BrotherZak
Junior Member
for the argument of a god
Its referred to as kalam cosmological argument and dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al Ghazali and it has recently been restored to popularity by the Philosopher William Lane Craig.
Let me summarize its points very frankly
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is, by RATIONAL NECESSITY is an uncaused ?entity?.
Therefore:
5. An uncaused, unique and totally transcendental entity exists
time and space are part of the universe then if the whole universe had a cause that cause could not be subject to time and space. So rationally, it would not be possible to subject any of these concepts to this cause. Also, the very fact that this cause must be uncaused is a rational necessity.
A simple example destroys this rational fallacy of infinite regression: This can be thought of like reserving a book from the university library that is in heavy demand (for the sake of argument let us agree this is the only copy available). If there were four people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four to finish before using it for your assignment. Similarly if there were four thousand people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four thousand to finish before using it. If an unlimited, infinite (i.e. endless) number of reservations stood between you and the book you would never receive it as an endless number sequence would never end?..It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of events thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity. The universe has not always existed.?
This means that if there is always a cause for every cause we would never have had the existence of the universe as each cause will be dependent on its own cause. If that is the case, an infinite number of causes would inevitably mean no existence. Another example is:
?The same example is often illustrated by reference to a sniper requiring an instruction from his superior in his chain of command to open fire. Of course his superior has to wait till his own superior directs him and so on up the chain. If the chain of command were only ten minutes long the sniper would have to wait ten minutes for the command to fire. If it were one hundred years long the sniper would take one hundred years for the command to fire. If the chain were unlimited, it would be infinite, endless and the sniper would never receive the order to fire. It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of event thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity.?
Using the words of another friend Hakan Cerrah, ?the concept of an actual infinite has no ontological export into the real world?, that is, it can?t be found anywhere. Look at the famous Hilbert?s Hotel paradox that infinite infinity can only be conceptualized but is not really possibly. "??the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea?.(Hilbert, 1964, p139"
Another example of the fallacy of infinite is that if there was an infinite set of past events and each event requires the previous event to occur, would we ever have the present? Of course not. This is because if today is dependent upon the fact that yesterday happened, and there is an infinite set of these dependencies (i.e. forever) - today will have not occurred.
in conclusion If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. Thus proving rationally that the cause must be uncaused...this flow of logic only proves that their must be an uncaused caused and deos not prove a model of god..thats up to religion
soruce: hamza tziortiz blog http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/
Its referred to as kalam cosmological argument and dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al Ghazali and it has recently been restored to popularity by the Philosopher William Lane Craig.
Let me summarize its points very frankly
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is, by RATIONAL NECESSITY is an uncaused ?entity?.
Therefore:
5. An uncaused, unique and totally transcendental entity exists
time and space are part of the universe then if the whole universe had a cause that cause could not be subject to time and space. So rationally, it would not be possible to subject any of these concepts to this cause. Also, the very fact that this cause must be uncaused is a rational necessity.
A simple example destroys this rational fallacy of infinite regression: This can be thought of like reserving a book from the university library that is in heavy demand (for the sake of argument let us agree this is the only copy available). If there were four people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four to finish before using it for your assignment. Similarly if there were four thousand people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four thousand to finish before using it. If an unlimited, infinite (i.e. endless) number of reservations stood between you and the book you would never receive it as an endless number sequence would never end?..It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of events thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity. The universe has not always existed.?
This means that if there is always a cause for every cause we would never have had the existence of the universe as each cause will be dependent on its own cause. If that is the case, an infinite number of causes would inevitably mean no existence. Another example is:
?The same example is often illustrated by reference to a sniper requiring an instruction from his superior in his chain of command to open fire. Of course his superior has to wait till his own superior directs him and so on up the chain. If the chain of command were only ten minutes long the sniper would have to wait ten minutes for the command to fire. If it were one hundred years long the sniper would take one hundred years for the command to fire. If the chain were unlimited, it would be infinite, endless and the sniper would never receive the order to fire. It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of event thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity.?
Using the words of another friend Hakan Cerrah, ?the concept of an actual infinite has no ontological export into the real world?, that is, it can?t be found anywhere. Look at the famous Hilbert?s Hotel paradox that infinite infinity can only be conceptualized but is not really possibly. "??the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea?.(Hilbert, 1964, p139"
Another example of the fallacy of infinite is that if there was an infinite set of past events and each event requires the previous event to occur, would we ever have the present? Of course not. This is because if today is dependent upon the fact that yesterday happened, and there is an infinite set of these dependencies (i.e. forever) - today will have not occurred.
in conclusion If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. Thus proving rationally that the cause must be uncaused...this flow of logic only proves that their must be an uncaused caused and deos not prove a model of god..thats up to religion
soruce: hamza tziortiz blog http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/
