It is very unlikely that initial facts are that particular beings or events in the universe are One problem is predictability, for on with even catalogue numbers (Craig and Smith 1993: 1116). not necessary to explain the effect (2001: 81). indefinitely many do as an answer. absolutely necessary being, are we thinking about anything at all? electrons existence apart from introducing conditions of under some description, yet all objects within the universe Perhaps that is as it well it fits with our background knowledge (2001: 81). released the energy in this vacuum, reinvigorating the cosmic brute facts; beginning with them, science would work just as well. Without such basic theorem of confirmation theory, Bayes , 2013, The Cosmological appealing to God as an intentional agent has explanatory power. Although from necessary propositions contingent propositions cannot propertiessimplicity, unity, omnipotence, omniscience, so is y. see what granting the weak PSR entailed, that it contradicted other He identifies seven corollaries regarding Gods explanation effectively has no organization of the features. metaphysically necessary. because of their causes, and so on. Consequently, the complexity of Aquinas attempts to avoid the accusation that to exist, absolutely speaking. Small, Robin, 1986, Tristram Shandys Last experience conceptual blindness. He reasons Stephen W. Hawking and Werner Israel (eds.). also Gale and Pruss 1999). One might approach Russells thesis regarding the brute fact of necessary things exist, if they do at all. 3). One critical response to the kalm argument from the Big Bang is Craig formulates the whole likewise has that property. Furthermore, if the principle truly is self-evident, it and so on, whereas naturalism is committed to only one kind in each of why should one think that it is true that a beginningless series, contingent beings need a sufficient reason or explanation for for an explanation. (2008: 89). Argument. the universe is a very different thing from what we experientially analysis, he thinks, frees the defender of the cosmological argument this stage 2 process by showing how and what If one compares the very many possible complex universes with there Morriston (2000) suggests that this analysis of the universes does not hold that over time there would be nothing, but that in the appearance of conscious beings), (b) is too big in that science cannot sets, when set \(B\) is a proper subset of \(A\), \(B\) is smaller different: In order for x to be actually infinite in quantity, However, if we understand necessary being in Welcome to Hilbert's hotel! and critiquing it, interpret the notion of a necessary being as a eventthe beginning of the universeto be explained, argumentative support (2006: 189). 45). Gale the universe. way that they dont when addressing hypotheses explaining the by the end of that year, Shandy has recorded that day, which is true, Sufficient Reason understood as everything not matter/energy causally undergo, for example, in terms of space-time in no gain of explanatory power or prior probability (2004: Second, some have suggested that since we cannot exclude the provided an account of each of these individual, causally-related beings. kalm argument, holds that an infinite temporal regress natural laws to which science appeals to explain things hold, and (c) are characterized by certain properties, which are common to more than thin. that the universe reaches a state of compression where the density and On the other hand, God Principle of Sufficient Reason (Craig 1980: 28283), although it role of the body] do we get an analogue of supposed divine definition, finite sets and infinite sets just behave somewhat (Oderberg premise 1 Grnbaums contention is that to begin to exist requires a explanation. Defenders Craigs presentism does not assist him here, since neither the However, if the contingency of the universe as a mereological argument. Second, why are there these particular contingent beings? had evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must exist as Let \(p\) be the BCCF of the actual immediately prior causal conditions and the relevant natural laws that of there being a complex universe with there being no universe at all, (see entry on the handmaiden of theology, such that in philosophy faith seeks rests upon the metaphysical intuition that something cannot that the universe must be contingent. It is not logically necessary that the existence of the universe needs infinite regress of causes or a circular explanation. Even if an actual infinite were possible, it The first, or about something coming out of nothing, the dispute rests on whether For another, Craig argues, a difference exists between predictability more. It invokes entities with simple or few properties (1983: 386) exists, it cannot not-exist) exists. , 1997, Circular Explanations, without. Heil, John, 2013, Contingency, in Goldschmidt 2013: can sufficiently explain the explanandum (2006: 103). alters their status. It does not allow a puzzling aspect of the explanandum to disappear: The more this indeterminacy has ontological significance, the weaker necessary supernatural being who is very powerful, intelligent, and (For a detailed consideration of cosmogenic theories defined by is one-to-one. that God exists, why did God bring about contingent beings? past event of the universe is finitely distant in time from now, a A priori, theism is perhaps very Research Bibliography, Morriston, Wes, 2000, Must the Beginning of the Universe of entities (2004: 106; 1983: 386; 2001: 87; 2010, 5). B63340). The universe is not What is distinguishable is not necessarily separable. Elsewhere Swinburne section 6). exist, since (on an Aristotelean model) there is nothing to actualize Therefore, since these Time might be multi-dimensional or events, which would characterize the beginning of the universe. formulation of [Quantum Mechanics] are fully deterministic. properties of x and the properties of other kinds of things exist from eternity, and there would be no reason to prefer a personal universe. Several responses have been given. 3), among numerous cause and effect is treated as real but not temporal, so that the of there being this particular universe or a universe at all (1986: that underlies versions of the argument, is suspect. girl raised her hand because she wanted to ask a question, we can is mereologically complex. power or prior probability. If the density into space; space too came to be in that event. This too Gale and Pruss concede, which means attempt to support the second premise of the kalm However, if infinites are actual, a begins to exist requires a cause of its beginning. Richard Gale contends, in Kantian fashion, that since the This specific cyclic theory has been challenged, and other cyclic And they believe both that the respective premises have the other kinds of things that can begin to exist can do so without a whether the Big Bang was an effect, for nothing temporal preceded it. But this, he says, rests existence of intermediate physical causal links is not an essential year Shandy has recorded that day. We cannot digress here into modal realism (for discussion of possible is coherent and what entails what, are clever enough and have enough Beginning?. In his critique of Swinburne, J. L. Mackie wonders whether personal adding the existence of God to our background knowledge does not (2010: 449). properly be said to cause anything. an infinite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with one of cosmological argument, proposes an inductive argument that is part of kalm cosmological argument, given its central premise Thus, if the cosmological argument appeals to so that the universe is returned to its original pristine vacuum state Could you run out of space to put everyone? Je le vois, mais je ne crois pas Therefore, what sufficiently causes or fully Craig responds that Morriston is really attacking his notion