The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Ouroboros]

I'm not a big fan of Objectivism.

 

Maybe that's the problem! You need to be more objective!

[MrSpooky]

I have. If you assume that our universe came from a vacuum fluctuation then you also have to assume that there is something outside our universe, such as a superuniverse, from whence our universe came.

 

Why do I have to? Again, I do not subscribe to your conception of causality in which it is a metaphysical relation between two entities. Heck, I find the concept quite problematic.

 

 

 

It sounded like you were saying that physical make up makes us act in a certain way. I'll have to think about it more. I'm not a big fan of Objectivism.

 

Me neither, if only because it's associated with Ayn Rand. However, I find the a priori conception of causality to be a fully founded conception of causality rather as opposed to the a posteriori conception that is classically carried. It avoids the Problem of Induction entirely.

 

And while I am a materialist, I'm not so sure if I'm a determinist. As a Berkeley CogSci major, I can't help but avoid some influence from Searle.

 

 

 

At the quantum level, things behave differently than they do at the macrolevel. For example particles (vacuum fluctuations) can appear and disappear spontaneaosly, but a dog, won't just disappear in thin air. Yes, they influence each other, but they are different than one another.You are committing the fallacy of composition.

 

Strawman. I am merely saying that a sufficient explanation would be that it is possible that a chain of events can extend from the quantum level to affect the macroscopic level. Hell, this is the very basis of modern scientific cosmology! One cannot say that the quantum level influences the macroscopic level and yet deny that a massive (though incredibly rare) vacuum genesis event would have a substantive macroscopic effect.

 

 

 

It is a basic principle of metaphysics. it is axiomatic. We encounter 1000's of things everyday and the underlying assumption is that there is a reason for it's existence. And as I explained, there are indirect causes of vacuum fluctuations. It is safe to assume that whatever that comes into existence has a cause. That everything has a cause may not be able to be empirically proven, but it is a proposition that is presupposed by rational thought.

 

I don't reject causality, rather, I reject your INTERPRETATION of causality. The dynamic version of causality you subscribe to has no support. While it is true that "it is safe to assume" such things, I disagree with the intellectual pragmatism that this implies.

 

And yes, causality IS presupposed by rational thought (I will admit a certain admiration for Kant) but again, I disagree with your interpretation of what causality means and what is implied. It is one thing to say that causality exists a priori, it is entirely another to use an a posteriori conception of causality as an extension of that.

 

 

 

The only time atheists reject this premise is when they are objecting to the CA.

 

This is a little too close to whinging for me. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

 

 

However, there is again a main point to be said when addressing these higher-level aspects of the Kalam...

 

The conclusion, "God exists," directly contradicts the premise "Everything that exists exists due to a cause."

[Ouroboros]

The conclusion, "God exists," directly contradicts the premise "Everything that exists exists due to a cause."

 

It says it all.

 

Amen, and Bob Bless y'all!

[MrSpooky]

I've mentioned that like, what, four times? Blarg!

[Ouroboros]

I've mentioned that like, what, four times?  Blarg!

 

Blarg?

 

Is that one of the lower level (sub-divine) gods under Bob?

 

He must be the creator of paradoxes, and he wears a Pair-of-Dockers!

 

It’s funny;

A paradox proves that God created the world.

The world is not perfect, because it contains paradoxes.

So, God wasn’t so intelligent after all.

 

 

Btw, I totally appreciate that you, MrSpooky, is part of this site. And that you can from knowledge and intellect give a more skilled challenge for the highly educated Trolls that occasionally come and visit us.

 

You have my full respect.

 

And I hope you don’t mind I give my layman opinions in this kind of debates.

 

[Edit]

What about this paradox:

God is a being (G=E)

God is a being greater than any other being in existence (G>E)

Hence, God is greater than himself (G>G)

 

Oopsidaisy!

 

So either God is not a being (G<>E), then what is he?

Or God is not greater than any other begin (G<=E), then he's not omnipotent.

[spamandham]

Dang. I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

 

Causality requires a natural framework. There is nothing to suggest that causality applies outside the context of spacetime, and it is nonsense to even speak in such a manner. What we call causality is nothing more than inference from past experience.

