Cosmological argument

[Matthias123]

Greetings ladies and gentlemen, it has been some time since I debated here last – I hope you all remember me. Today I will be defending the validity and soundness of the cosmological argument. I have chosen to go with Aquinas’s version instead of other manifestations because every cosmological argument usually rests on certain metaphysical foundations, and these are often peculiar to the author of the argument – since I am familiar with the ontology of Aquinas this would seem to be the best choice.

The following is my formulation.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be thus contingent. Now at every time interval t=n the cosmos is an aggregate of contingent entities – that is to say, the cosmos contains nothing but entities that are possibly not. Since each entity is possibly not at the same time, it follows that there are possibly no entities in the cosmos. If there are possibly no entities in the cosmos then there is possibly no cosmos because without parts there is no whole. (“A whole has parts” is an analytical proposition and is tautological) Given an actually infinite number of past time intervals (eternal universe) there will be at least one time interval where the cosmos corrupts into non-existence. Now since everything that exists is caused by what is, there would be nothing in existence, which is absurd. Therefore we must postulate of some necessary entity that transcends the world, and exists by virtue of its own essence. This is what men call God.

I will take objections as they come – I know somebody will bring up the fallacy of composition – since we are talking about parts failing simultaneously, this argument does not suffer from the problem.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Greetings ladies and gentlemen, it has been some time since I debated here last – I hope you all remember me. Today I will be defending the validity and soundness of the cosmological argument. I have chosen to go with Aquinas’s version instead of other manifestations because every cosmological argument usually rests on certain metaphysical foundations, and these are often peculiar to the author of the argument – since I am familiar with the ontology of Aquinas this would seem to be the best choice.

The following is my formulation.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be thus contingent. Now at every time interval t=n the cosmos is an aggregate of contingent entities – that is to say, the cosmos contains nothing but entities that are possibly not. Since each entity is possibly not at the same time, it follows that there are possibly no entities in the cosmos. If there are possibly no entities in the cosmos then there is possibly no cosmos because without parts there is no whole. (“A whole has parts” is an analytical proposition and is tautological) Given an actually infinite number of past time intervals (eternal universe) there will be at least one time interval where the cosmos corrupts into non-existence. Now since everything that exists is caused by what is, there would be nothing in existence, which is absurd. Therefore we must postulate of some necessary entity that transcends the world, and exists by virtue of its own essence. This is what men call God.

I will take objections as they come – I know somebody will bring up the fallacy of composition – since we are talking about parts failing simultaneously, this argument does not suffer from the problem.

Isn’t the discussion of the existence of God banned? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684

 

[lynx]

While I respond, please do not think of me as anything more than a child in the universe. So, if I need clarification, respond to me as you would a child.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be thus contingent.

This seems pretty vague, if not contradictory to me. If something is ((to be) ^ ~(to be)) then you have a contradiction, at which point you may state anything as truth. I can possibly interpret the above passage as there are things in this world that exist now and then exist differently in another form.

Now at every time interval t=n the cosmos is an aggregate of contingent entities

Fair enough.

Since each entity is possibly not at the same time, it follows that there are possibly no entities in the cosmos.

It sounds like you’re mixing statistics with logic. When this model is applied to the actual universe in which we live, we see that there are entities (such as myself) in the universe, therefore the statement “there are possibly no entities in the cosmos” is false.

Given an actually infinite number of past time intervals (eternal universe) there will be at least one time interval where the cosmos corrupts into non-existence.

I see no logic to support that. Even statistically I don’t think that’s true. Example, when you flip a coin, the odds are 1/2 that the coin will land heads up. However, one could flip a coin for all eternity and still have the outcome always be heads.

Now since everything that exists is caused by what is, there would be nothing in existence, which is absurd.

Here is another contradiction, I just don’t understand how you reached it.

Therefore we must postulate of some necessary entity that transcends the world, and exists by virtue of its own essence. This is what men call God.

The problem here is that your previous contradiction left your conclusion too open ended. For instance I can say, as a conclusion, that in 50 years I will unleash an experiment on the LHC that will open a rip in time space and trigger the big bang, sucking all of our matter into the past to repeat the cycle of the universe. I can say this because your last contradiction is global to the problem so I can state anything as truth.

This is just my interpretation. Thanks for posting

 

[lynx]

Isn’t the discussion of the existence of God banned? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684

This isn’t a topic of atheism. This is a topic of how God logically exists in the world. However, technically, God would be above logic, which makes this moot IMO

 

[Call_Me_V]

This isn’t a topic of atheism. This is a topic of how God logically exists in the world. However, technically, God would be above logic, which makes this moot IMO

If you say so. I’ll stay out of it though.

 

[Matthias123]

This seems pretty vague, if not contradictory to me. If something is ((to be) ^ ~(to be)) then you have a contradiction, at which point you may state anything as truth. I can possibly interpret the above passage as there are things in this world that exist now and then exist differently in another form.

All I am saying is that we observe entities coming into existence, and passing out of existence.

It sounds like you’re mixing statistics with logic. When this model is applied to the actual universe in which we live, we see that there are entities (such as myself) in the universe, therefore the statement “there are possibly no entities in the cosmos” is false.

I really don’t see how you could interpret this premise as a statistical model. All I am saying if it is possible for each entity not to exist at a given time interval it is possible for these entities not to exist at the same timel, which would result in the cosmos containing no entities. Notice that I am not changing logical spheres; I am still dealing with parts of the whole, and not the whole itself.

I see no logic to support that. Even statistically I don’t think that’s true. Example, when you flip a coin, the odds are 1/2 that the coin will land heads up. However, one could flip a coin for all eternity and still have the outcome always be heads.

I disagree, if you flip the coin an infinite amount of times you should get heads an infinite amount of times, and tails an infinite amount of times – all possible worlds are actualized.

Here is another contradiction, I just don’t understand how you reached it.

Contradiction? Act proceeds potency – without something in existence there is no possible way for potency to be actualized.

I bet you work in statistics =p

 

[lynx]

All I am saying is that we observe entities coming into existence, and passing out of existence.

Fair enough. We see new life enter existence and watch endangered life leave it.

I really don’t see how you could interpret this premise as a statistical model. All I am saying if it is possible for each entity not to exist at a given time interval it is possible for these entities not to exist at the same time

It is possible, say for example, the great contraction comes and squishes all matter into a single point in space time. That might end all life in the universe.

, which would result in the cosmos containing no entities. Notice that I am not changing logical spheres; I am still dealing with parts of the whole, and not the whole itself.

Ok.

I disagree, if you flip the coin an infinite amount of times you should get heads an infinite amount of times, and tails an infinite amount of times – all possible worlds are actualized.

Interesting assumption. Mathematically the odds are (1/2_0)(1/2_1)…(1/2_n) = 1/n, where n is infinity and an underscore represents subscript. While the odds are infinitely small they still exist. So, in the best case scenario you can only say it is likely that at some point during eternity you will get tails.

Contradiction? Act proceeds potency – without something in existence there is no possible way for potency to be actualized.

You state “Now since everything that exists is caused by what is, there would be nothing in existence, which is absurd.” I can see how “Now since everything that exists is caused by what is” is true, but not " there would be nothing in existence". What this sounds like to me is, from life brings more life therefore life doesn’t exist. I guess you mean this to be when all life in the universe is dead? I guess in the end I just don’t see where this theory goes. Can you dumb it down for me from start to finish?

I bet you work in statistics =p

Software developer, verifier, tester and all around tech person. Good guess though.

 

[Matthias123]

Interesting assumption. Mathematically the odds are (1/2_0)(1/2_1)…(1/2_n) = 1/n, where n is infinity and an underscore represents subscript. While the odds are infinitely small they still exist. So, in the best case scenario you can only say it is likely that at some point during eternity you will get tails.

What you have demonstrated there is a potential infinity – I am speaking of an actual infinity. If I understand your equation correctly, you will never reach an infinite amount of terms, thus you will never reach complete certainty of an event-- I am speaking of an infinity that has obtained.