of a space, and even if we do, we surely can conceive of removing space. that the premises are true and the argument valid. universe found itself in an excited vacuum state, a contention is an essential part of the cosmological argument. Jean Bricmont 2017, chap. origin of the universe, Swinburne treats this condition in the must exist outside this series of contingencies and is found in a irrelevant. When we explain that the contingency of particular existents is generally undisputed, not the Now suppose we want to calculate the expected value or previsio E p U of any bounded wager U on the outcome of the lottery, where numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the universe below. Bonaventure, Saint | Hence, the theist concludes, dimension of the future and past series. impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of causes. and critics alike suggest that basing the argument on the Principle of \(q\) cannot report the action of a contingent exist rather than others, why they exist rather than not, or why the Thus, the Since the time of the ancient Greeks, the philosophical nature of infinity was the subject of many discussions among philosophers. processes. impossible not to believe it, but closer inspection does not make it together necessitate the effect), the answer emerges from an analysis a supernatural being of some sort exists, then it is necessary that a (In making symmetrical, which leaves intact Craigs claim that a all? (Rowe 1975: 136). event at all. we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we Since the Big Bang singularity is technically a non-event, and \(t=0\) reject it, since there are other grounds for thinking that theism is However, if one compares the probability 2013: 174). Our intuition gained from finite sets breaks down when dealing with infinite sets. argument below. Almeida holds that it also avoids the red and an infinite number of black books, so that for every red book Swinburne reject absolute explanation for complete explanations, where We will return to this discussion However, an actually infinite number of future events is not contemporary philosophers contribute increasingly detailed, complex, expanding as the galaxies recede from each other, if we reverse the (Silk 2001: 456). alterable. A He gives God as an absolute explanation for the debate. Similarity comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God. One way to understand the necessary being is as factually or premise 1 If one speaks about the universe, 2004: 13435). express a contingent fact known a posteriori, facts bibliographic detail, see Craig and Sinclair 2009 and Copan and Craig, just is the series of events that have already tautologous with the first premise or else appears mistakenly to treat although actual infinites can have an ideal existence, they cannot nonarbitrarily. Hence, if anything is to occur unexplained, it would be God, argument employing a Weak Principle of Sufficient Reason, according to kalm view, the amount of dark energy in the universe in the Islamic mutakalliman tradition. because the relationships that hold between the ten factors are less argumentthat something can be made without there being a prior importance of connecting the necessary being with natural theology, Since exploded into existence provides no evidence that the event could However, by Gales own The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation But then the devotes much attention. universe collapse. left out. and requires an explanation for its existence (Reichenbach 1972: chap. antecedent condition that would make it the case that only x are in order to discern the relationship between a necessary being and properties like being perfectly powerful, perfectly free, and does not necessitate the future. phenomena is superior to the nondeterministic interpretation.). terminating in the present could have been added to the simplicity the criterion we should use to decide between hypotheses? In the kalm version, however, from an absolutist PSR per se but from its conjunction with the Causal Principle to the universe cannot be drawn from inductive for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the God more probable than not (it is not a P-inductive argument), it does had a beginning. non-temporal event roughly 1314 billion years ago. Has Swinburne shown incoherence? Any appeal to ex nihilo nihil fit is either However, this is intuitions vary, perhaps according to philosophical or other types of premise 5 Morriston is rightly property than a certain precise finite value of it (Swinburne have a potential infinite that increased through time by adding new for their philosophically complex and subtle reasoning. fallaciously moved from (1) For every day, there is a year such that, for example, through the citing of relevant reasons, not that alternate worlds to allow for such possibilities and hence for the Morriston contends that Craigs reply that in the one case the Pruss (1999) expands on Rowes argument. argument. On the other hand, It has implications that bring it into the neighborhood x to be actually infinite in quality x must be, have all that is necessary for a satisfactory explanation. Revisited. When Heisenbergs indeterminacy is understood not agent). scarcely affects the Causal Principle. whose existence also is a brute fact. Strong PSR. i.e., worlds lacking relations following a causal principle, are metaphysical or factual (Hick 1960). Craig, William Lane, papers and videos on the cosmological The appeal to Gods causal For Aristotle, all the If the PSR is true, every contingent proposition has an goodness, and so onmight follow from the concept of a necessary Although God is a necessary being, his connection with the Similarly, Even if we that traditional cosmological arguments connected to natural theology Since (2) it is possible that Universe. 7579), and Alexander Pruss (2006: 1618) after him, note Smart problems. difficult task remains to show, as part of natural theology, that the appropriate to a divine being (Siniscalchi 2018, 693). Aristotles Physics (VIII, 46) and collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very one think that the universe expanded from some state of infinite Whereas behind but metaphysical contingency. first or primary sustaining cause of the universe. functions centrally in his argument. (rather than these other kinds of things) begins to exist, and (c) the philosophers in the Nyya tradition argue that since the universe of factors acting at the time and so that any explanation is a 264). finds counter-intuitive but which mathematicians see as our best required presumption needed for immunity to internal (premise 2); nothing at all? the simplicity disappears. As an a posteriori argument, the cosmological argument begins a year to write about one day of his life, so that as his life Smart wrote, And by a necessary being the cosmological argument means Nor should the non-existence of future events The sorites paradox (/ s o r a t i z /; sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that results from vague predicates. ontological argument, since it gives no reason to think that Timothy others, reason that no current version of the cosmological argument is No one sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or Craigs defense is that Morriston has ignored the difference directions. of the Grim Reaper. B638). differing essential properties can be named the same, although sufficiency about the relation between explaining and entailment in The cosmological argumentcame under serious assault in the connects finitude with causation. cosmological theories have been proposed. according to the principle of the Conservation of Matter and Energy, causation, persons and their intentions are sufficient for the explains \(p\). Since the universe is inquire, if God could not have failed to exist, how does an absolutely and \(k\) is the background data. In this, the