You are begging the question. You are assuming that the Universe had a beginning, and therefore you force the conclusion. This is circular logic. What tells you that the Universe should have a beginning? There is no law of logic that requires that.There has to be a first event/cause in the infinite sequence or it does not begin.
If there is a first event/cause in that sequence, the next has to be a finite time after it and so the hour does not have an infinite number of cause/events.
If there is always an antecedent then that would have happened before the start of the hour, thus adding to infinity, which is not possible.
My model represents a Universe without beginning, and yet with finite past time. And where all state of affairs are explained by the antecedent. As we have seen the infinite sequence in the past adds to one hour, since it decays like a geometric progression, and therefore there is no infinite past, even with an infinite regress.
I really do not see (non question begging) logical defeaters of this.
Anyway, if we think a bit about that, your objection here is nothing but a variant of Zeno paradox, in reverse.
I don't know what you mean. If time is continuous, then my model can be actualized in the physical world. Would you say that "one apple + one apple = two apples" is not true, because 1+1=2 is mathematics that works only on paper?Yes I suppose, and it is a direct consequence of mathematics which work on paper but cannot, for practical considerations, work in real life. (in this case the practical consideration is that there had to have been a first cause/event).
And what you call practical consideration is nothing but a premise you made up in order to force your desired conclusion. There is no logical reasons that X exists => X has a beginning. As a Christian you should know that.
So, if time is continuous during that hour, as it could be, then it is the case that set of causation events during that hour does not have a first one. And it does not have a first one for logical properties involving fractions. And therefore, no law of logic is broken. Nor any law of physics because we have no physics yet there. So, all we have is your own incredulity that something like that could possibly work. But I hope you indulge me if I do not count incredulity as belonging to the set of logical arguments.
This is simply not true. There is no metaphysical, nor physical, nor ontological, nor logical reason that require a first cause. And that is also why arguments like Kalam are very careful in saying "everything that begins to exist....", for the simple fact that not everything that exists need to have a beginning.I think the thing is that even with no minimum length of gap there always needs to be a first event/cause, whether there is or is not any "time" before the hour.
If there is a first (which there has to be) the whole thing breaks down because with finite intervals there would be less than an infinite number of event/causes.
So, I am afraid, that is nothing but an arbitrary premise that you made up in order to force your desired conclusion. Which reduces your entire argument to a circular syllogism.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited: