being must be (2) immutable [unchanging];
This doesn't necessarily follow. First of all, if the being does not
change at all, it simply does not live it would seem. There is no interaction
with the universe, because interaction involves some sort of change (thus,
if you plan on saying that God is this necessary being, God cannot interact
with people, i.e. send scripture, tell some savage Yahoodis to stone some
poor sharmoota who cheated on her husband, et cetera). Furthermore, on
what grounds do we assume that a potential being cannot change into a necessary
being, and thus other potential beings rely on it. Or that a necessary
beign changes into potential, et cetera.
> Notably, the attribute of (3) timelessness logically follows
Now you're simply babbling. Nothing can be outside time. Every action
has a beginning and an end, and an amount of time elapses between those
two points. Time is simply a measurement. Being X was alive at 5:00, and
being X was still alive at 6:00, therefore we have documented and measured
a part of being X's life, and shown that being X is within time.
> Also, such a being must be (4) infinite [unlimited]. Only that
Now you're starting to toe the line of contradiction. How can a living
being be unlimited? Ulimited in what scope? Could we say unlimited in creative
power? If so, then your previous assertion that impossible objects cannot
exist goes out the window, as a being with unlimited power should be able
to create a round square or a four sided triangle, else He/She/It is limited
in what it can create. Maybe you should define "unlimited." All things
are possible with regard to "omnipotence" and unlimited power.
> Furthermore, where there is multiplicity, there is also
Oh please! Stop trying to sell your Jewish philosophy here. The Jews
came up with this silly concept that the Mighty Phantasm that pushes people
around can only be one (based on numerous absurd ideas) and we, living
in a western society, actually swallow this nonsense because we are conditioned
to believe it. Sunni crypto-Jews have not proven that Tawheed is a fact,
rather this is an assertion rooted in patriarchal Jewish thinking put forth
by a bunch of Yahoodi goat herders 2,000 years ago (which was adopted by
Greeks in the 1st century, Romans in the third, and Arabs in the seventh).
This is the whole, one dictator, one chieftan, one father, one husband
logic, thus one mighty phantasm ruling on high from his cosmic throne.
You should consider the book "Ahteism: A Philosophical Justification" pp.
101-106, where Michael Martin confronts William Craig's version of the
cosmological argument. As Martin puts it, "at most [assuming we accept
it is valid,] the Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents
created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent
is the creator. On the contrary, for all the argument shows, there may
have been trillions of personal agenst involved in creation." Your idea
that this being is one is based on your assertion that it must be unlimited
(not explaining what that means), thus you cannot claim such at this time.
In short, without further debate, I think I've shown the weakness of your
arguments.
Date: Tue Sep 5, 2000 2:40pm
Subject: Re: Freethoughtmecca & Auckland University Islamic Society
to the Freethoughtmecca.
imran.aijaz@x...
Date: Thu Sep 7, 2000 1:04pm
Subject: Joining the AUIS egroup
Denis Giron
al-Kaafir al-Akbar
Date: Thu Sep 7, 2000 1:20pm
Subject: Re: Joining the AUIS egroup
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.
imran.aijaz@x...
Date: Thu Sep 7, 2000 3:19pm
Subject: The Great Debate
OK Denis, I will be doing a cosmological defense for the existence
of a Personal Creator of the universe, viz., the Kalam Cosmological Argument
for the existence of God as was initially defined by Imam al-Ghazali. The
basic syllogism presented by al-Ghazali was:
1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.
Date: Thu Sep 7, 2000 4:01pm
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
imran.aijaz@x...
Date: Fri Sep 8, 2000 1:55pm
Subject: The Great Debate pt 2
Okay, I'm going to look up some
stuff on the Cosmological argument tonight when I get home. Until then,
I'll just comment on a flaw I feel is present in the set up of the above
skeletal proof. To begin with, one might argue that God must've had a beginning.
Undoubtedly, the response would be that premise one explicitly
refers to objects that began to exist, and from there the Muslim could
assert that God has no beginning (without proof).
My response is as follows:
To follow in those steps, the Atheist could
deny the validity of premise 2, and assert that the universe
had no beginning. Any reference to the big bang would be a bit fallacious,
as this is merely a theory with regards to the matter within
the universe (i.e. the stars, planets, moons, debris, et cetera), but not
the actual open space itself.
I agree, refuting the second premise would put the argument
into academic arrest. Nevertheless, I believe it is much, much more plausible
to think that the universe began to exist in the light of two arguments:
would seem that in order for me
to accept this proof, I would have to first believe that objects with a
beginning have a cause; something I don't actually believe. It seems that
the proof is built on a on a questionable premise, where it is "proven"
that the universe has a cause simply by stating that it has a cause. Indeed,
you are begging the question.
No, it is proven that the universe had a cause by the deductive
syllogism that I presented. In deductive arguments, if the premises are
true, then, the conclusion must be true.
Date: Fri Sep 8, 2000 10:10pm
Subject: The Great Debate - II (A Defense Of The Kalam Cosmological
Argument)
You have only made me look like a psychic
by doing exatcly what I predicted you would do (i.e. you "assert[ed]
that God has no beginning"). This is something that you have merely
stated rather than proved (though I acknowledged that proving such
a claim is highly difficult; still, that's your problem, not mine).
You're trying to prove that God exists, and you start by telling
me about God, and your definition, without justifying any of it. In short,
you've assumed his existence to prove his existence. That is indeed fallacious.