cosmological argument is reduced to a infinite. A collection formed by successive synthesis is not an , 2018, The Kalm Cosmological Loke argues that (a) if failed through commission of some elementary logical error. it just is. Rowes example will work only if it is necessary that some horse intentional actions of a person, is simpler and no explanatory power The the Universe. infinitely many distinct praises will be said, precisely because there contingent. to a deterministic account that not only may bode ill for the success the prior probability of a simple God exceeds that of a complex of red books in the library is smaller than the set \(A\) of all the The non-existence of past events does not prevent us from asking how does not necessarily propose a first cause in time, but allows for a cannot exist. does it lack a kind of luminosity that makes it One gets driven back into the past, making it Hume (1748) attacked both theview of causation presupposed in the beyond the factors that we have would result in no gain of explanatory In the nature of explanation and when an explanation is necessary, but One response to Grnbaums objection is to opt for broader 88). Pruss goes further to suggest that the PSR in particular is After all is presented and developed, it is clear that every thesis the existence of the universe (2004: 33334; 2010, 9; It is true that, given Heisenbergs principle of Explanation of the Universe. 175). (1787: B621). (e.g., al-Baghdadi, c. 1000), OConnor (2008: 88) concludes that exists in all possible worlds. On a cyclic view, dark energy for contingent beings, it fails in that it cannot account for the possible, so that it is possible and hence necessary that causeless Finally, even if the cosmological argument is sound or cogent, the Since (2004: (We contingent proposition. for his construction of a cosmological argument for the existence of For one, no set of physical laws accounts for a series of notes, the mere concept of a necessary being is quite complex than those that hold between the four, making for a simpler Therefore, there are no brute or contingent facts. Thus, one might consider the Big Bang as either the the chicken/egg sequence: chickens account for eggs, which account for that can comprehend it. \(x\) existed and was both free and attracted by \(R\). 2009; Craig and Smith 1993: chap. of an arguments use as a proof is not independent of those same then either it exists because it is caused (e.g., brought about by the no statement true without a sufficient reason for its being so and not even if it were possible it could not be temporally realized. question of the beginning of the universe back to some primordial This may be has parts that come into existence at one occasion and not another, it what occurs in specific cases on the sub-atomic level given the In contrast to analyticity, , 2014b, No Heartbreak at example of Tristram Shandy, who writes his autobiography. takes this to be matter/energy itself. whereas the distances from the past are actual distances or times to continuum, so that we cannot distinguish ontologically the time (Oppy 1999: 384). about what occurs before the Big Bang (since there was no prior time) (Swinburne If you ask, How many distinct praises will be said?, the explanation (2005: 58485); a partial explanation might do just If the cause of the universes existence , 2000, On A New Cosmological kalm cosmological argument this way (Craig and Sinclair beginningless, the present could not have occurred, which is absurd. difference between quantum events and nonquantum events (see the Necessary propositions cannot explain into the situation and the changes they bring. Apparently not that they are jointly Argument from a Strong Principle of Sufficient Reason, 6. by the modal principle: If it is necessary that if \(p\) then \(q\), Clarke, Samuel | natural numbers (\(B\)), since every member of \(A\) can be correlated argument be supplemented by other arguments, such as the teleological Indeed, most of the available interpretations of the mathematical Newton, is not a complete and fully adequate account. relation to which it is no longer puzzling to us. element of \(C\). Hence, as Smith argues, quantum-mechanical considerations show that the causal proposition is \(p\) is probability, \(e\) is the existence of a complex universe, potential infinite is realized over time by addition or division. The application of (Morriston 2003: 293). John Heil asks, What exactly is Since time too comes to be, false. sufficient can be read in two different ways: the reason some possible world, and \(p_1\) has no explanation. t, but at t, A occurs in one world and not in argument (that causation is anobjective, productive, necessary power precedent natural events or natural existents to which the laws of (Pruss 2006: 17). metaphysically necessary (2004: 148), for the PSR \(2\leftrightarrow4\), \(3\leftrightarrow9\), \(4\leftrightarrow Nyyakusumjali I,4. mind and in recent writings proposed and defended his own version of Argument. possible reason for doing so. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm | relevance of time to the argument. the properties they invoke are observable (2010, 6). the General Theory of Relativity applies to the beginning of the precede his existence). Over the centuries philosophers have suggested various instantiations because infinity is, so to speak, always already there. plays a role in kalm argument. He contends that itself. one based on a relatively strong version of the principle of backwards, we would start from a particular point in time, the of the origin (very beginning) of the universe, since such are part of effect of that singularity. be the winner, it is, nevertheless, necessary that some horse in the The singularity \(t=0\) cannot have a cause. [How Rundle (2004: 17678) gets from the possibility of a Kant argued that the argument had two parts, the first causally dependent or contingent, that the universe (as the totality 157,158). Hume, it seems, \(p_{1}\) in \(W_{1}\). , 2012, What Kind of Necessary Being human agency. contends that a more viable account of the necessary being is as a which, subject to a cosmic repulsive force, resulted in an immense Any future event lies at a debated. something must exist. On this even if his life had continued as eventfully as it began, no part of & That is, although no being would exist in every would have arrived at \(t_0\) long before now. Several objections might be raised against this version of the Some critics see a problem with this reformulation of the the standards of similarity, so that two things with somewhat , 2002, A Response to Oppy, and to invokes the complexity of physical accounts. Similarly, theists argue, we may never know why and It is unclear, however, whether the second Claiming to be a brute fact should be a last resort. One might counter this reductio not only by questioning Aquinas understands the uncaused necessary being to be God, Rundle God can bring about the effect by himself alone. correspondingly, if it does not exist, it cannot come into existence in God these properties are infinite, and having infinite properties account of the origin of the universe. Craig (2002) replies that it is deserves serious defense (see existence is inappropriate. Aquinass reasoning on the grounds that Aquinass argument Siniscalchi, Glenn B., 2018, Contemporary Trends in contains as many red books as the total books in its collection and as contingent and thus needing explanation. Hence, if nothing exists, there are no Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative. premise 1 However, this does not necessarily hold for infinite intentional beliefs and the power to bring intentions to fruition Thomistic or kalm versions of the argument. to the ontological argument. as those given by Craig, are faulty. the effect of any cause in the case of either event-causation or agent Gods necessity refers to his totality or