What is thread 1?
Kalam Argument
⇩
The possibility of an infinite series
⇩
A priori support for a finite universe
⇩
Maybe infinity is different from finite numbers.
What is thread 2?
Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason
⇩
commits the fallacy of composition
⇩
Also fails because of the impossibility of a necessary being
What is the Kalam Argument?
Everything that began to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist so must have a cause
God is the cause of the universe
Possibility of an infinite series
objection to P2:
- Parts of the universe began to exist, but it is plausable to say that the universe as a whole could have always existed.
- This means that there would be no first event, and it would just be things causing other things to cause things, for infinity.
A priori support for a finite universe
- Infinity itself is a paradoxical thing that is impossible
- E.G. Red and Black library
- Infinity + infinity = infinity
- An actual infinite past is impossible, so the past must be finite, so the universe began to exist
Maybe infinity is different to finite numbers
- Cantor’s diagonal sets
- this proves that infinities of different sizes do exist
- infinities also are wholly different from finite numbers, infinity is +1 while a finite number is just that number.
Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason
- All contingent things need a sufficient reason for why they exist
- If they exist becasuse of another contingent thing, then this wouldn’t be a sufficient explaination because this would lead to an infinite regress
- This means there has to be a necessary being that is a reason for the contingent series
This necessary being is God
fallacy of composition
Leibniz says that:
- Each event in the universe has a cause
- so the universe as a whole needs a cause
- This is a fallacy of composition as it is moving from “every part has a cause” to “the whole has a cause”
- Rectangular bricks can make a square so the bricks must be square
- Just because every event is explained by one prior, doesn’t mean that the entire series needs an explaination.
Also fails because of the impossibility of a necessary being
- Anything that exists can be conceived as not existing.
- We can imagine the non existence of anything, including God.
- If we can conceive something not existing without contradiction, it is not necessary.
- Therefore, no being is necessarily existent.
- All beings are contingent.
- Only experience can justify existence claims.
- “Necessary existence” has no real meaning.