At the moment, I only commented that the theist could easily reply
by stating that God did not begin to exist, therefore, it follows that
He does not have a cause for His existence. Note that this is just a comment,
not a proof. I would argue that since an infinite regression of causes
is impossible, the regress must be finite, and one which stops at the first
cause which is uncaused itself. At this point, it's important to understand
that I am not even talking about God, my aim is to establish that the
universe has a cause for it's existence. Once this is done, we can
proceed further and analyze what kind of a cause it is.
the regress. So we here discharge our assumption of C with the result
that, if the cause of my existence is contingent, then there exists a non-contingent
first cause.
With all due respect, you should consider (or reconsider)
first year calculus and an introduction to modern set theory. There, concepts
of the
You've gone ahead and assumed I have no knowledge of calculus and infinity.
Not only have I done calculus and set theory, I have studied the concept
of infinity in great depth. The concept of the infinite that is taught
in first year calculus is of a potential infinite, and such a collection
is increasing *towards* infinity as a limit, but it never gets there, hence,
a more appropriate term would be indefinite and not infinite. If you have
studied calculus, you probably will know that when drawing graphs of limits
which tend towards infinity, the curve (asymptote) will never touch the
axis, it will get closer and closer to it, but there will never be a time,
when the line crosses the axis on the graph. For example, we have the function:
(2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor
provides a legitimate basis for rational thought ..."
infinitely large and infinitely small are routinely handled.
As are also the ideas of infinite series, sets with infinite numbers of
members, infinite regression, infinite recursion, potential infinity, actual
infinity, infinite orders of infinities, etc. Furthermore, in light of
the
Mathematically speaking, infinity as a concept is not a problem, but
even Cantor's actual infinite (designated by aleph null) began to spawn
all sorts of problems. Al-Kindi and other proponents of the Kalam argument
claimed that an *actual* infinite cannot exist in *reality*, in the world
of stars,
rocks, trees and men. I agree. Zeno's paradoxes also give weight to
the impossibility of an infinite regression of events. But that's for another
posting.
previous statement, also going back to your original premise
("Whatever begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence."), one would
argue that you're getting involved in special pleading. A relative question
that
I have not assumed the existence of God at that stage. I am not saying,
"Look, everything except God has a cause of it's existence!" The premise
I have stated which does not involve God at this point, is:
illustrates this special pleading would be: How is it that
you claim that 'God' could exist 'forever', but the "regress
of causes" cannot stretch back endlessly? In short, one might argue that
anything that's eternal -- e.g. "God" -- is by definition an "infinite
regress of causes" if you assume that the thing obeys the laws of causality.
There is no difficulty in stating that the regress of causes is finite,
but that the first cause is eternal. I do not see any logical difficulties
with such an assertion. Your argument:
Actually, the idea of claiming that God had a beginning was
to illustrate the flimsyness of the argument. You claim that God
is uncaused; if I so chose, I could argue that "God" had a cause. It was
just an exercise to show that we can launch unsupported assertions all
day. However, if we're going to accept either side as true, somebody has
to present some proof.
These are common atheist objections but are fatally flawed.
Do I believe God is caused? I don't even believe God exists. If
you're going to claim he is uncaused, you have to explain this somehow.
See my logical dismissal of an infinite regression of causes above.
Yes, there is an identifiable t = 0. But one cannot claim
that the universe "began" to exist at that point, because of the first
law of thermodynamics.
How does the FIRST law of thermodynamics support this?
This law actually bars the possibility of creation ex nihilo,
as you're insinuating. There are theories that there was a universe before
the big bang, that collapsed and formed the "material" for this big
bang.
The thermodynamic properties of an oscillating model are such that
the universe expands farther and farther with each successive cycle. Therefore,
as one traces the expansions back in time, they grow smaller and smaller.
The oscillating model of the universe thus still requires an origin of
the universe prior to the smallest cycle.
Furthermore, any "causing" of the Big Bang would have to have
occurred when it was negative. But t cannot be negative if we are going
to hold to your idea that this was the beginning. While the Universe itself
came into being,
The traditional theist view is that God is timeless, He is outside
of time. The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally,
prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe
to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist. And I agree
with people like Hawking who write that to ask what happened before the
universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 north latitude!
On the creationist theory under discussion, the Creator sans the world
would exist changelessly and, given some relational view of time, therefore
timelessly and at the Big Bang singularity create both the universe and,
concomitantly, time. For the Creator sans the universe, there simply is
no time because there are no events; time begins with the first event,
not only for the
universe, but also for God, in virtue of His real relation to the universe.
The act of creation is thus simultaneous, or coincident, with the origination
of the universe.
you have not shown that the "pointmass" which exploded into
time and space had to have come into being. Basically, alll this
means is that the universe *as we know it* came into being at the Big Bang,
according to the Theory.
Theoretically speaking, empirical confirmation takes you back to a
single mathematical point, a singularity of infinite density. But, as Fred
Hoyle points out, there can be no object of infinite density, therefore,
what the big bang theory requires, really, is the creation of matter out
of nothing.
Whether there was a universe before hand for said explosion
to come from is, as of yet, unknown (despite the aforementioned theory
about a previous universe that collapsed).
Empirical confirmation points extremely strongly towards the finitude
of the universe. And whats more, if you think otherwise, you will have
to refute my a priori arguments against an infinite regress of temporal
events as stated above.
2. The impossibility of an infinite regression
of temporal events.
This begs the question "is an infinite regression of temporal
events possible?" You've assumed an answer, yet there is no evidence
to that affect.