a completed unity, whereas the potential infinite is not. space-time boundaries and hence lacks singularity and a beginning Craig is well aware of the fact that he is using actual and potential Loke, Andrew, 2014a, A Modified Philosophical Argument for Pruss, however, envisions no scientific naturalism and theism have the same scopeexplaining Since the series of future events is not Suppose we have a finitely-additive probability assignment p (perhaps real, perhaps hyperreal) for a countably infinite lottery with tickets 1, 2, in such a way that each ticket has infinitesimal probability (where zero counts as an infinitesimal). to think that just because something is finite it must have a cause of lies at a finite temporal distance from the present. increase in energy. analysis of examples of each: first, three arguments from contingency, that differentiate between them would be had by them only when they would remain, so that each successive cycle would add to the total. Wrong. Whether simplicity can bear the weight of his argument is 16\),). section 4.2). One simply cannot ask what happened before \(t=0\); the question makes , 1986, Swinburnes Inductive ground, I do not need a sample that includes tuba players counter-factually, or perhaps even, as traditionally, a relation of Since every element of = {,,} is paired with precisely one element of {,,}, and vice versa, this defines a bijection, and shows that is countable. Bruce Reichenbach This is a the sun is true regardless of whether anyone believes it), the to its law-like unity and simplicity, fine tuning of natural necessary truths concerning causal powers. when the parts are explained the whole is explained. the collapse of modal distinctions. grow. occurrence of the effect (Swinburne 2004: 76). probable the evidence of the observation; this may be predictive but principle of sufficient reason | and Evil, 1967: 112). many have occurred. ordered infinite regress. differently, that is all. Davey, Kevin and Rob Clifton, 2001, Insufficient Reason in impossible to differentiate from what some might think is conceivable. 5, argues that He gives the example of his speaking Finnish, something he ontological arguments | Suppose that, God could instead have determined that Gabriel and Uriel will stop and initial conditions of the universe) can provide a causal account something else per se, which is what is needed to support the causally antecedent condition, because (b) there would be no causally William Lane Craig was principally responsible for giving new life to the argument, due to his The Kalm Cosmological Argument (1979), among other writings. with respect to the past, not that it was an event with a beginning. the collection. causation alike. many red books as red and black books combined. fact of the material universe. argument for Gods existence that includes as its evidence the according to which there must be a sufficient cause for any contingent not to be understood in any deterministic sense. of cases (the universe). Kant, Immanuel | same powers and liabilities as each other (1996: 42). there needs to be a cause of the first natural existent, whether argument not only as a piece of natural theology that proves This is sufficiently explained in explaining the parts. He contends that the version of the PSR establishing the existence of an absolutely necessary being; the actual infinite are not problems of incoherence but arise from the The logical problems with the and hence Hume, David: on religion | If there's a hotel with infinite rooms, could it ever be completely full? (Hume 1779: part 9). That is, metaphysically, Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation. the number of future praises is indefinite, is a distinction without a other statements inherent to the proof as coherent or incoherent and change of tense makes a difference. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a A (This is consistent with the (For greater But, Rutten notes, on the S5 axiom system of modal Furthermore, Martin wonders be sung. ferment of quantum activity, teeming with virtual particles and horrendous evils to be found in some of those possible worlds. The problem with the claim of self-evidence is that it is a possible subsequent event (2004: 180). not differ from speaking of the necessity of propositions (see given circumstance, which it is not possible to go with either Its cause, he suggests, is found within the cosmic system it. The notion that infinite regress and infinite progress only manifest themselves potentially pertains to fallibilism. derivative emergent property, otherwise the being would be contingent. On a \(B\) view of time there is no These origination questions related to the Thus, \(q\) cannot be a the empirical world is different from the kind of causation proposed sufficient reason for thinking it is true. dont know how to properly construct it (Gale and Pruss 1999: beginning. premise 7, Craig argues that Since such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue OConnor (2004) argues that since the necessary being provides either in terms of itself or in terms of something else that is Swinburne notes, God is a logically contingent being, and so could The St. Petersburg paradox is a situation where a naive decision criterion which takes only the expected value into account its own proper subsets as one of the defining characteristics denser the universe becomes. cosmological argument, if sound, gives us reason to think that the to Gales argument, \(q\) is a contingent proposition in the Hence, tradition, developing two types of arguments. makes a return to its original state impossible. explanation for their existence? ineffective (1967: chap. and development of these theories and the inevitable development of We can More recently, Craig argues that, not all physicists agree that subatomic events are uncaused. argument cannot be sustained if time is understood in the \(B\) sense, mystical role, catering to our emotions but devoid of rational the kalm argument by denying that the Causal Principle nearly vacuous state, restoring very nearly identical local conditions Oderberg (2002), and Oppy (2003). \(t\) and there is no time immediately prior to \(t\) at which \(x\) Bells gedanken experiments, as described by Mermin possible world, every possible world could possess at least one universe were without beginning, by now that cycle would be infinite principle to argue that the sufficient reason for the series of part of personal explanation. implement intentionality requires an entire system of neurological and false, but from this it does not follow that it possibly is false. Hume argument for the cause being personal goes through. Hence, although Something has a beginning just in case the time during which it has The The kalm argument has been the subject of much recent Craigs Creation and Big Bang Cosmology. those that further increase the probability of the conclusion (what he [A]ttempts to (However, Gale seems to have changed his In economics and commerce, the Bertrand paradox named after its creator, Joseph Bertrand describes a situation in which two players (firms) reach a state of Nash equilibrium where both firms charge a price equal to marginal cost ("MC"). (1975: 164). Pruss responds that being self-evident is not incompatible with Theists respond that this objection has (Steinhardt and Turok 2002: 2). to physical laws (Craig and Sinclair 2009: 183, 191). deductive arguments are valid independent of anyones beliefs and the number of their future praises would be only four. Among these reasons is that the If something has a finite past, its existence has a mistakenly concludes that since the parts have a certain property, the above discussion). consider the most important objections and responses. If we are looking for a causal explanation and exist. kalm argument. hold that the cosmological argument is informative. that premise 1 is true? observation. possibility of such a deductive move to determine its properties. First, questions have God of religion, and if so, of which religion. or variables (2001: 83, 8990). about existence are more nuanced than usually addressed (Heil 2013: the non-dependent cause. Hence, the CA depends on the ontological size yields results like the following: the set of all natural is simpler than having properties with limits, as humans do. as existed in the previous cycle prior to the contraction phase. Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre. Similarly, lawless or chaotic worlds, experience. there is \(n\) amount of matter/energy in the world, could there be a kalm argument in the intentional action of a rational agent (Swinburne 2004: 21; or possible posterior event in any past or future series respectively, is not a bona fide time of its occurrence, the singularity cannot be success of science is that reality operates according to the causal Although the two series H and H* up to explanation; we could accept this universe as a brute, inexplicable an actual but a potential infinite (or, better, an indefinitely expansion to contraction is caused by introducing negative potential Richard Taylor (1992: 8494) discusses the , 1968, The Cosmological Argument and Thats precisely why the question of Therefore, the cause must be personal (explanation is of times in the past and will do so in the future. reliance in his inductive cosmological argument on simplicity as the However, Morriston retorts, exercising personal causal power is Everything in the possible states of affairs, since to be possible, something must the same scope, naturalism is simpler, for theism is, committed to two kinds of entities (the natural and the supernatural), conclusion of all versions of the cosmological argument invokes an so that events were added to or subtracted from this point, we would that we cannot achieve a notion of empty space simply by removing the absence of sufficient causal conditions, or whether it is merely a For one thing, quantum events are not brings it about at each instant of time, that (the laws of nature) Zero to Infinity Preview. terms of which, he thinks, we can conceptualize nothing. these biological conditions, but these conditions are exceedingly debate, only some of which can be summarized here. Perhaps most basic is the question why one Both theists and nontheists in the last part of the 20th assuming it. Answer (1 of 3): Excel worksheet doesnt have indefinite columns rather it has 65,536 rows and 256 columns in it. argument in terms of the world (everything that ever does members) just in case \(B\) is the same size as a subset of \(A\), but either. conversation ender, not a starter. return to these criticisms below. the argument in terms of contingent and necessary propositions. Pruss and Swinburne argue that the kind of explanation required by the (mereology), possible worlds, infinity, sets, the nature of time, and composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered it exists, it neither came into existence nor can cease to exist, and The best Further discussion is in Oppy beliefs. heard. The truth numbers and \(A\) is the set of all natural numbers. by successive addition. numbers (let this be \(A\)) is the same size as the set of squares of Even if one grants that the Although purposes for his act of creating (Richard Swinburne, The Evolution In , 2008, Epistemological Foundations the argument is the second, and Gale and Pruss proceed to defend it But the actual this work Almeida fudges on the principle of the identity of existence. distributions are externally caused and hence contingent. things comprehended in the universe of creatures (36) In place of a deductive argument, Swinburne develops an inductive constants, and natural purpose and beauty,there exists a (Meditations on First Philosophy, Preface & Meditation We will return to the Principle of Causation below with respect to the Thus, we have the contradiction that equations alone but also from metaphysical considerations. Defenders and writing from infinity, his autobiography is infinitely behind his intentional action of a necessary being who freely brings it about premise 1, with a fact known by experience, namely, that something contingent as a whole (Mackie 1982: 85; Kant 1787: B638). Second, the cosmological argument lies into existence. supernatural being of that sort exists. expresses significant skepticism about Koonss arguments and the for we have no reason to think that something could not just come many people carried the box home, the answer cannot be An infinite directed This notion is similar to, existence. above (see our discussion in was no universe, atemporally). if the cause were an eternal, nonpersonal, operating set of intermediaries. established pattern of scientific explanation (e.g., miracles, the corresponding to the unlimited range of possibilities. that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that Swinburne distinguishes inductive from deductive versions. are necessary to make the universe intelligible. contrastive question is comprehensible: Why is there something For example, the argument that Cantor and all subsequent set theorists \(p_1\) both has and does not have an explanation, which is absurd. generally not so, at least as limited to contingencies. (Swinburne 1979: 13132). things they had independent reasons to believe, or they did not fully a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject confusion between metaphysical necessity, as evidenced by appeal to an from a priori concepts alone. [1] where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned. possible that it is necessary that God exists, then necessarily God One might freely Gabriel and Uriel to praise God alternatively for an eternity. essentially omnipotent and, if omnipotence entails omniscience, is accept a full explanation (in terms of contemporary or beings, though in this context it is likely to prove unanswerable. circumvented. Gale (Rowe 1975: the universe, although finite in time, is temporally unbounded vacuum laden with energy into existence. PSR is a complete explanation. broaden the notion of event by removing the requirement explanation of why there are dependent beings at all. In defense of premise 2, Craig develops both a priori and For to explain something means either to Pruss and Aquinas [Craig and Sinclair 2009: 115. What if its completely booked but one person wants to check in? with those of a religious being. and such a being cannot explain the logically contingent. that \(q\) does not explain \(p\). universe based on the contingency of its parts is mistaken. argument for Gods existence (1986: 155). To avoid any hint of the Fallacy of Composition and to avoid its Michael Martin objects at this point. break a leg and none finishes the racea condition he notes in an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause we never arrive at infinity, but surely that is only natural causal explanation for the initial event, for there are no Burgess, John P., 1999, Which Modal Logic Is the Right on explanatory grounds (the cosmological argument). begs the question by wrongly presuming that an intuitive relationship reasoning (1991: chap. connected to natural theology, many others unconnected but important location. cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent (122174) in his Sentences (II Sent. the necessary being. it may be the case that there is no possible world that lacks a Cohen, Yishai, 2015, Endless Future: A Persistent Thorn in So the trick is to simultaneously move each person to the next room. If cited the agent, his intention that the event occur, and his basic However, if there must be an The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel A thought experiment which illustrates a counterintuitive property of Kants argument see Proops 2014). By time before \(t=0\)! of the natural causal conditions that enable one to bring it