 

To talk of something being caused without such a framework is gibberish. To say that the universe has a cause is to imply a natural context outside the universe in which such causality happened (note that past tense also implies the existence of spacetime prior to the existence of the universe - spacetime).

 

Nothing has ever been observed to begin to exist. Everything that has ever been observed is a rearrangement of that which pre-existed, not a new creation from "nothing". There is nothing to suggest that anything has an absolute beginning.

 

Only the present actually exists. The past is not actual in that sense. It may be infinite because it is not actual. Regardless, the word "infinity" does not represetn a number. It is nothing more than the inability to bound something. There's no logical reason that the universe can not actually be unbounded in one or more senses.

 

There is a field of mathematics devoted to non-natural numbers that allows for things such as a+1=a, when a refers to an unbounded quantity (infinite).

 

The KCA has been disassembled by philosophers for many many years already. It seems only theists don't know about the refutations.

 

For xray, how can god cause the universe to exist outside the context of spacetime? Note that it incomprehensible to speak of anything "before the universe" or "outside the universe".

[X-Ray]

I am too tired to hash out anything deep right now, but I wanted to say a few things before I go to bed.

 

On the note of cause:

The definition of cause used in the KCA is the conception of something which brings about or produces its effects.

 

The conclusion, "God exists," directly contradicts the premise "Everything that exists exists due to a cause."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given this premise, I agree with you.

 

You said that you have mentioned this four times. Well I also mentioned a few times that you should reread the first premise of the KCA and then reconsider this statement. I wanted to give you guys a chance to think about it for a while and discover it for yourselves. This is the main point on how the KCA differs from the GCA. But, alas, I will just tell you. The GCA states that everything can be explained or everything has a cause whereas the KCA states that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Nowhere does the KCA say, or even imply, that everything must have a cause.

 

This is a little too close to whinging for me. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

This is not whining. I am stating a truth. If we were engaged in another discussion far removed from cosmology, say archeology, the idea that something has no cause would not come up.

[X-Ray]

It’s funny;

A paradox proves that God created the world.

The world is not perfect, because it contains paradoxes.

So, God wasn’t so intelligent after all.

You're right, it is funny. You are not understanding the argument. The argument is not saying that a paradox proves God. Reread it. The argument shows that the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. In order to do that it needs to show why the universe has a beginning and one of the ways to do that is to show that it is paradoxical to have an actual infinite. By reading one of your most recent posts here in this thread in which you explore the hotel paradox, I think you understand it, but just don't want to accept it.

You know, Isaac Newton realized that his laws led to the rejection of absolute space, but he did not want to accept it.

[Ouroboros]

You're right, it is funny.  You are not understanding the argument.  The argument is not saying that a paradox proves God.  Reread it.  The argument shows that the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause.  In order to do that it needs to show why the universe has a beginning and one of the ways to do that is to show that it is paradoxical to have an actual infinite.  By reading one of your most recent posts here in this thread in which you explore the hotel paradox, I think you understand it, but just don't want to accept it. 

You know, Isaac Newton realized that his laws led to the rejection of absolute space, but he did not want to accept it.

 

Ok, I will read your postulate again tomorrow when my brain is rested.

And then we'll see if I can sort it out.

 

And you're right, I understand the paradox, and yes, I have a hard time accepting it as an proof.

 

So can I say I share the same space as Isaac Newton then?

[MrSpooky]

The GCA states that everything can be explained or everything has a cause whereas the KCA states that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Nowhere does the KCA say, or even imply, that everything must have a cause.

 

That's nice, but this, I think, is an even worse contingency for the KCA. It reduces from a philosophical matter to a mere scientific matter. Does modern cosmology have all the answers yet? No, not really. However, we do have a context that seems to demonstrate that the Big Bang appears explicable within the realm of natural law.

 

The problem then becomes one in which the KCA is merely an Argument from Ignorance... we only have a vague idea of what happened before the Big Bang, so it's postulated that "it's magic" is the best answer.

 

God of Gaps, through and through.

[thomas]

Please forgive me for being a little critical, but how is this mathematically problematic?

 

EDIT:  Never mind, I thought about it a little more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, my first reply was very unclear, so I want to give it one more try.

 

The basic problem when thinking about infinity is, that we so easy may apply logic, that only is valid in a context of finite values. And I think that this is what happens, when x-ray presents Hilbert's Hotel.

 

The way math (at least the kind of math I am familiar with) deals with infinity is to make extrapolations from the finite towards infinity. If we for example consider a hotel with 10 (single) rooms and we know it is filed, then we can easily figure out, that there also must be 10 persons in that hotel. If an extra person shows up, there will of course be no rooms available, since the new demand (11 rooms) exceeds the supply (10 rooms). In order to compare the demand and the supply, it may be relevant to calculate a ratio, for example the demand divided by the supply. In the case of 10 rooms and on extra person the ratio will be 11/10 = 1.1 = 110 %.

 

Now, what happens if this situation is extrapolated towards infinity. Well, then the number of rooms can be represented by X and then demand for rooms is then X + 1. The ratio then becomes (X + 1) / X = 1 + 1/X. For X = 10 this formula still gives 110%, for X = 100 the ratio is 101% and as X grows and grows, the ratio comes closer and closer to 100%. And this seems very consistent with the Hilbert Hotel, where an extra persons matters nothing compared to infinity. So in this case, there is so to speak balance between the infinite number of rooms and the infinite number of persons even when a finite number of extra persons show up.

 

Now what happens at the Hilbert Hotel, if we ask all the guests to invite a friend. Will there be room for them? Because we have a infinite number of rooms, we can always find room for a finite number of extra guests, but is the infinity of rooms so to speak big enough for the infinite number of extra guests?

 

If we once again look at it by making extrapolations towards infinity, we can say that the demand for rooms will be 2*X, and the ratio will be (2*X)/X = 200%. When X now is extrapolated towards infinity the ration will remain 200%. So in this situation, there will be no balance. The infinity of demand will so to speak be twice as big as the infinity of rooms.

 

And in a similar way, we can also imagine the opposite situation, where half of the people are told to go home. Then the hotel will only be half full, even when we extrapolate the situation towards an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of people.

 

So an infinite hotel with and infinite number of guests can both be halfway filled, filled, or overloaded. It all depends on the extrapolations you make in your own mind, when our are going to imagine the infinite hotel.

 

In my first reply I objected to the notion, that “let’s suppose that each room is occupied”. In an infinite situation, I am not sure that “occupation” is a well defined concept. But nevertheless, I think it is okay to use it, because what is implied, is that the extrapolation involved is based on a balanced situation where the demand/supply ratio is X/X = 100%. But it goes wrong, when x-ray later objects to the idea that, “It is also impossible that a hotel can have vacancies and not have vacancies at the same time”. How does x-ray know that? From his experience and thinking about finite matters. (Actually Hilbert's Hotel is very well in line with another point in x-ray's post, where he says that finity cannot sum up into infinity)

 

So the conslussion cannot be, that infinity does not exist, the conslussion is, that we easily may get it mixed up, because our concepts and imagination about infinity are poor.

[thomas]

Bravo!  You have just uncovered another difficulty of the argument.  You understand where I am coming from now and why an actual infinite is impossible.

 

Herbert’s Hotel is a thought experiment used to describe what an actual infinite would entail.  Since there are no actual infinites it is necessary to revert to the use of thought experiments to express the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do understand (together with the rest of ths board), that we are not looking at actual infinities here, but making extrapolations based on finities. But the thought experiment does not show, that actual infinities do not exist. It only shows (provided that we can learn anything from our extrapolations), that they behave othervise, than you are expecting.

 

Allow me to give another example. The area of a perfect dot is zero. Can you draw a line by putting a lot of dots besides each other? Or if you already have a line, does the line become longer by adding a dot in the end of it?