I was simply commenting, I have gone into some more detail above.
An appeal to authority does not constitute a refutation
of that proof.
Agreed, though I was merely pointing you in the direction
of some writers who present interesting thoughts on all this.
Fair enough.
We can support this premise, as follows: since nothing
does not exist, nothing is completely lacking in qualities. Nothing, then,
cannot have any causal power – the ability to be a cause producing some
thing, hence nothing cannot be the cause of anything.
Agreed, this is the parmenides argument, but then if this
is the case the concept of creation ex nihilo goes out the window. Furthermore,
you're still committing the "special pleading" fallacy by asserting that
such rules do NOT apply to your unsupported explaination for the cause
of the big bang. Understand?
Ah, this is where you commit the fallacy of equivocation. I state that
ex nihilo nihil fit, that is, out of nothing, nothing comes. Nothing cannot
be the cause of anything. However, a totally different meaning of "nothing"
is implied when creationists use locutions like "The universe came into
being out of nothing," they mean, not that there was a state of nothingness
temporally prior to the origin of the universe, but simply that the universe
lacks a prior material cause, that it is false that the universe was made
out of anything.
Agreed, although you have not shown that the premises in your
argument were true; rather you only asserted such. Let me give you
an example of an argument that is sound, but equally ambiguous:
You have agreed with my causal premise ... but you have not accepted
the second premise. If you will not accept it, then you must show me that:
(1) IPU is the only being that has the power of UPI.
(2) A tree can only come into existence after being created by a
being that has the power of UPI.
(3) Therefore, all trees were created by IPU.
I do not see how this applies at all to my deductive syllogism.
This argument is sound, but there are all kinds of unsupported
claims and ambiguous terms in there, thus making it IMPOSSIBLE to decide
whether or not the premises are true. While this analogy may seem absurd
to you, it relates
You are correct. It seems absurd, but I fail to see how this relates
to my syllogism. The premises are straight-foward and clear enough, at
least I think so.
to your argument. You tell me that certain things are impossible
without proving it. You seek to prove the existence of a being represented
by an
I was initially commenting on the proofs for the premises being true,
now, I think I have given you sufficient points to consider.
ambiguous word: "God," then you go on to tell me about "God" with
out supporting these claims.
Again, I am merely stating what the theist would say, my first obstacle
is to convince you that the universe has a cause of it's existence. One
you accept that, then we can go ahead and talk about "God" ...
These are the flaws in your argument. Regardless, I have a
question for you.
Hardly. Go over the responses I have given.
Judging by what I have just written, you may argue that it is now
impossible to go any further with this argument (at least until you present
some evidence for some of your claims). If this is the case, I'm willing
to assume, for argument's sake, that you did prove that the universe is
caused.
I have given support to support my premises while you have yet to provide
refutations or decent counter-arguments.
If that has been proven, what does this mean? How do you go
on to prove that God, rather than 3 green elves from dimension X, is the
cause of this big bang? I'm sincerely curious.
Simple. We analyze the cause. And I am wholeheartedly convinced that
this cause is God. But I shall not comment on this yet. If you agree with
the conclusion that the universe has a cause of it's existence, then we
can proceed.
P.S.: I have yet to get any messages via the auis egroup...
are you sure I'm on it now? I'll keep you posted; please do the same.
You should be ... if not, visit this link and add yourself:
Date: Thu Sep 14, 2000 7:30am
Subject: The Great Debate - III (definition of terms)
rain has a cause, but I would see this as something natural not conscious
(see Aristophanes' argument for why the rain is not caused by Zeus). Thus,
it is very possible that the big bang (not necessarily the universe) had
a cause. Regardless, please define what you mean by "cause".
At the moment, I only commented that the theist could easily reply
by stating that God did not begin to exist, therefore, it follows that
He does not have a cause for His existence. Note that this is just a comment,
not a proof.
infinite chain.
You've gone ahead and assumed I have no knowledge of calculus and
infinity.
(2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Mathematically speaking, infinity as a concept is not a problem,
but even Cantor's actual infinite (designated by aleph null) began to spawn
all sorts of problems.
There is no difficulty in stating that the regress of causes is
finite, but that the first cause is eternal. I do not see any logical difficulties
with such an assertion. Your argument:
These are common atheist objections but are fatally flawed.
The thermodynamic properties of an oscillating model are such that
the universe expands farther and farther witheach successive cycle.
The traditional theist view is that God is timeless, He is outside
of time. The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally,
prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe
to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.
Theoretically speaking, empirical confirmation takes you back to
a single mathematical point, a singularity of infinite density. But, as
Fred Hoyle points out, there can be no object of infinite density, therefore,
what the big bang theory requires, really, is the creation of matter out
of nothing.
Date: Sun Sep 17, 2000 2:42pm
Subject: The Great Debate III - The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1)
- Whatever Begins To Exist Has A Cause..
it into separate sections that cover the specific premises for sake
of clarity
and ease in reading.
begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
> Okay, now, before I get to your points, I have one major question:
what do
> you mean when you say that the universe has a cause? I attacked
this
> conclusion without really considering the various possible meanings.
For
> example, do you mean a conscious or deliberate cause, or a natural
cause?
> The way I see it, rain has a cause, or to be more specific, rain
is caused
> by something (this "something" being heat which causes the water
to
> evaporate and collect in the sky, et cetera). I would definitely
agree that
> rain has a cause, but I would see this as something natural not
conscious
> (see Aristophanes' argument for why the rain is not caused by
Zeus). Thus,
> it is very possible that the big bang (not necessarily the universe)
had a
> cause. Regardless, please define what you mean by "cause".
