Infinity: No Beginning Means No Beginning
Ask some classical theists what God did before Creation, and they will protest that you cannot take such liberties and argue from the absurdities that result from such a line of thinking.
Yet the same classical theists consider it perfectly acceptable to challenge assumptions about the “infinite” existence of beings by demanding those holding such assumptions explain how an infinitely old being could finish counting from negative infinity to zero and “traverse the infinite lapse of time between Infinity BC and the present.”
Wm Jas Tychonievich explains the problem and muddled thinking inherent in such demands (bold added):
1. Infinite elapsed time
As discussed in my earlier post, the Kalām Cosmological Argument assumes that there can be only two kinds of beings: (1) beings that began to exist a finite amount of time ago; and (2) beings that are atemporal, or "exist outside of time." Everything we know, including the physical universe itself, belongs to the first category; it is therefore necessary to explain their existence by positing a being of the second type, and this is Allah.
The reason given for rejecting a third category -- beings that are temporal but never began to exist -- is that for those beings an infinite amount of time must already have elapsed. They must already be "infinity years old." However, it is impossible for anything to ever be "infinity years old," because time elapses finite step by finite step, and infinity can never be reached by adding up finite quantities.
With the caveat that it is notoriously difficult to think clearly about infinity, I think this argument is in error. It conflates "never began" with "began an infinitely long time ago." Consider by way of analogy the number line of integers. It is infinite, but it would be sloppy thinking to say it extends "from negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity." There is no such number as "infinity" (negative or positive) on the number line. Of all the infinitely many integers on the line, not a single one of them is infinitely distant from zero.
The present moment corresponds to zero, the past to the negative integers, and the future to the positive ones. If I say that my existence (in one form or another) is infinite in both directions, in precisely the same way that the number line is infinite, does that make me "infinity years old"? No.
The Kalām Argument assumes that an infinite amount of time must have elapsed from "the beginning" to the present -- missing the point that there was no beginning. A billion years ago, I existed; and a billion years have elapsed since then. A quadrillion years ago, I existed; and a quadrillion years have elapsed since then. The "infinity" lies in the fact that the statement will be true for absolutely any number I choose, no matter how astronomically large it may be; but every number, without exception, will be a finite distance from the present, and only a finite time will have elapsed since then. Just as you can get from any point on the infinite number line to any other by adding or subtracting a finite quantity, so any distance on the infinite timeline can be traversed without an infinite amount of time elapsing.
So, I reject this argument against infinite temporal existence.
As do I.
Short summary: You can’t count from a beginning that isn’t there.
Furthermore, the following does not constitute a meaningful rebuttal or counterargument:
If a being has existed for an infinite amount of time, then it existed an infinite amount of finite years ago, and from that moment it would have to traverse an infinite number of years to fail to reach the present moment – or any other moments in its past.
Why is this this a meaningless rebuttal? Because it tries to sneak that non-existent beginning into infinity again despite Wm Jas’s coherent demonstration that the very concept of infinity precludes “a beginning” by definition.
Note: The above ties in with my declared assumption from yesterday--the Beings in Creation have no beginning and will have no end. Put another way, the "beingness" of Beings is eternal.
Yet the same classical theists consider it perfectly acceptable to challenge assumptions about the “infinite” existence of beings by demanding those holding such assumptions explain how an infinitely old being could finish counting from negative infinity to zero and “traverse the infinite lapse of time between Infinity BC and the present.”
Wm Jas Tychonievich explains the problem and muddled thinking inherent in such demands (bold added):
1. Infinite elapsed time
As discussed in my earlier post, the Kalām Cosmological Argument assumes that there can be only two kinds of beings: (1) beings that began to exist a finite amount of time ago; and (2) beings that are atemporal, or "exist outside of time." Everything we know, including the physical universe itself, belongs to the first category; it is therefore necessary to explain their existence by positing a being of the second type, and this is Allah.
The reason given for rejecting a third category -- beings that are temporal but never began to exist -- is that for those beings an infinite amount of time must already have elapsed. They must already be "infinity years old." However, it is impossible for anything to ever be "infinity years old," because time elapses finite step by finite step, and infinity can never be reached by adding up finite quantities.
With the caveat that it is notoriously difficult to think clearly about infinity, I think this argument is in error. It conflates "never began" with "began an infinitely long time ago." Consider by way of analogy the number line of integers. It is infinite, but it would be sloppy thinking to say it extends "from negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity." There is no such number as "infinity" (negative or positive) on the number line. Of all the infinitely many integers on the line, not a single one of them is infinitely distant from zero.
The present moment corresponds to zero, the past to the negative integers, and the future to the positive ones. If I say that my existence (in one form or another) is infinite in both directions, in precisely the same way that the number line is infinite, does that make me "infinity years old"? No.
The Kalām Argument assumes that an infinite amount of time must have elapsed from "the beginning" to the present -- missing the point that there was no beginning. A billion years ago, I existed; and a billion years have elapsed since then. A quadrillion years ago, I existed; and a quadrillion years have elapsed since then. The "infinity" lies in the fact that the statement will be true for absolutely any number I choose, no matter how astronomically large it may be; but every number, without exception, will be a finite distance from the present, and only a finite time will have elapsed since then. Just as you can get from any point on the infinite number line to any other by adding or subtracting a finite quantity, so any distance on the infinite timeline can be traversed without an infinite amount of time elapsing.
So, I reject this argument against infinite temporal existence.
As do I.
Short summary: You can’t count from a beginning that isn’t there.
Furthermore, the following does not constitute a meaningful rebuttal or counterargument:
If a being has existed for an infinite amount of time, then it existed an infinite amount of finite years ago, and from that moment it would have to traverse an infinite number of years to fail to reach the present moment – or any other moments in its past.
Why is this this a meaningless rebuttal? Because it tries to sneak that non-existent beginning into infinity again despite Wm Jas’s coherent demonstration that the very concept of infinity precludes “a beginning” by definition.
Note: The above ties in with my declared assumption from yesterday--the Beings in Creation have no beginning and will have no end. Put another way, the "beingness" of Beings is eternal.
No comments have been added yet.