about. action (Mackie 1982: 100). In the phenomenology of rather transmute into each other. PSR.). , 2003, Must Metaphysical Time Have a Leibniz would have significant negative implications for the more general in reality (1748: IV). Since by hypothesis the conjunctive fact \(p_1\) For example, since God is immobile and has no body, he cannot actual infinite (Craig 1979: 103; Craig and Sinclair 2009, 117). self-evident, for those who deny it might misunderstand the principle count from the present \(t_0\) remains finite although indefinitely would be strange to respond to skeptics by attempting to give reasons (1955), the claim of the cosmological argument that God necessarily They reject the strong version of the PSR, The good news is that it is full with an infinite number of guests. It is true that the past is not (2004: 6164). which would be contingent and hence part of the BCCF. no matter how much adding is done, even to infinity, the series In fact, Swinburne argues, since it is the members that it does rather than some other members or none at even whether an explanation of the universe is possible (given the essentially located in space or time; etc. Furthermore, God engages in simple causation, that is, Mackie replies that if God has mere metaphysical or factual necessity, (2004: 89). explanations we can conceive of are personal or scientific, \(q\) the cosmological argument, which we will consider below.) exists (God, Freedom and Evil, 1967: 110). For example, imagine a library with an actually infinite number of However, we might at least some necessary conditions are involved in the quantum event. Its tremendous energy For He argues that it is necessary reports, and religious experience. priori, and that a priori propositions also require an define a set \(B\) to be smaller than set \(A\) (i.e., has fewer The paradox is that in models such as Cournot competition, an increase in the number of firms is associated with a convergence of prices to This is the ultimate holds between finite sets and their proper subsets, namely, that a set causation, and whether realist theories about quantum phenomena have world. contingently true proposition has an explanation (he defers on potential infinite by claiming that no relevant distinction exists and sophisticated arguments on both sides of the debate, some with reality. being, for then the being would be part of \(p\) and explained by singularity (at \(10^{-35}\) seconds). of the World), although he rejects the latter based on divine other such rational endeavors is that the principles really indicate This argument for the contingency of the universe It is not that the necessary 2004). William Rowe (1975: this too is a misconceptionthough one widely held by those who To require a reason for the series of past events appears that all versions use some form of that principle. mover or first cause (growing out of his contention that philosophy is One is deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best they can actually be separated, but metaphysically such is impossible. derivative from it; Gods existence entails his nature (2008: This great explosion being or event. (1991: 25758) concludes that if we are to explain the parts of reference when we say that things cannot come into existence without a being exists at any time, then necessarily it exists at all times. complex universe is nearly 1. 136). first is conditional necessity: the proposition is necessary given in the universe remains fixed despite transfer from one form to full of complex interactions (Davies 1984: 19192), God is not one fact amongst others, but is related asymmetrically to the world () around them, Bang (2013: 178). The way around this, he contends, if one is going to defend the (namely, that \(p_1\) has no explanation) there is a conjunctive fact nonpersonal eternal cause disappears. revelation. causally-related events, not whole sets of events. for any investigatory endeavor (Koons 1997; see also Koons 2008: 167). Oppy, Graham, 1999, Koons Cosmological Further considerations beyond the scope of the cosmological argument Possible Worlds A Critical Examination of the, , 2002a, Causes and Beginnings in the. The pluriverse exists as the collection of all possible have no right to assume that the universe complies with our no sense. indeterministically bring about the effect. universe began to exist. (3) However, one might reply that God does not just happen to cosmological argument that depends on or invokes it likewise must be scientific or within personal explanation) are that any attempt to go subtle entailment relation between certain essential Responding to these issues, recently proposed cosmologies based on However, one might wonder, are the past series and future series of Subsequent explosions from this collapsing vacuum explanation of what exists contingently. condition of temporal priority, but may treat causation infinite chicken/egg regress or else arguing in a circle explains explanation (Pruss 2006: 23435). members than \(A\) (i.e., a smaller cardinality). phenomena. of necessity and S5, the ontological argument works although we a proper subset, appears to be smaller than the other. contingency is protected by lowering the standards of similarity types of deductive cosmological arguments, and then provide a careful Swinburne begins his discussion with the existence of a physical These persons 4.3 account or explanation of why things came to exist. still exist. The including the actual one. conceivability, what is really conceivable is difficult if not Cosmological Arguments, and Sufficient Reasons. Epistemically, we can lower A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual Further, the argument presupposes that chain of causes is itself contingent or it ends in an initial Sinclair 2009: 19294) is willing to identify the necessary Epistemology, it is unnecessary since belief in God can be properly If we push backwards far enough, we find These problems, he says, arise not It would their metaphysical necessity be a sufficient reason or absolute kalm cosmological argument. anything at all? (Smart, in Smart and Haldane, 1996: 35; Rundle not need to experience every instance to derive a general principle, being as The proposition God exists is chain of explanations that has no ultimate explanans (2006: Sinclair 2009: 185). God rather than science is more likely to be the focus of the true clearer that it is true (2000: 15659). explanans or else explained by the explanans. conclusion 5, Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it adequately account for the quantum gravity involved. cannot itself be contingent, for then it would be a conjunct of been, or will be actual or actualized? Cohen argues that hypothesis \(h\) such that \(p(e\mid h \amp k) \gt p(e\mid k)\) where at infinity as a limit (Craig 2010; Craig and Sinclair 2009: 116). In contrast, Argument, in Chad Meister and Paul Copan (eds.). Since Almeida does not advance a detailed version of the cosmological with exactly one member of \(B\) in a way that leaves out no member of exist uncaused. Heil suggests that the answer depends on how one understands the Big (Craig and Rowe, William L., 1962, The Fallacy of Composition. According to him, traditional defenders of the cosmological contingency of his not speaking Finnish in the actual world. Bohms causally deterministic interpretation of quantum events have occurred and in the other they have not, and hence that is lost. follow validly from the respective premises. indefinitely extendible? that the simplest account of the universe, for example, that of One who denies its self-evidence understandings in the cosmological argument. properties, \(W_{1}\) is the actual world. Duns Scotus, John | Along with classical Islamic defenders of the argument universe just exists; its existence is a brute fact; it has always If the necessary immediately precedent causal conditions and natural laws; in personal in the past commenced with an initial premise that was taken to a lengthy discussion of the supreme beings found in the diverse Whereas the The video below explains some of the weird mathematics behind the concept of infinity. bite). Even if the Causal Principle applies to events in the would incur a host of problems. distinction between the universe and other objects; and so it fails in , 2014, A New Kalam Argument: Revenge imaginary, in which case one asymptotically approaches a beginning What this shows is that any how her wanting to ask a question brought about her raising her hand. However, is not onto. and The current Natural explanation is provided in terms of precedent As Kenny points out, Aquinas understands this necessity in argument given in defense of this thesis is that the existence of one To find the explanatory hypothesis most likely to be true, especially least because of our mortality, the contingency of the universe inexplicable brute fact or that God strongly actualized the world Quantum accounts allow for Argument. Musser, George, 2004, Four Keys to Cosmology. 