When I speak of cause as related to al-Ghazali's syllogistic argument,
I am
referring to a creating cause. As I said before, my sole aim with the
argument at this stage is to demonstrate that the universe has a cause
which
brought it into existence. That's all. Whether it's a conscious or
natural
one is irrelevant at this point in the debate. So I am arguing that
it is
true that the universe has a productive cause, which is something that
you
already believe (please confirm). Nevertheless, you have accepted the
causal
premise that:
principle would evoke a contradiction which you agreed with.
granted that you have accepted this principle to be true, and move
on to
cover the second premise, which is more controversial.
Wasalaam,
Date: Sun Sep 17, 2000 2:55pm
Subject: The Great Debate III - The Kalam Cosmological Argument (2a)
- The Universe Began To Exist.
the universe began to exist, and I shall also answer (and refute where
necessary) you comments and/or replies. Be forwarned everyone, that
this
composition gets highly mathematical, so unless you are convinced that
the
universe is eternal (or extremely interested!) I would suggest that
you skip
this posting :-)
to absurdity) to demonstrate the impossibility of an eternal universe.
The
argument which I shall state and defend in this particular composition
is as
follows:
either a simultaneously existing actual
infinite or a series formed by
successive addition.
(ii) It cannot be a simultaneously existing actual infinite (first
KCA).
(iii) It cannot be a series formed by successive addition (second KCA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Therefore, the series of events is not beginningless.
events preceding the current moment (where we are now) is infinite
in
magnitude. We can demonstrate this in a brief statement as follows:
crossed, or traversed an infinite regression of
events.
need to reduce these derived propositions from our postulation of an
eternal/infinite universe to absurdity, and that is what I shall do
:-)
-----------------------------------------------------------
letter n = -1, -2, -3, ... denotes specific 'moments' going back in
time,
thus, our current time is t(0) = 0. So if the universe is eternal,
we have
a completed set that is actually infinite. Let's get into some mental
gymnastics now ...
to Zeno's (Zeno of Elea) paradoxes ...
compete. Achilles, being the sportsman that he is, grants the tortoise
a
head start. But when Achilles begins his run after the tortoise has
reached
a certain distance then the supposition that a straight line on the
racetrack has an infinite number of points promotes a paradox. Zeno
shows
that Achilles, in order to catch up to his opponent, must first arrive
at
the point where the tortoise was. In so doing, the tortoise naturally
has
advanced to another point on this racing line. Even if the tortoise
only
moves a relatively short distance, Achilles still has the task of reaching
that point before proceeding any further. But, again, the tortoise
has
already moved on to another point on the line. On the surface, Achilles
seems to be closing in on the tortoise, but since he must first traverse
the
same points already covered by the tortoise then he will never overtake
his
opponent.
points already traveled by the tortoise. But when Achilles makes his
move
the tortoise is also moving toward additional points on the race line.
And
Achilles must reach those points before he can at least catch up to
his
opponent. But since the tortoise is obviously not going to stop but
keep
running, then Achilles still has the task of reaching those same points
that
the tortoise has already covered. So,
never catch up. The tortoise still retains victory since he knows that
Achilles must reach those same points before he can catch up. The tortoise
need only advance one more point, no matter how short a distance, in
order
to ensure that Achilles could never catch up. The fact that a line
contains
an infinite number of points entails that the tortoise can go as slow
as he
wants and never lose a race with even the quickest opponent, so long
as the
tortoise can begin the race with at least a one point handicap over
his
opponent.
the impossibility of reaching the destination on an infinite line:
dividing some whole number an infinite number of times then there are
an
actually infinite number of midpoints between two whole numbers. It
seems
that we could multiply any whole number with an infinite number of
divided
fractions and never achieve a result equaling the next whole number.
This
seems to show that an infinite number of midpoints can never be achieved.
as the tortoise keeps moving? Of course he can. The problem with Zeno's
paradox is that there is no such thing as an actually infinite number
of
midpoints. Instead, we see the number of times a whole number can be
divided
as indefinite (or potentially infinite). Given the finitude of the
real
points on the racetrack where Achilles and the tortoise are racing,
Achilles
need only cover more finite points per every set of points covered
by the
tortoise. This is what we call rate.
(t), then we can calculate how long it would take for the tortoise
to cover
(d):
exceeding the tortoise's:
long as the rate is within the bounds of the time allotted.
a number results in self-contradictory answers. Zeno's paradox shows
that
there cannot really be an actual infinite since this would imply that
a
lagging racer could never reach his winning opponent no matter how
long he
has and how slow the winner moves. These considerations rationally
force us
to suppose that an actual infinite is just an idea in the mind and
not
something that exists as a property in reality. Since time itself is
a set
of discrete members partitioned by seconds, days, years, and so on,
then
time must be a finite set of members.
writes his own summary as follows:
that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a
room, the
proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let
us
imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more
that
all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout
the
entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for
a room.
"But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the
person
in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person
in
room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these
room
changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks
in.
But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious,
according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the
hotel
than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this
be? The
proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave
him his
keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before?
But the
situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests
show
up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor,
and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person
in
room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on
out to
infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number
twice his
own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the
infinity
of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all
the
rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests
in the
hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before,
even
though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor
could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would
never be
one single person more in the hotel than before.
out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose
the
guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel?
Not
according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the
beds!
Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out.
In this case
an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according
to the
mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don't talk
to that
laundry woman! In fact, we could have every other guest check
out of the
hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet
there would
never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the
persons in
room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel
would
be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and
the
infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the
same
number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers
1,
3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel
could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the
impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
infinite can exist, it is still impossible to reach one through addition.
Remember, preceding the current moment (the end of the sequence of
infinite
temporal events, t(0) = 0) there is an actual infinite set of temporal
events, in other words, we have crossed, or traversed the infinite.
Can this
be possible? Certainly not.
infinite and the idea of an infinite, Aristotle had suggested the terms
actual infinite (the completed whole value of infinity) and potential
infinite (an indefinite count susceptible to infinite addition).
concepts of set and subset, for the benefit and clarity of those who
haven't
got a clue as to what I'm on about at the moment! The famous mathematician
Georg Cantor developed a system of categorizing groups of numbers as
members
of a collective. This systematic arrangement is identified as set theory.
A
mathematical set is a collection of mathematical members. We can label,
manipulate, and compare members of a set to another value, set, or
whatever
a mathematician can come up with. For example, suppose that we wanted
to
talk about a small group of friends whose names are Joe, Frank, and
Wendy.
We can call this group set A:
friends. This total number of friends is called the cardinal number.
In this
example the cardinal number of friends we have is three. But what if
we
wanted to talk about only two of the three friends? How would we categorize
them mathematically? When we begin pointing to members within a set,
we call
this reference a subset or proper subset depending on how we do this.
But a
subset to our example may include just Joe and Wendy. So, if A1 represented
the two friends we wished to discuss then:
members. With this example in mind we can now graduate to a more abstract
usage of set theory. Consider the following:
cardinal number no greater than five (A1 5). We could make A1 stand
for {1,
3, 5} or {2, 4}. As long as our imagination is free to wander, we can
come
up with any number of combinations. If we begin comparing two sets
then we
can begin to see how mathematics begins to work its arithmetical magic.
Suppose subsets A1 and A2 are compared with set A:
A1 = {1, 3, 5}
A2 = {2, 4}
parts" we can never have a situation where a subset of A can be larger
than
the original set A (remember the rule about cardinal numbers?). So,
no
matter how we formulate a subset, it must always conform to this principle.
But when we repose the simple realm of finite numbers into the realm
of
transfinite numbers, our world principle begins to break down. Sure,
one
could easily look at this and say that this principle works with finite
numbers but not with transfinite numbers and avoid the complications
altogether. But I see this response unwarranted and arbitrary. It supposes
that transfinite mathematics can be categorized apart from finite mathematics.
This means that if I count to the highest finite number then the rule
that
the "whole is greater than its parts" applies. This implies that if
I count
one more number then the rule breaks down. So:
The truth is, it only works in the mental world of mathematics. But
more
fundamentally, this is why the finite/transfinite distinction exists
in the
first place.
Russell believed that an actual infinite could be accomplished as long
as
the counter possessed an actually infinite number of years to complete
the
task. In the example given in Sterne's novel, we have the example of
Tristram Shandy. Sterne writes about Tristram Shandy as an extraordinarily
slow individual committed to writing an autobiography. However, he
is so
slow that it takes him one year of writing in order to complete only
one day
of his personal history. This means that the most recent event that
could be
recorded is the day that occurred only one year ago. As Shandy writes
an
additional day, it takes him an additional year to complete the events
of
that day. Russell uses this example and believes that an actual infinite
can
be achieved through successive addition only if Shandy has an infinite
number of days to complete it.
solved. For Russell, it is the individual who possesses an infinite
number
of days. Of course mortal individuals possess merely a finite number
of
days. According to Russell, this is the key to solving the apparent
problem.
The paradox posits an autobiographer who writes on every day passed.
Since
it takes Shandy one year (=365 days) to complete one day, then in terms
of a
one-to-one correspondence with temporal history it would appear to
be futile
on a finite level:
Recorded History: 365 days, 730 days, 1095 days, 1460 days, 1825 days,
...
complete writing on all the days passed. Since each day yields an additional
365 days to write then it would seem that the longer Shandy wrote the
further behind he would get. Russell solves this mathematical problem
by
suggesting an actually infinite number of years as the required antecedent
for finishing the task (and to be sure it is certainly a necessary
antecedent). The symbol often used to refer to a mathematical infinite
is
the Aleph Null (which I shall label as '!0' since it does not appear
in
plain ASCII text on my keyboard). As one observes the following equation,
it
appears to suggest something not true of usual, finite numbers.
infinity, then the principle that the whole is greater than the parts
does
not apply here. One component of the equation (!0) is quantitatively
equal
to the sum of both components (!0 and 1). This is a good mathematical
illustration with the problem of the reality of an actual infinite
we
already looked at. But concerning the adding of individual discrete
parts to
total an infinite set, Russell asserts that given an infinite number
of
years to write plus the infinite number of days written about results
in an
infinite amount of time actually transpired. Thus, the amount of time
to
write (if obtained) would be equal to the amount of time given to write
about. Therefore (Let d = days to write on; y = years to complete;
t = time
obtained):
then the concept of infinity is something that can exist as a quantitative
property in the real world (he does not mean exist in the Platonic
sense).
assessment of the Tristram Shandy paradox and the problem with an actual
infinite through successive addition.
