The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[JDaniel]

I would say the two are distinct. A potential infinite approaches infinity as a limit, but never arrives there. An actual infinite, on the other hand, is a set with a number of integers that can be used to form a one-to-one correspondence with any other set. With actual infinites, we have the odd conclusion that (2, 4, 6, 8, … n) contains just as many integers as (1, 2, 3, 4, … n). Craig, following Hilbert, believes this constitutes a sound reason for rejecting any notion of an actual infinite in the physical world whatsoever.

Hello, Punk:

In my estimation, they would both be the same thing. Since there can be no actual infinity (other than as a vague concept in one’s mind) anything that we might call an actual infinity would be a potential infinity - and it would forever, so to speak, be a potential infinity. Infinity is not a number; it is a concept. In mathematics, we can have fun transposing transfinities into infinities to see where equations might lead, but such are no more than mental gymnastics.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

(2) I think is even more problematic than (1), in my view, but (1) is problematic enough to make it impotent, in my view, so that’s fine. If you accept “intuitive metaphysics”, I think (1) can pass muster, but then so can any intuition about metaphysics. The days are long gone, I think, when intuitive metaphysics just got a free pass.

-TS

there should be nothing intuitive about real metaphysics, it, like the physical sciences, begins with the observation of the physical world. from there we apply logic and reason.

nothing should be made up or based on feelings, if they are, then that should immediately be suspect.

 

[punkforchrist]

i havent trolled the whole thread, but has any one mentioned the following problems with the idea of the universe being uncaused? . . .

I agree with your assessment, but most of the points listed are related to other cosmological arguments. (5), for example, is pertinent specifically to Thomas’ first three ways. Nevertheless, these are all good points to consider, and many times cosmological arguments overlap. (4), I think, was first explicitly enunciated by Jonathan Edwards. He reasons, if something can come from nothing, then why isn’t it the case that anything and everything just pops into existence? This is another sound intuition that backs the KCA.

JDaniel:

In my estimation, they would both be the same thing. Since there can be no actual infinity (other than as a vague concept in one’s mind) anything that we might call an actual infinity would be a potential infinity - and it would forever, so to speak, be a potential infinity. Infinity is not a number; it is a concept. In mathematics, we can have fun transposing transfinities into infinities to see where equations might lead, but such are no more than mental gymnastics.

Yes, I agree with the conclusion that there are no actual infinites in reality. I thought you were referring to the concept, though.