 

The obvious ansert is no, a finite number of dots cannot make a line, or make an existing line longer. But does this mean, that lines does not exist?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Re: Hilbert's Hotel and actual infinite

 

Thought experiment 1: imagine all matter in the universe speeding away from the "center" that we call the locus of the Big Bang. Some people postulate that the universe eventually will diffuse itself to the point that all matter is effectively dispersed and there is no "universe"

 

Thought experiment 2: Hilbert's Hotel keeps adding visitors and rooms to infinity, expanding in all directions without limit

 

At some time t Hilbert's Hotel becomes coterminous with the universe? Or does it keep expanding in material form while all the atoms in the universe have become separated from each other? Or do the universe and Hilbert's Hotel bend back on each other and themselves in some way? Or are the universe and Hilbert's Hotel metaphors of the... (drumroll)... TEXT?? ha ha

 

Sorry, just threw that last one in there for fun.

 

Anyway, this guy is not sure we're talking about anything meaningful when we talk about actual infinites.

 

But that aside--

 

X-ray spoke of an actual infinite series of events. Unlike a guest or a room, an event is not a single thing. Any event can be subdivided into littler events. I'd say there is an infinite number of events between 1938 and today, ditto between 1937 and 1938.. These are potential infinites in Aristotle's terms. A second problem, to which Ari pointed, is that an event does not perdure. Events that happened before the present moment do not exist now. That's because an event is not a substance. So the person adding all events going back into the past is not adding any collection of items that exist at the same time. Therefore the sum of all events is not an actual infinite.

 

My view right now is that X-ray's premise 2.12 in his first subargument, i.e. an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite, is false.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I must commend you, however, for submitting your own work.  Your piece reminded me suspiciously of William Lane Craig's article on the Kalam, but I notice that you seem to have mainly drawn inspiration from him, you haven't plagarized.

 

Kudos to you.  Honestly.

 

 

For what it's worth, this is the outline of the Kalam Argument given by Wm. Lane Craig, which X-ray seems to have copied and then defended in slightly modified form:

 

"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its

existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

 

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an

actual infinite.

 

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

 

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of

the formation of an actual infinite by

successive addition.

 

2.21 A collection formed by successive

addition cannot be actually infinite.

2.22 The temporal series of past events

is a collection formed by successive

addition.

2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of

past events cannot be actually

infinite.

 

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its

existence. "

 

For Craig's article cf. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

 

Infidel Web has been the site of many discussions of the Kalam Argument. See e.g.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...smological.html

[spamandham]

1.0 There are no actual infinites

2.0 God is defined as an actual infinite

 

The rest is left as an exercise.

[♦ ficino ♦]

...how can god cause the universe to exist outside the context of spacetime?  Note that it incomprehensible to speak of anything "before the universe" or "outside the universe".

 

Good point. How about something like this, to continue spamandham's thought:

 

1. If X begins to exist, there was a time when X did not exist

2. Time is a function of change

3. Every instance of change occurs within space

4. Space is a property of the universe

Therefore (skipping some steps) there is no time when the universe did not exist

Therefore the universe did not begin to exist

[Ouroboros]

Kalam Cause and Purpose Conclusion Antithesis

 

I realized that there is not need to argue about the Hotel Paradox and its validity, instead I made the decision to argue the conclusion of the KCA, and not the logic in the argument itself. There are some assumptions made in the argument that I will bring up and discuss as well.

 

Sentient Cause or Non-Sentient Cause

 

Even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, it still doesn't prove that the First Cause would be conscious and sentient. It only proves that beyond our physical world there is a meta-physical world that we yet have to discover.

 

Discussions about curvature of space, extra spatial dimensions, black holes and wormholes only proves that scientist know that there is more to space than we currently know.

 

There are still a lot to understand when it comes to Quantum Mechanics and the dual nature of light. The explanations might lead us to believe in multiple universes, like the Ekpyrotic Universe Model.

 

I don’t see a huge problem with the Kalam argument, but I don’t agree with the conclusion that this proves that there is a Supreme Being as the First Cause.

 

The First Cause can be as non-intelligent and irrational, as an earthquake is to a rock, when it makes it start rolling down a hill.

 

For millennia people believed many natural events were caused by a supreme being with a purpose in mind, but with modern science it has been proven to be natural causes to natural events, and not supernatural causes to natural events.

 

Kalam only leads to the conclusion that the universe, in the state as we know it right now, came from a different state, and this “proto-universe” was not tied to the same physical laws of nature that we now have.

 

We still don’t know the laws that had to apply to the “proto-universe” before big bang. The big bang is still a mystery and the theories are constantly in flux.

