Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Craig brought this argument to prominence in the late 20 th century and named it ‘Kalam’ after the Islamic philosophy under which it was first invented in the 11 th century. The causal sequence being temporal, with God as the beginning cause, is a central feature of the argument. It is looking for a beginning cause rather than a sustaining cause. The Kalam cosmological argument explicitly involves temporal causation, i.e., hypothesizing about the implications of events in time being related as cause and effect. The Kalam argument (from temporal causation) The point is we know very little about how time works and should not make assumptions about it, which the cosmological argument does. Or, perhaps time is not even the sort of thing that actually passes and the passing of time is some kind of illusion that beings of our dimensions experience. If a new timeline began upon each contraction, an infinite amount of time would never pass even though the process of expansion and contraction has been going on infinitely. The “big crunch” theory suggests that universes could have been eternally expanding and contracting again. However, Physicists also have theories that suggest that the time which began at the big bang might only have been the time of our universe, and there could be other times or other kinds of time. Modern Physicists think that time could have begun at the big bang, which would fit with Aquinas’ argument. ![]() So there cannot be an infinite amount of time before the present moment and therefore there cannot be an infinite regress. No matter how long you wait, even if you never stop waiting, you will never actually reach infinity. However, an infinite amount of time cannot pass. That means that to get to the present moment, an infinite amount of time must have passed. So there must be an infinite amount of time before the present moment. Craig has at most shown the absurdity of physical infinities but not temporal ones, which is what the infinite regress involves.Īquinas claims an infinite regress is impossiblebecause If there is an infinite regress, then time has existed forever. The infinite library is a flawed analogy because it involves an example of an infinite number of physical objects, but an infinite regress could be a finite number of physical objects existing over an infinite amount of time. ![]() Therefore, the infinite regress cannot exist. His claim is that this is just not how physical objects in reality could possibly function so it’s absurd to think that actual infinities could exist. This is because half of infinity still infinity. If you were to take all the red books out of the library then you would have taken an infinite number of books out, but there would still be an infinite number left. He uses the illustration of a library with an infinite number of books, half red half green. Therefore it is possible and so the cosmological argument rests on an assumption that the infinite regress is false when it could possibly be true.Ĭraig responds that an actual infinity is impossible. However, there doesn’t appear to be anything self-contradictory about the infinite regress. ![]() For example, a four sided triangle is impossible because a triangle having four sides is contradicts the definition of a triangle as a three sided shape. ![]() Hume points out that in order for something to be impossible it must be self-contradictory. If there is an infinite regress of objects going back in time forever, then all forms of the the cosmological argument fail, because God could not be ultimately responsible for the origin of causation or the universe if it had no origin. On the basis of those observations, an inference is then made to the nature of the origin of the universe being God. These observations form the premises of cosmological arguments. The cosmological argument is based on observation of everything in the universe having a cause, being in motion or being contingent and therefore requiring a creator. Cosmological arguments are typically a posteriori arguments, which means they are based on experience. Cosmological arguments attempt to justify the conclusion that God exists as the required explanation of the existence of the universe.Ī posteriori.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |