Could infinite God create infinite universe?

[1over137]

Hi all.

This is a continuation of this thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37475
Narnia4 wrote that it wasn't always assumed by Christian philosophers and theologians that the universe began to exist.
And this brought me to a question: Could infinite God create an infinite universe? From the mathematical point of view he could. If you have an infinite amount of time and you take part from it, you still get an infinite amount of time.

Comments, objections (either philosophical or based on the Bible)?

[PaulSacramento]

Sure, if God chooses to sustain the universe eternally then Yes it can exists, potentially, for an infinite time ( if God is infinite of course).

[narnia4]

I believe the universe began to exist, but I also think that God could create a universe that didn't begin to exist.

I'm hoping that maybe Jac or Byblos could briefly comment on Aquinas and his arguments here. If not, I'll have to thumb through Feser's Aquinas[i/] (newly arrived, pretty excited about it) and see if I can articulate his point correctly.

Here's a quote from Feser on p. 64 of Aquinas that might be at least partially related here-

Aquinas famously thought that it cannot be proven philosophically that the world had a beginning of time, and while he nevertheless believed it did, he held that this was something that could only be known through divine revelation (ST I.46.2). Consequently, his arguments are not[/i} intended to show that God caused the world to begin at some point in the past (at the Big Bang, say). Rather, he argues that even if the world had always existed, God would still have to exist here and now, otherwise certain features that it exhibits here and now would be inexplicable.

Should also mention that Craig has been a topic of conversation here lately, he's one that has tried to shown that an actual infinite is impossible. Hibbert's hotel, all that stuff. Given what we know about the universe, an actual infinite does seem impossible, but Jac's point in another thread (as I understand it) was that we shouldn't necessarily rely on a beginning because science could still uncover something about matter or the universe that we don't understand.

[PaulSacramento]

Things as we know them in THIS reality/universe/dimension ARE finite.
How they are in God's universe/dimension is another matter.
Infinite doesn't mean eternal though.
Something infinite (without end) can still have a beginning.
Something eternal ( and only God is eternal) has no beginning nor end, God simply is and always has been.

[narnia4]

Yes God is eternal. Someone correct me here if I'm misrepresenting Craig's position, but he (as an example) distinguishes between a potential and actual infinite. God is eternal but an actual infinite is impossible. If you have a beginning, then you are always moving toward infinity, but you never actually reach it. A "googol" years may past and an infinite number may yet come, but at any one moment only a finite number of years has passed (assuming a beginning of time). All this also presupposes a certain view of time.

[Jac3510]

Hi all.

This is a continuation of this thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37475
Narnia4 wrote that it wasn't always assumed by Christian philosophers and theologians that the universe began to exist.
And this brought me to a question: Could infinite God create an infinite universe? From the mathematical point of view he could. If you have an infinite amount of time and you take part from it, you still get an infinite amount of time.

Comments, objections (either philosophical or based on the Bible)?

Yes, he could have. We know from Scripture He did not. Modern science strongly suggests He did not (which should not surprise us in the least!).

All this presumes the question of whether or not and in what senses infinities in nature are possible. Narnia already mentioned the distinction between proper and improper (or actual and potential, respectively) infinities, the latter of which are definitely real, the former not (at least, we can agree with that for the sake of argument; I do, anyway). B-Theorists would have a much harder time trying to justify the possibility of an infinite universe, since, for them, everything exists together and therefore we would have a really existent properly infinite universe. A-Theorists would dislike them as well, although the arguments would be more subtle, since they would not be based on a really existent properly infinite universe--given that things pass out of existence--but there would seem to be an really existent properly infinite number of properties. Aristotelians, though, would have neither problem, and would thus not object (in principle) to an infinite universe (but strictly, we mean here a beginningless universe), for the simple reason that, on the Aristotelian view of time (which I accept and will make a thread on in a few hours), a beginningless universe does not entail an properly infinite universe, since at any given time, there may be a finite number of things. Put differently, on Aristotelianism, at no time in a beginningless universe is there a really existent properly infinite number of things.

I'd suggest Aquinas' arguments on this for further reading: SCG II.38 and ST Ia.46.2

[1over137]

@PaulSacramento:
Paul, you wrote this:

Sure, if God chooses to sustain the universe eternally then Yes it can exists, potentially, for an infinite time ( if God is infinite of course).

and this:

Things as we know them in THIS reality/universe/dimension ARE finite.
How they are in God's universe/dimension is another matter.
Infinite doesn't mean eternal though.
Something infinite (without end) can still have a beginning.
Something eternal ( and only God is eternal) has no beginning nor end, God simply is and always has been.

1. From your first post I assume that you assumed that I assumed infinite universe without beginning because you wrote 'sustain the universe eternally'.
2. Yes, we never can know eternal thing. By knowing it, we would have to know all about it and how one can know all about it if one did not exist eternally. I also do not see a way how one can know whether something did not have a beginning. One would need to be told by eternal God and I am not sure if there is such mention in the Bible.

@narnia4:

Aquinas famously thought that it cannot be proven philosophically that the world had a beginning of time, and while he nevertheless believed it did, he held that this was something that could only be known through divine revelation (ST I.46.2). Consequently, his arguments are not[/i} intended to show that God caused the world to begin at some point in the past (at the Big Bang, say). Rather, he argues that even if the world had always existed, God would still have to exist here and now, otherwise certain features that it exhibits here and now would be inexplicable.

1. The point I want to discuss in this thread is whether there is a possibility of universe without beginning, not whether it can be proven.
2. I agree with Aquinas that it is 'something that could only be known through divine revelation'. See what I wrote above.

Should also mention that Craig has been a topic of conversation here lately, he's one that has tried to shown that an actual infinite is impossible. Hibbert's hotel, all that stuff. Given what we know about the universe, an actual infinite does seem impossible, but Jac's point in another thread (as I understand it) was that we shouldn't necessarily rely on a beginning because science could still uncover something about matter or the universe that we don't understand.

Yes God is eternal. Someone correct me here if I'm misrepresenting Craig's position, but he (as an example) distinguishes between a potential and actual infinite. God is eternal but an actual infinite is impossible. If you have a beginning, then you are always moving toward infinity, but you never actually reach it. A "googol" years may past and an infinite number may yet come, but at any one moment only a finite number of years has passed (assuming a beginning of time). All this also presupposes a certain view of time.

1. I had to search internet to find out what actual and potential infinity means. I found this: "The explanation that made the actual infinite and potential infinite clearer to me (coincidentally, a few days ago) is Aristotle's refutation of Zeno's paradox, where Achilles is running half way across a course, then half the remaining distance, then half the remaining distance again, etc. Zeno seems to be saying that he couldn't ever arrive, because he traverses an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time. Aristotle, on the other hand, says that only a few if any of these points are "actualized". You could actualize a point by stopping on it, or marking it, or whatever—otherwise they remain potential points. If you stopped and marked every point, this indeed would take an infinite amount of time, but if you left most points as potential, unmarked points, you will arrive at your destination without a problem."
2. I agree that an actual infinity is impossible.
3. To what Jac says: I do not see a way how science could uncover that the universe has no beggining (if this would be the case) without God telling us something about that.

edit: Jac, I have not seen your post before I submitted mine. So, I'll come to that in the next one.

[1over137]

Yes, he could have. We know from Scripture He did not. Modern science strongly suggests He did not (which should not surprise us in the least!).

So, you are of the opinion that eternal God could create beginning-less universe.
As to the Scripture: As I read Genesis it tells me that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But where is it told that the beginning mentioned here is the beginning of our universe? I am not sure what is meant here by heaven. And as I read it again and again it seems to me that heaven and earth were created together in one moment. So, the beginning mentioned here is the beginning when earth was created and it does not seem to me that it means the beginning of our universe. But I am not sure what earth here means either.

Aristotelians, though, would have neither problem, and would thus not object (in principle) to an infinite universe (but strictly, we mean here a beginningless universe), for the simple reason that, on the Aristotelian view of time (which I accept and will make a thread on in a few hours), a beginningless universe does not entail an properly infinite universe, since at any given time, there may be a finite number of things. Put differently, on Aristotelianism, at no time in a beginningless universe is there a really existent properly infinite number of things.

So, no objection from Aristoteles on the beginningless universe.

I'd suggest Aquinas' arguments on this for further reading: SCG II.38 and ST Ia.46.2

I looked at that, but I need help. What are the philosophical objections against the beginningless universe from the first paper? The second paper presents objections to points trying to prove universe with beginning. Fine.