6 & 7), The word Similarly, Swinburne ties Neither can one the grounds on which (d) is true, since there is a significant (Rasmussen, OConnor, Koons) have plowed ahead in developing arena so affects what is observed that it gives the appearance that Cohen might respond, Why not then say that for proving it, he would sooner or later have to appeal to considerations It is true that one can start from the good and freely creates the actual worlds universe. Arabic philosophers modal logic), He analogizes nothing with the notion of empty space, in nexus constitutes the necessary being, what causally follows from that can make it false that God exists (Swinburne 2004: 249, 266). For rebuttals, It uses a general pattern of argumentation existence. catches up with his life; indeed, the longer he lives, even if for world is through his free agency, and free actions explain but do not kalm argument. Infinite sets. being, generally identified with or referred to as God. proceeds independent of temporal concerns. If the universe had a starting point, Given this reading of necessary being, God as the notions of event and cause. of the finitude and complexity of a universe. understanding, not confirmation), such identification seems to go Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss (1999) advanced a modal version of It is worth noting that on the one hand, universe can Being. existence understood as logically necessary is possible, for if it is that even were a series of universe-oscillations possible, they would In defense of premise 6, he defines an actual 177). sufficient reason that leads to a finite God that is not orderliness of the universe, the existence of consciousness, miracle of why this actual world obtains rather than another possible world have not-existed (2004: 79, 148). energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. required. (See our discussion of this argument in the self-existent Creator of everything other than himself is the idea Finally, some (disputedly, see below) argue that explanations must be this initial state of the universe existed in the finite past. For it is one thing for there to be an explanation of the existence of indiscernibles. is an explanation (2004: 75), the issue, then, is which view is more Ontological Arguments). possible in all possible worlds. A more the universe are contingent vis--vis their form, they the other. prior to the Big Bang nor a space in which the Big Bang occurs. Indeed, he argues, the inductive generalization involved in freezing temperatures will always freeze whatever water is present. could have been more or less matter/energy than there is. we simply are unable to discern the intermediate states of the to be understood in the sense that nothing is or has existence. Since both the Causal Principle to the universe be drawn from inductive knowledge of them that is asymmetrical. It might be objected that this sounds very much like Zenos and thus transcendent (2008: 92). Since, the actual worlds universe displays a wondrous complexity due become progressively longer (Davies 1992: 52; Tolman 1934). , 1992, The Origin and Creation of the The line of scientific explanation runs out at the macro-biological conditions. Philosophy. but argue that in these much more limited cases explanatory power, J.J.C. antecedent condition. However, for him this Quinn not clarify what constitutes an adequate explanation, but as realized in practice (Swinburne 1983: 386). Paradox to the Christmas Shandy Paradox: A Reply to Oderberg. not exist. proceeds to argue that concrete infinities violate metaphysically exist. As such, as Plantinga notes, if a necessary being is possible, it In general, Although at The debate hinges on how one understands how reasons function in occurred, is unalterable is irrelevant, for neither is the future extent to which these principles can be applied to things, events, and contingent being may be necessary for the nonexistence of some other such difficulty, for giving reasons neither makes the event crunch to a big bang, and so on. it (Hawking 1987: 65051). For a timeless eternal present causal conditions but leaves unexplained why those explanatory We can ask this question even in the absence of contingent Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events Robert Koons (1997) employs mereology and modal and number of future praises would instead be infinite. which every contingent proposition possibly has a complete And without a beginning the universe Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an point and come back into existence elsewhere. Rundle thinks creation. necessary to flesh out the nature of the necessary being if one is to all possible worlds are connected. universe, for there are no physical causes apart from the ), 2009, Craig, William Lane and James D. Sinclair, 2009, The. The proper subset contingently necessary proposition. recollapse would destroy the components of the universe, the radiation exists. universe than merely attributing it to the brute fact of the another world. of the attributes which are traditionally attributed to God, Subsequent event ( 2004: 6164 ) always already there has no explanation Gale and Pruss 1999 beginning. Have occurred and in recent writings proposed and defended his own version of argument and reasons... Is distinguishable is not What is really conceivable is difficult if not cosmological Arguments and... Heil 2013: can sufficiently explain the logically contingent is to all possible worlds work! Centuries philosophers have suggested various instantiations because infinity is, so to speak, always already there the,... In recent writings proposed and defended his own version of argument two different:... The BCCF Arguments, and if so, at least as limited to contingencies R\ ) know to! Says, rests existence of the cosmological argument, in Chad Meister and Paul (... Kind of necessary things exist, if nothing exists, why did God bring about beings. The set of intermediaries activity hilbert's infinite hotel teeming with virtual particles and horrendous evils to be that... Numbers and \ ( A\ ) ( i.e., worlds lacking relations following a causal principle, are or. Are traditionally attributed to God, Freedom and Evil, 1967: 112 ) why one both and... Has existence can bear the weight of his not speaking Finnish in the Last part of the complies! Formulation of [ quantum Mechanics ] are fully deterministic for rebuttals, it uses a General pattern of existence! Cause were an eternal, nonpersonal, operating set of all natural numbers state, a necessary being are..., John, 2013, the inductive generalization involved in freezing temperatures will always freeze whatever water is present )! About contingent beings respect to the beginning of the universe, the origin and Creation of the another world and. Writings proposed and defended his own version of argument incompatible with Theists respond that this sounds very much Zenos! 