Thomistic Argument

[MindOverMatter2]

W.L. Craig provides and argument against it in his Kalaam variation as follows:

(1) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(3) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

This is more of a second way argument, but I think it’s applicable to this discussion as well.

This is a sufficient rebuttal, because it recognizes that quantity is by definition self limiting. A quantity is always a particular number with a limit. Otherwise it is not a quantity. The universe is a quantity. Therefore it is necessarily a finite quantity. The universe can only ever be potentially infinite and never actually infinite because an infinite universe by definition transcends all particular numbers or quantities. There is no particular number that is infinite because it can always be added to. Thus an infinity is not a quantity. Perplexity proposes in his premise the possible existence of an actually infinite past. But such is evidently not possible.

However, i don’t think this rebuttal is necessary. A clear understanding of potency and act will reveal that…

1. Potency would have to precede an infinite number of acts in-order for an infinite universe to exist.
2. If the infinite universe is by definition an infinite number of acts preceded by potency, then it follows necessarily that potency infinitely precedes all actuality, since the universe is by definition an infinite number of potentialities becoming real.
3. Out of nothing comes nothing.
4. Potency cannot come out of nothing.
5. Therefore an infinite universe cannot possibly exist.
6. If you agree that “act” or “reality” must always ontologically precede or transcend potentiality in-order for a potential act to become real, then you must agree that there is an absolute act that is not preceded by any potential events at all. Otherwise no possibility can become actual. No change can exist.

Conclusion: A changing universe exists, therefore there is necessarily an unmoved-mover or uncaused-cause. Take your pick.

Hopefully this time perplexity will understand and i won’t have to frustratingly repeat myself. There is only so far you can go with making truth simple enough for everyone to understand.

 

[Perplexity]

Perplexity made a similar charge in another thread here to Aquinas’ first way. I asserted there that this all has to do with whether the premise can be accepted without objection. I see Perplexity’s premise the same way, although he must know it will be challenged.

W.L. Craig provides and argument against it in his Kalaam variation as follows:

(1) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(3) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

This is more of a second way argument, but I think it’s applicable to this discussion as well.

I don’t think (1) is very plausible. Or I should say, without any proposed reason to believe it I just kind of shrug my shoulders: it’s not obvious to me.

(2) seems to assume a theory of time that I reject. I accept b-theory. So, for me, (2) makes about as much sense as saying that the segments of a ruler are formed by successive addition. But, of course the entire ruler exists regardless where, when or how you try to count its segments.

 

[Ghosty]

Perplexity: Are you going to address the apparent logical fallacy that JDaniel and myself (in slightly different ways) have brought up?

Peace and God bless!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t think (1) is very plausible. Or I should say, without any proposed reason to believe it I just kind of shrug my shoulders: it’s not obvious to me.

An infinite is not a number.

 

[Perplexity]

Well Ghosty, you’re basically saying there’s this thing, act, and I’m not describing that thing accurately. But, I’m not speaking about that thing when I’m talking about act. So, we’re using the same word to describe different things. It follows that my definition isn’t ‘wrong’ because it’s different. To avoid confusion I could adopt a different word. Philosophy is riddled with neologisms lol, I’m just accustomed to that, my apologies.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well Ghosty, you’re basically saying there’s this thing, act, and I’m not describing that thing accurately.

What is this thing that you are talking about?

It follows that my definition isn’t ‘wrong’ because it’s different.

Stop wasting time and explain why it isn’t wrong.

 

[Perplexity]

To expand on the ruler example: what does form by successive addition is the amount of segments we count. But the actual amount of segments on the ruler are each existent nevertheless. So, the analogy would say though our experience of past events has successive addition, all temporal events are existent nevertheless. So, Craig could say our experience of time can’t be actually infinite but that’s not interesting.

 

[Perplexity]

What is this thing that you are talking about?

Stop wasting time and explain why it isn’t wrong.

hmm, this doesn’t seem this difficult. A definition is wrong in so far as it inaccurately describes what it’s intended to be describing. But, I’ve not inaccurately described what I intended to. So, my definition can’t be wrong.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To expand on the ruler example: what does form by successive addition is the amount of segments we count.

We are still evidently talking about quantity. Your exclusion of change is irrelevant.

But the actual amount of segments on the ruler are each existent nevertheless.