[Jac3510]

So, you are of the opinion that eternal God could create beginning-less universe.
As to the Scripture: As I read Genesis it tells me that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But where is it told that the beginning mentioned here is the beginning of our universe? I am not sure what is meant here by heaven. And as I read it again and again it seems to me that heaven and earth were created together in one moment. So, the beginning mentioned here is the beginning when earth was created and it does not seem to me that it means the beginning of our universe. But I am not sure what earth here means either.

Biblical Hebrew doesn't have a word for "the universe." "The heavens" refers to the sky--the thing that holds the stars. The phrase "the heavens and the earth" (hashamayim vehaeretz) was their way of referring to everything that exists. It might be sort of like if we said, "Everything above and below!"

So, no objection from Aristoteles on the beginningless universe.

No. In fact, Aristotle believed that the universe was beginningless. Aquinas thinks his arguments fails on this point (as do I), but he also thinks that [philosophical] arguments that try to prove that the universe had a beginning fail.

I looked at that, but I need help. What are the philosophical objections against the beginningless universe from the first paper?

Here's the section in question, plus my commentary:

• [2] It has been demonstrated that God is the cause of all things. But a cause must precede in duration the things produced by its action

Aquinas has already proved that God is the cause of all things (He is the First Cause). The argument is that since causes always precede their affect temporally, therefore, the universe itself (an effect) must have a cause temporally prior to it. But there is nothing temporally before a beginningless universe, so it follows that the universe cannot be eternal. This fails, though, because the principle only applies to things that change in time. Creation, however, is not a temporal event, so to say that God is the cause of the universe is not to say that His act stands temporally prior to the beginning of the universe, but rather than it stands logically prior to the universe. Aquinas here has in mind what are called essentially ordered causal chains (think of a hand pushing a stick pushing a rock--the hand is pushing the rock by pushing the stick; the hand's movement is not really temporally prior to the rock's movement. They happen together). For more on this, I'd recommend Howe's Two Notions of the Infinite in Thomas Aquinas.

• [3] Moreover, since all being is created by God, it cannot be said to be made from some being. It follows that it is made from nothing and, consequently, that it has being after not-being.

The argument is that since God created all being, then there is no thing out of which God created the universe. Therefore, if God created the universe, He did so out of nothing. But if the universe at some time was not, then the universe is not beginningless. This, however, fails because the logic is just bad. Aristotle had argued that something is always made out of something else (everything comes from a substatrum, he says). Aquinas had denied that with his proof that God created the universe. But the denial of the premise that something is made from something is not therefore something is made from nothing, as this argument has it, but rather that something is not made from something. But that isn't enough to conclude in creation ex nihilo.

• [4] Also, an infinite number of things cannot be traversed. But, if the world had always existed, an infinite number of things would have now been traversed, for what is past is passed by; and if the world always existed, then there are an infinite number of past days or revolutions of the sun.

This is a common argument still used today (in fact, it's one I used to you)--if the universe had a beginningless past, then we would have had to traverse an infinite number of days to get here. But since an infinite cannot be traversed, then if the universe had a beginningless past, then we would not be here today "yet," which is absurd. Therefore, since we are here, the universe had a beginning. This fails because the kind of infinite we are dealing with here would be a potential infinite (an infinite created by addition), which is possible. If we assume the eternality of the universe, then we would not have to "pass through" an infinite number of days, since all of them would be considered simultaneously. The only way to traverse from one to another is if we consider traveling from one point to another. But the moment you introduce a point from which to measure, we no longer being required to "traverse an infinite."

• [5] Moreover, in that case it follows that an addition is made to the infinite; to the infinite number of past days or revolutions every day brings another addition.

Here, the argument is that a beginningless universe entails that there has been an infinite number of events, but that now we are adding events to an infinite number of events. But how can you add anything to infinity? (So this is sort of an ancient version of Hilbert's Hotel.) Thomas just points out that while you cannot add to the infinite, a beginningless universe may have an infinite past, but it has a finite present, and there is no reason you can't add to the finite present.

• [6] Then, too, it follows that it is possible to proceed to infinity in the line of efficient causes, if the engendering of things has gone on perpetually—and this in turn follows necessarily on the hypothesis that the world always existed; the father is the cause of his son, and another person the cause of that father, and so on endlessly.