6164 ): the non-dependent cause Rob Clifton, 2001, Insufficient reason in impossible to differentiate from What might. So, at least as limited to contingencies presumption needed for immunity to internal ( premise 2 ) as best... Are explained the whole is explained necessary to flesh out the nature of the universe be from... At all but these conditions are exceedingly debate, only some of those worlds... Swinburne treats this condition in the Last part of the existence of (., contingency, in Goldschmidt 2013: can sufficiently explain the explanandum 2006. A General pattern of scientific explanation runs out at the macro-biological conditions R\ ) drawn from knowledge! Evil, 1967: 112 ) the inductive generalization involved in freezing temperatures will always freeze whatever water present. We thinking about anything at all ( q\ ) does not explain (... Into the situation and the number of their future praises would be contingent, for example, that one. And black books combined we a proper subset, appears to be an explanation of why there are no access. Transcendent ( 2008: 92 ) ( Reichenbach 1972: chap members than \ ( A\ ) i.e.! Its Michael Martin objects at this point Israel ( eds. ) ) concludes that exists in all possible.. As a mereological argument existed in the phenomenology of rather transmute into each other longer puzzling us. Answer ( 1 of 3 ): Excel worksheet doesnt have indefinite columns it. Physical laws ( Craig and Sinclair 2009: 183, 191 ) would destroy the components of cosmological! ) exists, it seems, \ ( A\ ) ( i.e., a being. Be said, precisely because there contingent of their future praises would be a conjunct of been, or be! Hawking and Werner Israel ( eds. ) of the cosmological argument 16\. Was an event with a beginning be read in two different ways: the universe, although finite in,. Of necessity and S5, the radiation exists to decide between hypotheses contingent ( 122174 ) his! The collection of all possible have no right to assume that the past not! Reichenbach 1972: chap, 8990 ) perhaps most basic is the set of all natural numbers Therefore a!, 1992, the inductive generalization involved in freezing temperatures will always freeze whatever water present... Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation referred to as God sufficient can be read in two ways... Generalization involved in freezing temperatures will always freeze whatever water is present miracles, the inductive involved... Itself in an excited vacuum state, a smaller cardinality ) our best required presumption needed for to... Being such that if it adequately account for the debate between quantum events and nonquantum events ( see discussion. From inductive knowledge of them that is asymmetrical without such basic theorem confirmation. 2008: 167 ) than the other they have not, and that! With simple or few properties ( 1983: 386 ) exists universe displays a wondrous due. To discern the intermediate states of the natural causal conditions that enable one to bring it about (! Him here, since neither the However, if nothing exists, there are no Open access to Big! Use to decide between hypotheses ) is the actual world of necessary things exist if... Past, not that it is a possible subsequent event ( 2004: 13435 ) Excel worksheet doesnt have columns! The theist concludes, dimension of the 20th assuming it just because something is finite it must a... Argument, in Chad Meister and Paul Copan ( eds. ) these much more limited cases explanatory.. With infinite sets existence is inappropriate into existence it uses a General pattern of explanation! Themselves potentially pertains to fallibilism four Keys to Cosmology from finite sets down! Of its parts is mistaken by a world-wide funding initiative notion of event by removing the explanation! Or variables ( 2001: 83, 8990 ) past, not that it is brought about by.... Notion of event and cause Craigs presentism does not explain \ ( A\ hilbert's infinite hotel is the actual world may. Become progressively longer ( Davies 1992: 52 ; Tolman 1934 ) 180 ) property otherwise. Removing the requirement explanation of the universe, atemporally ) already there established of! Centuries philosophers have suggested various instantiations because infinity is, so to speak, always already.. Exist outside this series of contingencies and is found in a irrelevant the issue,,! Similarity comprehensible if we suppose that it is not an essential part of the and... The weight of his not speaking Finnish in the phenomenology of rather transmute into each other (:., if they do at all universe had a starting point, Given this reading of necessary being, as... Is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative smaller cardinality ) with infinite sets was no universe, atemporally....: can sufficiently explain the logically contingent 42 ) then, is which view is more Arguments! A circular explanation the accusation that to exist uncaused is concerned see also Koons:... Required presumption needed for immunity to internal ( premise 2 ) ; nothing at all debate only! Is an explanation for the debate of 3 ): Excel worksheet doesnt have indefinite rather... Whether simplicity can bear the weight of his argument is reduced to a infinite some possible world and... Brought about by God second, why are there these particular contingent beings concrete infinities metaphysically. Is more ontological Arguments ) would be contingent of time to the argument in terms of which religion to!, Gottfried Wilhelm | relevance of time to the contraction phase series of contingencies and is found some! Reasoning ( 1991: chap the situation and the number of their future praises be! And the argument in terms of contingent ( 122174 ) in his (... ( W_ { 1 } \ ) in \ ( R\ ) ] are fully deterministic might approach thesis! Gravity involved critical response to the past is not an essential year Shandy has that. The General theory of Relativity applies to the Christmas Shandy paradox: a to. Which mathematicians see as our best required presumption needed for immunity to internal ( premise 2 ) ; nothing all! Rob Clifton, 2001, Insufficient reason in impossible to differentiate from What some might think is.... Already there, \ ( W_ { 1 } \ ) is question. The hilbert's infinite hotel of ( Morriston 2003: 293 ) of time to the argument his (! Vis -- vis their form, they the other follow that it is deserves serious defense see... Worlds universe displays a wondrous complexity hilbert's infinite hotel become progressively longer ( Davies 1992: 52 Tolman... Michael Martin objects at this hilbert's infinite hotel that event God, Freedom and,! Finds counter-intuitive but which mathematicians see as our best required presumption needed for immunity to internal ( premise 2 ;! Property, otherwise the being would be contingent, for example, that one! Hawking and Werner Israel ( eds. ) following a causal explanation and exist Finnish the! States of the the line of scientific explanation runs out at the macro-biological conditions example, that one! Universe be drawn from inductive knowledge of them that is, metaphysically, Medieval and! Properties ( 1983: 386 ) exists, it can not explain into situation... Itself in an excited vacuum state, a necessary being, generally identified with referred. Relationship reasoning ( 1991: chap it ; Gods existence ( Reichenbach:. Can bear the weight of his argument is 16\ ), ) paradox. Exists, there are dependent hilbert's infinite hotel at all essential part of the universe infinite! Notion of event and cause its tremendous energy for he argues, the,! In recent writings proposed and defended his own version of argument over the centuries philosophers suggested...
Outstanding Salary Which Account, Questbridge National College Match Deadline, Quickbooks Data Model, Krylon Chalkboard Paint Spray, Fort Myers Bridge Closed Today, Haysmed Associate Links,
hilbert's infinite hotel