his essay on the existence of infinity in the past. His purpose is
to show
that it is feasible to exist in a universe that does not have a beginning
(this is in contrast to the theistic belief that the universe began
to
exist). Smith, with regard to Russell, makes this observation:
set of past days, and a proper subset of an infinite set can be numerically
equivalent to the set even though there are members of the set that
are not
members of the proper subset. Just as the infinite set of natural numbers
has the same number of members as its proper subset of equal numbers,
yet
has members that are not members of this proper subset (these members
being
the odd numbers); so the infinite set of past days has the same number
of
members as its proper subset of days written about, yet has members
that are
not members of this proper subset (these members being the days unwritten
about)."
the light of sets and proper subsets. If it is true that
A1 = 2, 4, 6, 8, . . .!0
A2 = 1, 3, 5, 7, . . . .!0
same time not possessing numbers found in proper
subset A2.
that the completion of his autobiography is ultimately possible.
both Russell and Smith have missed the real issue involved in the paradox.
Craig responds to Russell that
years is a necessary condition of recording an infinite number of days
at
the rate of one day per year, it is not a sufficient condition. What
is also
needed is that the days and years be arranged in a certain way such
that
every day is succeeded by a year in which to record it. But then it
will be
seen that Tristram Shandy's task is inherently paradoxical; the absurdity
lies not in the infinity of the past but in the task itself."
history, he would eventually be infinitely far behind. Craig further
points
out that the picture Russell paints entails a beginningless task. That
is,
if one were to ask "Where in the temporal series of events are the
days
recorded by Tristram Shandy at any given point?" then, according to
Craig,
one could only answer that the days are infinitely distant from the
present.
It appears that for every day Shandy is writing, there is an infinite
distance from that day to the last recorded day. Craig shares with
his
critics that Russell's assessment fails to consider the real problem
of
consecutively counting to infinity.
both Russell and Smith have failed to convince me otherwise. At this
point I
will limit my response to Bertrand Russell's view of the Tristram Shandy
paradox. My observation of the matter seems to yield two problems with
Russell's justification.
apparent that it is logically unsolvable and not merely epistemologically
unsolvable. When we see that for each day there are 365 subsequent
days of
writing, then I fail to see how Shandy "catches up" on the autobiography.
Mere comparisons of infinite sets and subsets bespeak the paradox's
lesson.
It is precisely because an infinite proper subset equals an infinite
set why
successive addition fails to obtain. It appears, then, that we are
discussing two different worlds: the finite and the infinite. So, if
we
uphold the principle of correspondence then it would appear that Tristram
Shandy falls behind with each additional day he must write on. This
makes
the task unending.
then it would appear that the problem is merely extended instead of
solved.
In other words, there is no reason to adhere to an actual infinite
via
successive addition by simply pushing back the length of the task to
the
time of the task. The question now becomes, "Will temporal segments
of
duration through successive addition arrive at an actual infinite?"
Would we
not still be dealing with successive addition to the infinite? At this
point
it would be absurd to respond by suggesting that such an achievement
is
based on finite time because the argument now concerns time itself.
Therefore, it would be question-begging to merely extend the problem.
achieving an actual infinite through successive addition, we know a
few
things. Even though the Tristram Shandy paradox of the slow autobiographer
was designed to show why such a successive addition is not possible,
Russell
believed that the solution required Shandy to have an infinite number
of
days to complete his task. Quentin Smith agreed with Russell's contention
and suggested the notion of sets and proper subsets to prove the point.
William Lane Craig suggested that Russell had focused on the wrong
issue and
that the problem rested not in the necessary time to complete it but,
rather, on the sufficiency of consecutive counting. I concluded with
two
reasons why Russell had failed to solve the puzzle. I had suggested
that
Russell's solution actually increased the problem and then extended
it to
successive segments of time.
successive addition.
as follows:
2. Not A.
3. Not B.
----------------------------
4. Therefore, not X
is false, and has been refuted by demonstrating the falsity of the
postulated axioms which are derived from an eternal past, viz., an
infinite
set of temporal events.
-------------------------------------------
> Consider the sequence of negative integers ending at 0:
>
> ...,-3,-2,-1,0
>
> This sequence is unbounded on the left, going to minus infinity.
But it is
> bounded on the right by 0. This infinite sequence "ends,"
so your
> insinuation above that there is no such infinite sequence is false.
You've completely missed what I said. I am attempting a reductio ad
absurdum on the set {... -3, -2, -1, 0} and what I am asserting is
that you
may be able to construct such a set hypothetically speaking, nevertheless,
it fails in it's applications as I have demonstrated via various paradoxical
illustrations, such as Zeno's Paradoxes, Hilbert's Hotel and Tristram
Shandy,
which spawn all sorts of counter-intuitive absurdities.
> Analogously, consider the infinite sequence of times t(n), n =
-1, -2, ...
> where our current time is t(0) = 0:
>
> ...,t(-3),t(-2),t(-1),t(0) t(n-1) < t(n) for n = 0,-1,-2,...
>
> Same principle. Unbounded on the left, "regressing" toward
t = minus
> infinity, but bounded ("ending") on the right by t(0) = 0, our
present time.
> Each t can represent a causal event. The infinite sequence
represents an
> infinite regression of causal events.