Here is an attempt at a reductio--if the universe is beginningless, then there is an infinite regression of efficient causes, which would mean there is no First Cause. But Thomas points out that there are two kinds of causal chains, what that can be beginningless and one that cannot. Essentially ordered causal chains of the hand-stick-rock kind cannot precede to infinity, because then there would be nothing actually doing the moving, since all of the intermediate causes of motion are just that--intermediate or instrumental. The other kind is called accidentally ordered causal chains and are of the father-son-grandson type relationship. Here, the cause of motion is accidental to the motion produced, not essential to it. That is, you can remove the efficient cause and the effect will continue to exist; that is not the case in essentially ordered causes, because the movement of the first cause is essential (not accidental) to the movement of the second cause. The bottom line is that there is nothing philosophically absurd about an infinite regress of an accidentally ordered efficient causal chain. I again refer you to the paper linked above for more on essentially vs. accidentally ordered causal chains.

• [7] Furthermore, if the world always existed, it will follow that there exists an infinite number of things, namely, the immortal souls of an infinite number of human beings who died in the past.

This, Aquinas says, is the closest to a convincing argument. The idea is that if the world was beginningless, then there would now be an infinite number of souls in heaven, but that is absurd (because now we are dealing with a proper infinite simultaneously existing in the present). The problem with this argument is that it just takes too much for granted that the skeptic is not likely to accept; indeed, it is based on premises that are known by faith! For instance, why should we accept the notion that the soul continues to exist after the body, or that if it does, it continues to exist forever after the body (that is, why should we accept the immortality of the soul?). On the other hand, someone could come up with counter proposals to explain away the requirement such as a beginning of the universe, such as reincarnation. We don't believe in reincarnation, but that (again) based on faith. So whatever truth it has rests on premises that cannot be embraced without embracing still more controversial or at least faith-based premises.

I hope that helps.

[1over137]

Biblical Hebrew doesn't have a word for "the universe." "The heavens" refers to the sky--the thing that holds the stars. The phrase "the heavens and the earth" (hashamayim vehaeretz) was their way of referring to everything that exists. It might be sort of like if we said, "Everything above and below!"

Thanks. So, I wonder why the theologicians narnia4 mentioned still contemplated beginningless universe. I asummed they knew Hebrew pretty well.

Aquinas has already proved that God is the cause of all things (He is the First Cause). The argument is that since causes always precede their affect temporally, therefore, the universe itself (an effect) must have a cause temporally prior to it. But there is nothing temporally before a beginningless universe, so it follows that the universe cannot be eternal. This fails, though, because the principle only applies to things that change in time. Creation, however, is not a temporal event, so to say that God is the cause of the universe is not to say that His act stands temporally prior to the beginning of the universe, but rather than it stands logically prior to the universe. Aquinas here has in mind what are called essentially ordered causal chains (think of a hand pushing a stick pushing a rock--the hand is pushing the rock by pushing the stick; the hand's movement is not really temporally prior to the rock's movement. They happen together). For more on this, I'd recommend Howe's Two Notions of the Infinite in Thomas Aquinas.

I also am of the mind that God's act does not have to stay temporally prior to the beginning of the universe. But I am not getting the Aquinas's reason. Stick pushes the rock by electromagnetical interaction and it takes some time for the field to arrive from the point A to the point B.

The argument is that since God created all being, then there is no thing out of which God created the universe. Therefore, if God created the universe, He did so out of nothing. But if the universe at some time was not, then the universe is not beginningless. This, however, fails because the logic is just bad. Aristotle had argued that something is always made out of something else (everything comes from a substatrum, he says). Aquinas had denied that with his proof that God created the universe. But the denial of the premise that something is made from something is not therefore something is made from nothing, as this argument has it, but rather that something is not made from something. But that isn't enough to conclude in creation ex nihilo.

Could not God create stuff from Him?

This is a common argument still used today (in fact, it's one I used to you)--if the universe had a beginningless past, then we would have had to traverse an infinite number of days to get here. But since an infinite cannot be traversed, then if the universe had a beginningless past, then we would not be here today "yet," which is absurd. Therefore, since we are here, the universe had a beginning. This fails because the kind of infinite we are dealing with here would be a potential infinite (an infinite created by addition), which is possible. If we assume the eternality of the universe, then we would not have to "pass through" an infinite number of days, since all of them would be considered simultaneously. The only way to traverse from one to another is if we consider traveling from one point to another. But the moment you introduce a point from which to measure, we no longer being required to "traverse an infinite."

Jac, I do not understand your last sentence here.

The rest of your post I have to stare at for little longer. So, I'll not touch it now.
Thanks guys for letting me speak to Jac.

[Byblos]

Thanks guys for letting me speak to Jac.

Yes, one needs a higher authority for clearance.

[RickD]

Thanks guys for letting me speak to Jac.

Yes, one needs a higher authority for clearance.

Hana, most of us just try to get close enough to touch Jac's robe. But, you actually got authority to talk to him. Tell us, what was that like?

[Jac3510]

Hana, most of us just try to get close enough to touch Jac's robe. But, you actually got authority to talk to him. Tell us, what was that like?

I felt power go out of me . . .

[1over137]

It is so great to debate with Jac.
Jac, please relax and find power to answer my previous post.

[Jac3510]

It is so great to debate with Jac.
Jac, please relax and find power to answer my previous post.

If you insist

Thanks. So, I wonder why the theologicians narnia4 mentioned still contemplated beginningless universe. I asummed they knew Hebrew pretty well.

I'm not one to impute motives, so I can't say specifically. What I can say is that, historically, people have believed the universe was eternal. Aristotle, for instance, believed it very strongly. Non-theists have always had to believe it (since a temporally finite universe requires a cause, which has strong theistic implications). Mythical religions have always tended to see the universe (or at least matter) as eternal.

With that said, I'm not sure which theologians narnia mentioned you are referring to. I only saw him mention Aquinas and Craig, both of whom think the universe had a beginning. Aquinas argued against the philosophers of his day who thought the universe was eternal, but they thought that in large part for historical reasons.

I also am of the mind that God's act does not have to stay temporally prior to the beginning of the universe. But I am not getting the Aquinas's reason. Stick pushes the rock by electromagnetical interaction and it takes some time for the field to arrive from the point A to the point B.

Aquinas' point isn't that there is or isn't time between the events. His point is that event A (the hand pushing) is causing event B (the stick pushing) which is causing event C (the rock moving), etc. The moment the hand stops pushing, the rock ceases to be moved. That kind of sequence is to be distinguished from an event A (say a bat hitting a ball) that caused an event B (say a ball hitting a window) that caused an event C (say the window breaking). In this later type of causal chain, once the sequences is started, a cause can cease to exist and the chain will still continue. That second kind of sequence can, theoretically, be an infinite chain (say a man having a son who has a son who has a son ad infinitum). The first kind of sequences, however, cannot be an infinite chain, for all of the intermediate causes are receiving their movement from some First Cause (in our example, a hand, although you can extend that argument back further).

Could not God create stuff from Him?

God is not composed of "stuff" from which He could create anything (at least, not on classical theism). If He were, we would have to figure out where that stuff came from, what explains the way it exists, etc. In other words, we would have to seek a cause for God, if not for His very existence, then at least for why the stuff out of which He is composed exists this way (the way He is) rather than that (some other way He could be). Thus, God would not really be the First Cause, and therefore He would not be God.

But the moment you introduce a point from which to measure, we no longer being required to "traverse an infinite."

Jac, I do not understand your last sentence here.

The argument is that you can't traverse an infinity. This proved by asking a hypothetical question such as, "Okay, if you think you can, then count down to zero starting at negative infinity. In fact, we don't have that long to wait, so rather than counting all the way down to zero, if you can at least get started, I'll concede you could eventually get there. So go for it. Start counting down from negative infinity!"

Of course, you can't get started, which is supposed to prove that a beginningless past is incoherent, because it would somehow require you to traverse an infinity (which is just as absurd as counting down to zero starting from negative infinity). What that last sentence means, though, is that this argument fails, because "infinity" is not a number on a number line. Time is not measured from infinite to some point in the present. It's always measured from some point to some point. But, of course, the moment you introduce a point in time, you no longer have an infinite to traverse. It doesn't matter that any point you introduce you could trace back further. The point is that "infinite" is not a number, it's not a point. "Infinity" just means "unlimited." But all numbers are, by definition, limitations.

In short, it's making a category mistake.

Your turn!