Infinity and the Universe

In a recent post I argued for the existence of God in part by arguing that the universe had to have a beginning. My main argument for that thesis involved making a case that the universe cannot be infinitely old because an actual infinite number of past events is impossible. That post generated a lot of response, much of which I counter-responded to earlier. One response I received was a bit lengthier than others and deserves somewhat more detailed comment. Here goes. . .

the gnu said. . .
The argument assumes a premiss that is metaphysically disputable and that our best physical theories deny, namely that time proceeds successively and does not just appear to do so for us. The most popular view of time is that it is simply another dimension of spacetime similar to the other dimensions of space. Consequently, the past can be already infinite and settled as well as the future and be an actual infinite. Strictly speaking, time does not literally start at the begining and finish at the end (or finsih up 'til now). Time already exists in toto as an aspect of the Paramidean material singularity called spacetime.

You are right that time is viewed today as part of the space-time nexus. However, it is far from being any kind of consensus that time is not linear or that time is given to us all at once or that time is simply a psychological illusion as your above comments suggest. Perhaps some scientists think about time this way, but this is not a universal part of our "best theories." More to the point, however, my argument was not really about time in any case. The argument was about past events. I argued that there cannot be an actually infinite number of past events. No doubt, events take place in time, but that is beside the point. Regardless of what time is like, regardless of which direction it moves, regardless of of whether it is somehow given all at once, there can only be a finite number of past events. The example of the so-called "infinite library" that I gave makes this point. There cannot be a real library with
an infinite number of rooms. Likewise, there cannot be a universe with an infinite number of events.

Further, any singular material object the matter of which is continuous is potentially infinitely divisible and this is all we mean by assuming the universe is "actually infinite".

If this is all we mean by "infinite" then there is no dispute, and I win--the universe is only finitely old. I readily admit that there are potential infinites--sets which can potentially increase in number forever through successive addition, but which at any given point are actually finite. What I am arguing against is the existence of an actual infinite in concrete reality.

The appearance of the flow of time is epiphenomenal to the dynamics of matter and is simply a systematic mistake that our brains make on the level of classical perception.I'm not arguing that this view is true but that its a possible view with motivations based on science. Since the argument rightly concludes that if we take something like a common sense view of time seriously we have to pose an ultimate first cause. Since the scientistic already is suspicious of a common sense view of time, he won't find the argument from Craig cogent.

Of course, the idea that time is unreal and merely a psychological illusion is possible. But, as you admit, we don't know this, and it is contrary to common sense. And, again, not all scientists find the common sense view of time suspicious--I dare say that most scientist don't find it suspicious at all! If I'm wrong about this, then I am willing to be enlightened. In any case, if all scientists thought that time was unreal, that would give us little reason to reject the common sense view of time. Rather, it would give us reason to doubt the theories of the scientists.