The concept of a finite series of causes and effects is logically
consistent. To see this, consider 100 dominos set up in line so that
as one
domino falls, it strikes the next one, which falls and strikes the
next, and
so on. If we push the first domino, we start a finite chain of causes
and
effects that ends when domino number 100 falls. If there is no outside
interference (such as your cat jumping on the table where you have
so
carefully constructed this experiment), then before domino number 100
can
fall, dominos 1 through 99 must fall. This is both logical, and what
we
would expect to see.
is logically flawed. Consider again our row of dominos, except now
it
extends off into infinity. There is no beginning, no domino number
1. For a
given domino in the line, let's call it domino A, we can ask the following
question: Will domino A ever fall? Before domino A can fall, all the
dominos
in the sequence before it must fall. In the finite series of 100 dominos
mentioned above, this meant that dominos 1 through 99 must fall before
domino 100 could be reached.
fall before domino A can even be reached. The problem is that an infinite
number of dominos will never finish falling, even if given an infinite
amount of time (i.e., forever). This is because no matter how many
dominos
have already fallen, there would always be an infinite number remaining
to
fall before domino A is reached. For domino A to fall would require
an
infinite sequence be completed, something which by definition is impossible.
preceding the current moment is fallacious.
> Also, an infinite regress of causes does not imply an infinite
amount of
> time since the time intervals between the causes may have a finite
sum. Even
> if this sum is unbounded, there would be no event X in the past
such that an
> infinite time has passed from X until now. There is no "first"
event in this
> infinite chain.
each contingent entity, you have a chain:
infinite regress of causes in time, then you, viz., c(0) would never
actuate, you would never come into existence because the infinite cannot
be
traversed. And bear in mind this has nothing to do with the amount
of time.
eternal, to say, however, as you are saying, that an infinite regress
of
causes is possible in a finite amount of time is sheer nonsense.
Nevertheless, I am not interested in time so much, my only comment
on that
was that it is a possible exit for the atheist to state that the universe
is
eternal, but this has already been dismissed, alongside further arguments
which have refuted the possibility of an infinite regress of temporal
events.
Wasalaam,
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2000 3:38am
Subject: The Great Debate III - Another KCA For FTMecca.
2. Possible.
2.1 Self-caused.
2.2 Caused.
2.3 Uncaused.
3. Necessary.
(ii) Possible. (iii) Necessary.
Wasalaam,
Date: Sat Sep 30, 2000 11:18pm
Subject: The Great Debate IV
Sorry I took two weeks to reply... I was very busy with school and life,
but I will now answer your three emails with regards to the "Great Debate."
> argument, I am referring to a creating cause.
> to demonstrate that the universe has a cause which
> brought it into existence. That's all. Whether it's a conscious
> or natural one is irrelevant at this point in the debate.
> premise that:
>
> 1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of it's existence.
> contradiction which you agreed with.
> (reduction to absurdity) to demonstrate the impossibility of an
> eternal universe. The argument which I shall state and defend
in
> this particular composition is as follows:
>
> (i) If the series of past events is beginningless, then it
> constitutes either a simultaneously existing actual infinite
> or a series formed by successive addition.
> (ii) It cannot be a simultaneously existing actual infinite
> (first KCA).
> (second KCA).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> (iv) Therefore, the series of events is not beginningless.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Using your terminology, let us label sequences of time as
> t(n), where the letter n = -1, -2, -3, ... denotes specific
> 'moments' going back in time, thus, our current time is
> t(0) = 0. So if the universe is eternal, we have a completed
> set that is actually infinite. Let's get into some mental
> gymnastics now ...
>
> To illustrate why an actual infinite set cannot exist, I am
> going to resort to Zeno's (Zeno of Elea) paradoxes ...
> are going to compete. Achilles, being the sportsman that he is,
> grants the tortoise a head start. But when Achilles begins his
> run after the tortoise has reached a certain distance then the
> supposition that a straight line on the racetrack has an infinite
> number of points promotes a paradox. Zeno shows that Achilles,
> in order to catch up to his opponent, must first arrive at
> the point where the tortoise was. In so doing, the tortoise
> naturally has advanced to another point on this racing line.
> Even if the tortoise only moves a relatively short distance,
> Achilles still has the task of reaching that point before
> proceeding any further. But, again, the tortoise has
> already moved on to another point on the line. On the surface,
> Achilles seems to be closing in on the tortoise, but since he
> must first traverse the same points already covered by the
> tortoise then he will never overtake his opponent.
> Achilles will never catch up. The tortoise still retains
> victory since he knows that Achilles must reach those same
> points before he can catch up.
> infinite number of divided fractions and never achieve a
> result equaling the next whole number. This seems to show
> that an infinite number of midpoints can never be achieved.
> exists then such a number results in self-contradictory
> answers.
> infinite since this would imply that a lagging racer could
> never reach his winning opponent no matter how long he
> has and how slow the winner moves.
> Hilbert's Hotel.
> Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When
> a new guest arrives asking for a room, the
> proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full."
> But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number
> of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full.
> There is not a single vacant room throughout the
> entire infinite hotel.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Now comes a totally separate argument. Even if I grant that
> an actual infinite can exist, it is still impossible to reach
> one through addition.
> of infinite temporal events, t(0) = 0) there is an actual
> infinite set of temporal events, in other words, we have
> crossed, or traversed the infinite. Can this
> be possible? Certainly not.
> conform to this principle. But when we repose the simple
> realm of finite numbers into the realm of transfinite
> numbers, our world principle begins to break down. Sure, one
> could easily look at this and say that this principle works
> with finite numbers but not with transfinite numbers and
> avoid the complications altogether. But I see this response
> unwarranted and arbitrary. It supposes that transfinite
> mathematics can be categorized apart from finite mathematics.
