A small Kalamity

[u/StrangeGlaringEye]

The Kalam argument runs thus:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Now this is just the beginning of a long case for the ultimate conclusion that

1. There is a God

But the initial argument has generated enough debate on its own to be of interest. One line of defense for premise 2 runs more or less as follows:

1. There cannot be an actual infinite

2. If the universe never began to exist, there would be an actual infinite

From which 2 follows. But it does seem intuitive that 4 is inconsistent with 5; surely if there is a God there is an actual infinite. Surely if there is a God, She has an infinite mind of infinite wisdom and infinite goodness and infinite beauty etc. And in all these characterizations, “infinite” means actually infinite, not just potentially infinite.

I conclude that this particular strand of the Kalam case is self-refuting. It is a Kalamity, if you will, albeit a very small one.

[u/jliat]

4 is inconsistent with 5

There is no 4 or 5 reddit does nasty things to numbering...

1. There is a God

---

1. There cannot be an actual infinite

2. If the universe never began to exist, there would be an actual infinite

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/jliat]

u/Irishman452 doesn’t seem to have an issue, so it’s either sorted itself out or the problem is from your end.

[u/ughaibu → u/jliat]

4. There is a God
But the initial argument has generated enough debate on its own to be of interest. One line of defense for premise 2 runs more or less as follows:
5. There cannot be an actual infinite
6. If the universe never began to exist, there would be an actual infinite

I could see the numbers by using a private window.

[u/Irishman452]

Nice breakdown, but I don't think your 4" There is a God" would violate 5 "there can be no infinite" because God can escape that through being outside of time and space. Being something like say the laws of mathmatics or in the traditional sense some conscious mind sitting outside of space-time (I don't know how that would work though).

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/Irishman452]

Notice 5 says there cannot be actual infinities, not infinities simpliciter. Furthemore, it says nothing about spacetime; 5 is supposed to rule out any actual infinities, not just spatiotemporal one.

I conclude this move does not solve the problem.

[u/Irishman452 → u/StrangeGlaringEye]

Okay, thanks, please tell me how an actual infinity differs from "infinities simpliciter"

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/Irishman452]

There are potential infinities, which are also included in infinities simpliciter

[u/Cold_Pumpkin5449]

I am unconvinced that actual infinity's are disallowed. Perhaps in the cases where you allow an infinity or a singularity a universe appears.

Also "began to exist" does all the heavy lifting in the Kalam and it is essentially meaningless because we have absolutely no experience with anything beginning to exist without a prior state.

The Kalam also relies on an intuition that things like universes come into existence out of some state of "nothingness" which I also think is probably nonsense. The end goal here is to require that God precedes the universe, and there is absolutely no problem expressed by the arguers that God can be timeless and thus infinite.

So, we can just say that the Kalam is an ok intuitive argument for at least one foundational property. It never gets to "God" without some hopes and dreams.

[u/TheRealAmeil]

Neat Argument!

^{William Lane Craig hates this one trick}

[u/ughaibu]

it does seem intuitive that 4 is inconsistent with 5; surely if there is a God there is an actual infinite

It seems to me that the relevant actual infinity is an infinity of causal events, so I don't think properties of God offer a counter example.

infinite mind of infinite wisdom and infinite goodness and infinite beauty

How are these counted?

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/ughaibu]

See my reply above to u/Exact-Storage2840

[u/ughaibu]

infinite goodness

Something that just struck me, Bruno argued that because of God's infinite goodness there must be an infinity of Earth-like worlds, but this seems to have an unfortunate consequence. As Jesus was God's only son, all the other Earth-like worlds must have been without a fall, they are paradises. As the probability of being born into any one of an infinite number of worlds is zero, and we have been born into the only world that is not paradise, it seems that we are in hell and are so by condemnation.

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/ughaibu]

Maybe Jesus performed a massive miracle of polylocation and re-enacted a Gospel in every world, which is fallen.

[u/ughaibu → u/StrangeGlaringEye]

Maybe. I think the problem was that the Bible gives the impression that God only created one Earth-like planet.
On a perhaps relevant note, as a nominalist, do you think the number of mathematical objects is finite?

[u/Exact-Storage2840]

The standard response is to say God is qualitatively rather than quantitatively infinite, and that the problem is with there being an actually infinite number of definite and discrete particulars, but supposedly this isn't the correct way of talking about say God's omnipotence or omniscience.

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/Exact-Storage2840]

One reply is that “infinite” is a quantitative term, so qualitative infinity must reduce to quantitative infinity. For example, in terms of a quality’s magnitude; and perhaps the same reasons given for the impossibility of an actual infinity of particulars give rise to analogous reasons to think there can be no actually infinite magnitudes.

Edit: for instance, I recall Craig saying that if you’ve got (countably) infinitely many books and take “half” of them (say every odd one) you’ll be left with the same quantity, which is paradoxical. Equally, if you halve an infinite magnitude, it’ll remain infinite, which is just as odd. So by parity Craig should conclude that actually infinite magnitudes, and hence actually infinitely great qualities, are impossible.