Here is a contemporary example using Cantor’s famous diagnal argument:

s1 = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, …)
s2 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, …)
s3 = (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, …)
s4 = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, …)
s5 = (1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, …)
s6 = (0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, …)
s7 = (1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, …)

Notice that s0 = (1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, …) does not correspond to any other set – this Cantor argued is an uncountable set – he went on to revolutionize 19th century mathematics.

mathpages.com/home/kmath371.htm

It must be noted that I only give an example of set theory to aid you in accepting this premise, as I am not talking about sets, I am talking about an aggregate.

 

[Matthias123]

You state “Now since everything that exists is caused by what is, there would be nothing in existence, which is absurd.” I can see how “Now since everything that exists is caused by what is” is true, but not " there would be nothing in existence". What this sounds like to me is, from life brings more life therefore life doesn’t exist. I guess you mean this to be when all life in the universe is dead? I guess in the end I just don’t see where this theory goes. Can you dumb it down for me from start to finish?

I was just a little puzzled because I thought this was a premise everyone would accept. All I am saying is that something which doesn’t exist cannot bring anything into existence, for the sole reason that it does not exist. So unless we are to admit that entities can pop into existence uncased, the fact that nothing existed in the past, would result in nothing existing now.

Remember I am talking about a space-time that is past complete – one that has no beginning. Now of course as a Christian, I do not believe this is the case, but I am attempting to give the strongest argument possible.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

So unless we are to admit that entities can pop into existence uncased, the fact that nothing existed in the past, would result in nothing existing now.

Well i am not physicist, however is there not good evidence that particles do actually “pop” into and out of existence?

Furthermore given that we know virtually nothing about before the inflation of space time your argument could only apply to the observable universe. Unfortunately this renders it meaningless.

 

[hatsoff]

Greetings ladies and gentlemen, it has been some time since I debated here last – I hope you all remember me. Today I will be defending the validity and soundness of the cosmological argument. I have chosen to go with Aquinas’s version instead of other manifestations because every cosmological argument usually rests on certain metaphysical foundations, and these are often peculiar to the author of the argument – since I am familiar with the ontology of Aquinas this would seem to be the best choice.

The following is my formulation.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be thus contingent. Now at every time interval t=n the cosmos is an aggregate of contingent entities – that is to say, the cosmos contains nothing but entities that are possibly not. Since each entity is possibly not at the same time, it follows that there are possibly no entities in the cosmos. If there are possibly no entities in the cosmos then there is possibly no cosmos because without parts there is no whole. (“A whole has parts” is an analytical proposition and is tautological) Given an actually infinite number of past time intervals (eternal universe) there will be at least one time interval where the cosmos corrupts into non-existence. Now since everything that exists is caused by what is, there would be nothing in existence, which is absurd. Therefore we must postulate of some necessary entity that transcends the world, and exists by virtue of its own essence. This is what men call God.

I will take objections as they come – I know somebody will bring up the fallacy of composition – since we are talking about parts failing simultaneously, this argument does not suffer from the problem.

I think we’re going to have some issues with your modal terms, here. Some of us might say in plain English that it’s “possible” for entities to pop into and/or out of existence. But all I would ever mean by that is that it’s conceivable. Some of us might point to QM to further support such a statement (although I think that would be a mistake). It is not the case that for each entity we have knowledge that it will one day pass out of existence, or whatever else you might mean by (metaphysical?) possibility. But regardless of what you mean by possibility, it does not follow from the fact that we can conceive an event that given an infinite span of time that event will inevitably occur.

In other words, when lynx grants that each entity is possibly non-existent, I do not believe he means the same thing that you mean when you talk about possibility. I suspect he would reject that premise as you interpret it.

 

[lynx]

In other words, when lynx grants that each entity is possibly non-existent, I do not believe he means the same thing that you mean when you talk about possibility. I suspect he would reject that premise as you interpret it.

I feel you are correct. However, I will nevertheless try to understand the original position.