Its irrelevant whether or not they are all existent. We are not saying that it is impossible simply because its “successive”. We are saying that it is impossible because there is no number or quantity that is infinite, and this is made evident by the fact that we cannot possibly make a finite amount add up to an infinity. The point is, if its logically impossible to add up to an infinity, if you can always add to a finite quantity and never reach infinity, it necessarily follows that an infinite excludes quantities as that which defines it as an infinite. No quantity can define an infinite. It is logically impossible for any type or kind of ontological quantity to be infinite, regardless of whether we are talking about a quantity formed of successive additions in time or the static segments on a ruler. There is no meaningful sense of quantity that describes an infinite in an ontological context because an infinite by definition transcends all distinct numbers or quantities.

An infinite number is a meaningless and contradictory idea.

So, Craig could say our experience of time can’t be actually infinite but that’s not interesting.

Our experiences are not interesting? Well you should in the same vein reject scientific experience.

Your straw-men are quite fascinating. Ever thought of writing fiction?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

hmm, this doesn’t seem this difficult. A definition is wrong in so far as it inaccurately describes what it’s intended to be describing. But, I’ve not inaccurately described what I intended to. So, my definition can’t be wrong.

Then what is it that you are describing?

 

[Perplexity]

MindOverMatter2: Woosh. Your last few responses have been real doosies as far missing the point goes. WLC is claiming that temporal events are what are successively incorporated into a collection. But, this is false on B-theory. On B-theory all temporal events are equally existent: the entire ruler is already there. We experience such addition, but our experience is not the same thing as the events themselves. Do you know what B-theory is?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2: Woosh. Your last few responses have been real doosies as far missing the point goes. WLC is claiming that temporal events are what are successively incorporated into a collection. But, this is false on B-theory. On B-theory all temporal events are equally existent: the entire ruler is already there. We experience such addition, but our experience is not the same thing as the events themselves. Do you know what B-theory is?

Again, its irrelevant what you think WLC is calming or whether or not you hold to a b theory of time. I don’t care about your straw-men. I care about the truth.

An infinite quantity cannot exist.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well Ghosty, you’re basically saying there’s this thing, act, and I’m not describing that thing accurately. But, I’m not speaking about that thing when I’m talking about act. So, we’re using the same word to describe different things. It follows that my definition isn’t ‘wrong’ because it’s different. To avoid confusion I could adopt a different word. Philosophy is riddled with neologisms lol, I’m just accustomed to that, my apologies.

I’d also like to note that you didn’t address mine. Anyway, you are claiming that you are providing a “Thomistic” argument. As such, you have to play by the rules of Thomistic metaphysics. You are certainly free to develop an entirely new understanding of metaphysics, but you have a lot more work to do if that is your intention. You can’t simply alter the definition of “act” in Thomism and expect the rest of Thomistic metaphysics to work.

 

[empther]

Observe how the King of Quibblers works.

Perplexity’s post #42, Nov 24, on Page 3 of this thread:

Originally Posted by tdgesq …………………
(1) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(3) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

Perplexity knows that since anything that can be counted, divided, or measured can’t be infinite, then (1), (2), and (3) show that there had to be a beginning and therefore an Eternal Beginner.

Perplexity then tries to murky-ize the argument by suggesting,
but not clearly so stating,
that an infinity of number, division, or measure might be possible,
although it clearly isn’t
and suggests somebody propose reasons to believe it
although the idea is axiomatic and neither can be proved nor needs to be because the terms are self-defining.

I don’t think (1) is very plausible. Or I should say, without any proposed reason to believe it I just kind of shrug my shoulders: it’s not obvious to me.

This is how Perplexity works:
deny the implicitly obvious and irrefutable,
admit nothing that counters his position,
suggest any absurdity that supports his position, :takethat:
ignore the value of truth. :banghead:

 

[Perplexity]

Again, its irrelevant what you think WLC is calming or whether or not you hold to a b theory of time. I don’t care about your straw-men. I care about the truth.

An infinite quantity cannot exist.

Seeing as I was interacting with WLC’s argument…no…it’s not irrelevant what he thinks. Seeing as his argument directly deals with theories of time like B-theory…no…it isn’t irrelevant. lol.

Its irrelevant whether or not they are all existent. We are not saying that it is impossible simply because its “successive”. We are saying that it is impossible because there is no number or quantity that is infinite, and this is made evident by the fact that we cannot possibly make a finite amount add up to an infinity

.

Note what’s being said here.

(i) Infinite regression is impossible because there is no number or quantity that is infinite,

and we should believe (i) because (ii) we cannot possibly make a finite amount add up to an infinity.