> This means that if I count to the highest finite number then
> the rule that the "whole is greater than its parts" applies.
> This implies that if I count one more number then the rule
> breaks down.
> Bertrand Russell believed that an actual infinite could be
> accomplished as long as the counter possessed an actually
> infinite number of years to complete the task.
> Tristram Shandy. Sterne writes about Tristram Shandy as an
> extraordinarily slow individual committed to writing an
> autobiography. However, he is so slow that it takes him one
> year of writing in order to complete only one day of his
> personal history. This means that the most recent event that
> could be recorded is the day that occurred only one year ago.
> As Shandy writes an additional day, it takes him an additional
> year to complete the events of that day. Russell uses this
> example and believes that an actual infinite can be achieved
> through successive addition only if Shandy has an infinite
> number of days to complete it.
> something not true of usual, finite numbers.
> !0 + 1 = !0
> infinity is still infinity, then the principle that the
> whole is greater than the parts does not apply here.
> Shandy paradox in his essay on the existence of infinity
> in the past.
> catching up on history, he would eventually be infinitely
> far behind.
> with Craig. I think both Russell and Smith have failed to
> convince me otherwise. At this point I will limit my
> response to Bertrand Russell's view of the Tristram Shandy
> paradox.
> duration through successive addition arrive at an
> actual infinite?"
> possibility of achieving an actual infinite through
> successive addition, we know a few things. Even though the
> Tristram Shandy paradox of the slow autobiographer
> was designed to show why such a successive addition is not
> possible, Russell believed that the solution required Shandy
> to have an infinite number of days to complete his task.
> the notion of sets and proper subsets to prove the point.
> William Lane Craig suggested that Russell had focused on the
> wrong issue and that the problem rested not in the necessary
> time to complete it but, rather, on the sufficiency of
> consecutive counting. I concluded with two reasons why Russell
> had failed to solve the puzzle. I had suggested that
> Russell's solution actually increased the problem and then
> extended it to successive segments of time.
>
> These reasons constitute why an actual infinite cannot truly
> be achieved by successive addition.
> The original format of the argument I gave at the start of this
> posting was as follows:
>
> 1. If X, then either A or B.
> 2. Not A.
> 3. Not B.
> ----------------------------
> 4. Therefore, not X
> beginningless is false, and has been refuted by demonstrating
> the falsity of the postulated axioms which are derived from
> an eternal past, viz., an infinite set of temporal events.
> {... -3, -2, -1, 0} and what I am asserting is that you
> may be able to construct such a set hypothetically speaking,
> nevertheless, it fails in it's applications as I have
> demonstrated via various paradoxical illustrations, such as
> Zeno's Paradoxes, Hilbert's Hotel and Tristram Shandy,
> which spawn all sorts of counter-intuitive absurdities.
> and effects is logically flawed. Consider again our row of
> dominos, except now it extends off into infinity. There is no
> beginning, no domino number 1. For a given domino in the line,
> let's call it domino A, we can ask the following question: Will
> domino A ever fall? Before domino A can fall, all the dominos
> in the sequence before it must fall. In the finite series of
> 100 dominos mentioned above, this meant that dominos 1 through
> 99 must fall before domino 100 could be reached.
> For an infinite sequence, this means that an infinite number
> of dominos must fall before domino A can even be reached. The
> problem is that an infinite number of dominos will never finish
> falling, even if given an infinite amount of time (i.e.,
> forever). This is because no matter how many dominos
> have already fallen, there would always be an infinite number
> remaining to fall before domino A is reached. For domino A to
> fall would require an infinite sequence be completed, something
> which by definition is impossible.
> sequence of causes preceding the current moment is fallacious.
> antecedent cause of each contingent entity, you have a chain:
> ... c(-3) --> c(-2) --> c(-1) --> c(0)
> where you may substitute your own existence for c(0). If,
> there is an infinite regress of causes in time, then you,
> viz., c(0) would never actuate, you would never come into
> existence because the infinite cannot be traversed. And bear
> in mind this has nothing to do with the amount of time.
> If we postulate an infinite regress of causes
> {...c(-3), c(-2), c(-1), c(0)}
> universe is eternal, to say, however, as you are saying, that
> an infinite regress of causes is possible in a finite amount
> of time is sheer nonsense. Nevertheless, I am not interested
> in time so much, my only comment on that was that it is a
> possible exit for the atheist to state that the universe is
> eternal, but this has already been dismissed, alongside further
> arguments which have refuted the possibility of an infinite
> regress of temporal events.
> ----------
> 1. Impossible.
> 2. Possible.
> 2.1 Self-caused.
> 2.2 Caused.
> 2.3 Uncaused.
> 3. Necessary.
[...]
> To see why there are possible beings, one must understand
> what a necessary being would be, if, in fact, it did exist.
> Since it is impossible for a necessary being not to exist,
> it cannot have any potentiality with regard to existence.
> obviously, for change to exist, there must be the potentiality
> for change. However, a purely actual existence has no
> potentiality with regard to its actuality. Therefore, a necessary
> being must be unchanging.
> from immutability because if there is no change, then there
> is no time.
> which has potentiality can be limited. But pure actuality does
> not have any potential; so necessary existence is not limited,
> but unlimited.
> limitation and potentiality. But since a necessary being
> involves none of the latter, there can be no multiplicity
> in its being; it must be completely (5) one.
Last Updated: Tuesday,
September 4, 2001
[email protected]
If for FTMecca Eyes Only
specify in the e-mail