 

The first few moments of the big bang had had to contradict many of our current physical laws. For instance, the big bang happened in a fraction of a second, and the universe expanded to 70-80% of its currents size.

 

Kalam only can state B came from A. Which all of us know and agree with, but not all of us agree that it automatically would imply that A was sentient and intentional.

 

Kalam equals Cause with Purpose, which doesn’t get proven, not even by using the Hotel Paradox.

 

Like I said above the universe is an enormous and delicately balanced place that contains all there is. Thus in order to create the enormous universe from nothing and bring it to fruition the creator must be all-powerful.

 

He makes here the assumption that an enormous finite universe has to be created by a creator (the creator). He uses the term Creator without definition, but still uses it in a way that in most everyone will trigger the thought of a conscious being.

 

But this doesn’t have to be the case. Why do I say this?

 

Look at it this way:

We live in a black box, and we only know partially how the black box works, we don’t know if the black box we live in is just part of a larger machinery of black boxes. It would be a Russian Doll/Black Box scenario where the event of “Creation” does have a Cause, but not a Purpose for the Cause. Our box is just output from a function in a larger scale black box.

 

This Russian Doll/Black Box scenario can also be developed ad infinitum.

 

It’s dangerous to make the leap from Cause to Purpose, and use the argument for Cause to argue the Purpose. They do not necessarily relate. Most events in this universe have non-purpose causes.

 

Within the creation of the universe was the creation of space-time. Since space-time was created with the universe it stands to reason that it did not exist before the creation of the universe. Thus, the entity that created the universe must be atemporal and non-spatial and exist separately from space-time and the universe. By extension this being must be changeless because atemporality necessitates changelessness as time can only be measured between events or when the state of something that exists changes. Also, by extension, this being must be immaterial since changeless and timelessness entail immateriality as the result of absence of corporeal substance. With no time before the universe the creator must also be beginningless and uncaused. Only a timeless entity could create a place with a temporal effect included.

 

This is not necessarily true! You can’t make assumptions on the meta-physical world based on restricted thought and understanding limited to this world. It could just as well have been a dog that barfed out the universe. Maybe it was a temporal discrepancy in the fabric of the brane universe causing a cataclysmic event to take place? Time could exist in the meta-framework, just not the same kind of time as we have.

 

What types of causes are there? There are scientific causes and personal causes in terms of the agents and the choices they make. There are scientific causes such as the laws of nature. But the universe could not possibly have a scientific cause since nothing precedes it. It might also suffice to say that the laws of physics are created at the Big Bang. So that leaves us with personal cause.

 

Not true. It only leaves us with a metaphysical cause. “Personal” is a word referring to an entity of a conscious mind, and it assumes that a metaphysical world only can contain personal entities. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

 

Since we discussed the Creator as being immaterial let me ask another question: What are the only things that are immaterial? If you answered minds (in terms of consciousness and higher mental functions) and abstract objects, you are right. Since abstract objects are incapable of carrying out causal relationships, the cause of the universe must be the only other choice: a mind

 

The only thing we can imagine being immaterial is our mind, but again, that’s assuming that a “mind” is the only thing that can be immaterial. We still wouldn’t know what the metaphysical world would contain. Everything in the metaphysical world would be immaterial to us. God’s little dog Barky Bob is just as immaterial to us as our mind is.

 

If you know anything about computers and programming, different levels of language, maybe you can appreciate this illustration:

High level programming languages are just as immaterial in concept and design to the CPU, as the metaphysical world would be to us.

 

If there is nothing, then nothing can be created. A finite universe with a beginning being created from nothing is an absurd notion. For if there is absolute nothingness how could a universe be created, spontaneously, ex nihilo, from it?

 

And yet that is what the Bible states God did, and the argument only God is the one that can create something ex nihilo.

 

: G(N) -> S

 

So again, if it’s possible to create something from nothing, then how can it be impossible to have nothing become something? God basically contradicted the law that proves that he must have created to universe.

 

: C(N) -> S

 

We could agree on “Nothing became something”, but if the cause was A God, or A Machine, you still can not tell.