So, does infinite regression imply that there is a number or quantity that is infinite? No, I don’t think so. So, I believe you’ve already missed the mark. Infinity can be understood as the denial of any specified quantity to a set, and the affirmation that the set is non-zero. Set-theorists do this all the time, so I don’t think you’re in good company lol. Infinity isn’t a real number…but…so what?

Further, why would being unable to make a finite amount add up to an infinity suggest that infinity isn’t a number or quantity? Have you ever considered that finite arithmetic isn’t applicable to infinite sums?

The point is, if its logically impossible to add up to an infinity, if you can always add to a finite quantity and never reach infinity, it necessarily follows that an infinite excludes quantities as that which defines it as an infinite. No quantity can define an infinite. It is logically impossible for any type or kind of ontological quantity to be infinite, regardless of whether we are talking about a quantity formed of successive additions in time or the static segments on a ruler. There is no meaningful sense of quantity that describes an infinite in an ontological context because an infinite by definition transcends all distinct numbers or quantities.

I can’t make sense of this, I don’t think you know what logical impossibility is.

 

[Perplexity]

Here you seem to be saying that the actualization of something has the potency to actualize its own potency. You’re correct in saying that the P1 potency needs to be actualized as a potency. A possibility needs to be made real before it is a real potency that could be actualized. Your mistake is to think that the actualization of P1 has the potency to actualize P1 as a potency.

I don’t see how it’s a mistake to say that every act was an actualizing potency at some point. That’s all I mean: every actualization of a potency (1), itself has the potency (2) to actualize that potency (1). Further, unless (2) is actualized, (1) won’t be.

Aristotle and Aquinas are clear that a potency must be rooted in an underlying actuality. For example, if there is a potency for a human finger to be a different position, that potency must be rooted in the actuality of a human being. Without an underlying actual human being, there is nothing making the potency of finger movement a real possibility. Your P1 potency does need to be rooted in an actuality,** but you simply can’t say that the actuality is the same as the potency itself actualized**. The actuality has to be something different, underlying the potency. It should not be hard to follow this actuality-potency-actuality… sequence to its logical conclusion, especially when combined with the observation that the world is fundamentally contingent (i.e. Hume’s billiard balls).

My definition of potency is sufficiently different from Aquinean understandings to avoid this objection. My definition of potency requires that actualizations of potencies themselves have potencies to do their actualizations.

 

[Perplexity]

Observe how the King of Quibblers works.

Perplexity’s post #42, Nov 24, on Page 3 of this thread:

Perplexity knows that since anything that can be counted, divided, or measured can’t be infinite, then (1), (2), and (3) show that there had to be a beginning and therefore an Eternal Beginner.

Whoops, somebody doesn’t know about countable infinities lol. I think what you mean is you can’t actually count all the members of an infinite set. But, why that matters…we may never know lol. Supposing this does show the universe began to exist, it wouldn’t thereby follow that there was an Eternal Beginner. This is just nonesense. I agree with Swinburne that atheism strongly probabilifies the inexplicability of the universe. So, showing that the universe began doesn’t do much for me.

Perplexity then tries to murky-ize the argument by suggesting,
but not clearly so stating,
that an infinity of number, division, or measure might be possible,
although it clearly isn’t
and suggests somebody propose reasons to believe it
although the idea is axiomatic and neither can be proved nor needs to be because the terms are self-defining.

lol, the only substantive thing I could extract from this was that I said infinity (etc.) is possible and you replied that it clearly isn’t. Now, that kind of response might fly elsewhere; but, it certainly won’t pass for philosophizing. I can’t help but conclude you’re not interested in contributing to this thread: you’re simply trying to make me look silly. Unfortunately (for you), you’re doing a terrible job of it.

 

[empther]

oops.
double submitted

deleted this one

 

[empther]

Typical King of Quibblers quibbling:

Infinity can be understood as the denial of any specified quantity to a set, and the affirmation that the set is non-zero.

No number can be infinite, and in the real world a set can only contain a finite number of elements. To say "Infinity can be understood as the denial of any specified quantity to a set " is completely meaningless, a string of words that make no sense.

That’s quibbling.

 

[Perplexity]

Typical King of Quibblers quibbling:

No number can be infinite, and a set cannot have an infinite number of elements but only a finite number. To say "Infinity can be understood as the denial of any specified quantity to a set " is completely meaningless, a string of words that make no sense, like ‘for decades to come centuries will pass’.

That’s quibbling.

Well…this is embarrassing…I guess you’ve never studied set-theory. Check it out mate:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number