 

: fn(N) -> S

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

Kalam could be used to prove a Cause for the universe, but it does not prove a Purpose or Intelligence behind it.

 

It tries to do it by slipping in notions about our mind as the only existing evidence of the immaterial.

 

But how can we know that, since our mind is finite, and the immaterial we try to explain is infinite.

 

Maybe the mind is not immaterial after all, because to believe that, it takes a leap of faith and not reason.

 

X-Ray, prove to me the Purpose or the Intention of the Cause, and then we can discuss Gods existence.

 

 

Reference:

 

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclope...k/Ekpyrotic.htm

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/physics/

[Ouroboros]

Okay, since paradoxes are used to prove things, let’s play a little mind game with another Infinite Regression Paradox here:

 

We all know from math that these rules apply:

1) A/A = 1

2) A/A = A * 1/A

 

Now take the fraction: 1/3

If we write out the result of 1/3, it would come out as 0.33333… (Infinite)

And as we know: 1 = 3/3

 

So let us put it all together:

 

1 = 3/3

=>

3/3 = 3 * 1/3

=>

3 * 1/3 = 3 * 0.3333…(inf)

=>

3 * 0.3333…(inf) = 0.9999…(inf)

=>

1 = 0.9999…(inf)

 

Huh! The Number One is an Infinite Regression of the decimal 9?

So does the number one really exist then?

 

Can you see where the error is done?

[spamandham]

...

1 = 0.9999…(inf)

 

Huh! The Number One is an Infinite Regression of the decimal 9?

So does the number one really exist then?

 

Can you see where the error is done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's no error. 0.999 (inf) is identical to '1'.

 

By the way, did anyone else notice that 0.999 (inf) is an actual infinite?

[IAm_Lucifer]

I think spamandham summarised the argument put forth best,

 

1.0 There are no actual infinites

2.0 God is defined as an actual infinite

 

I do not have a great depth of knowledge about this topic but I never understood exactly how a God is exempt from the first premise the fundies try to argue.

 

I pretty much hear "Everything has a cause... except God".

 

Why?

[X-Ray]

For what it's worth, this is the outline of the Kalam Argument given by Wm. Lane Craig, which X-ray seems to have copied and then defended in slightly modified form:

 

"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its

existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

 

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an

    actual infinite.

 

      2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

      2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

      2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

 

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of

      the formation of an actual infinite by

      successive addition.

 

      2.21 A collection formed by successive

              addition cannot be actually infinite.

      2.22 The temporal series of past events

              is a collection formed by successive

              addition.

      2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of

              past events cannot be actually

              infinite.

 

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its

existence. "

 

For Craig's article cf. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

 

Infidel Web has been the site of many discussions of the Kalam Argument.  See e.g.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...smological.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I already went over this. There is only one KCA. So I am using the framework thereof. I could not very well just make stuff up.

 

When someone discussed the general Cosmological argument they use the basic structure of:

 

1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

2) The universe exists.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.

5) Therefore, God exists.

 

or a small variant thereof. Why would the KCA be any different

 

Craig is not the only person who has discussed the KCA, he is just the main proponent.

[X-Ray]

1.0  There are no actual infinites

2.0  God is defined as an actual infinite

 

The rest is left as an exercise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I already discussed this also. The infinite nature of God is qualitative, not quantitative. Theists refer to God as infinitely perfect, infitely omniscent, etc. God is not an cllection of infinite numbers.

[X-Ray]

This is what I find so problematic with Craig's arguments about infinity.  They never clarify exactly what CONTEXT in which he uses the term "infinity."

This ties in with my previous post.

 

I believe the meaning is implicit in the context. I would assume that, when someone talks about God, you would not infer an aggregate of numbers.

[Asimov]

1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

 

What does that mean?

 

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

 

Fallacy of composition.

 

4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.

 

Why?

[X-Ray]

There's no error.  0.999 (inf) is identical to '1'.

 

By the way, did anyone else notice that 0.999 (inf) is an actual infinite?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Numbers are abstract entities. They are tools used to desribe quantities of things and whatnotand take measurements. If a number is real (corporeal), then go find one for me and send it to me. I'll paypal the first person who finds a number for me $50.