The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Angrboda]

Ok. So, while, I was away, I was thinking of another way the argument could be formulated: for a Being Bn, if it is contingent, it depends on a prior Being Bn-1. But Bn-1 likewise, if it too is contingent, further depends on Bn-2. And so on and so forth until we come to B1 and B0. Since we are speaking of real beings, there is no B0. Therefore, B1, the First Being, is non-contingent.

But perhaps these words "contingent" and "necessary" don't indicate too much to the average reader, though they are well known in modal logic and other fields. Very well, then, we will use simpler terminology. Let's use temporal/eternal instead. For every Being Bn, if it is temporal, it depends on a prior being in the timeline, Bn-1. Nevertheless, this series cannot go on backward to infinity (will come to why, and the objections raised in a minute), Therefore, at some point we will reach the very beginning of time, and the final temporal being, B2, will have been caused by B1. And B1, the First Being, is thus proven to be a Non-Temporal Being, an Eternal Being, the First Cause of the Universe.

Hence, Axiom I is: B1, i.e., an Eternal First Being exists, owing to whom B2 to Bn, i.e. the Sub-Set or Universe of Temporal Beings, began to exist.

This conclusion is confirmed by Empirical Science. Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%8...in_theorem

"The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.

---

Therefore, we have a certain conclusion of Empirical Science that the Universe is not infinite in the past but temporal and thus is not B1.
This is also intuitively obvious: if in fact the universe were already infinitely old, it would follow that everything that could happen in the future has in fact already been taken place; and why? because an infinite time has already elapsed sufficient for it to take place. These are the kinds of absurdities to which apply the mathematical theoretical concept of infinity to a collection of things such as moments of time will lead to.
Also, the argument is not that an actual infinite cannot exist, but that: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. And since the past series of temporal moments is a series formed by successive addition, it clearly follows that that series cannot be actually infinite.
This intuitive mathematical and logical conclusion in fact is what the BGV Theorem, from leading experts in the field, has established scientifically.

Finally, if you think, you can reach Infinity by Successive Addition, I have a simple proposal for you, dear friends: start writing 1,2,3 etc on notes of paper. And then keep going. As soon as you get to Infinity, get back to me, and I'll immediately concede the Argument. Lolol. You see what I'm saying? And if btw you object you won't have enough time to since you die, then ok, entrust it to other contingent/temporal beings, before you do. Then let them continue the series. Will they ever get to an actual number called Infinite by Successive Addition? No, in fact they will not. But supposing they ever do. Now go back 10 pages and tell me what number they were on. How did they transcend the difference from a finite number to Infinite all of a sudden? They could not have. The number formed by successive addition will always be finite. Again, the conclusion clearly follows: a series formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. Hence, the universe is not actually infinite in the past, etc.

---

Regards,
Xavier.

This has already been adequately answered. The theorem requires classical spacetime which may not be a valid assumption and Alan Guth disagrees with Vilenkin about the possibility of a past eternal universe.

[Bucky Ball]

The problem with this bullshit is the general mistake almost all religionists make, ever since Christianity attempted (and failed) to misappropriate 
The Big Bang Theory in a desperate attempt to say that the universe had a beginning, (and of course that their particular god did it). 

'The Big Bang event is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an INITIAL STATE of high density and high temperature."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The very obvious problem, is that the expansionary epoch was not the entire history of the universe, (a flawed assumption) and in fact no one has any idea for how long PRIOR to the expansionary epoch the high temperature and high density state existed, or what started the expansionary epoch. There are other epochs, and I'll let dude look them up, maybe he'll learn something. 

"NOTHING" is not at high temperature and high density. Something already existed, which expanded. Where that came from or what it was, or the length of it's existence is unknown. BEFORE there was an expansionary epoch, there were already "properties" and physical laws, ("hot", "dense"). They existed prior to the expansionary epoch.
   
I think both Guth and Vilenkin rejected Craig's use of their theory, or later had other thoughts about it, ... I will have to find what I wrote about that a few years ago. In other words they themselves rejected this use of their theorem. Dude probably knows that, or ought to and remains just as dishonest as ever.

Found it : 
"Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity. He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%8...in_theorem Turns out,
Valenkin doesn't either. See below. Craig LIED about the theorem and what it implied.
"At 49:00, (in their debate) Dr. Carroll explains why Craig's argument misrepresents the BGV theorem." ... Dr. Sean Carroll (Cal Tech) schools WLC why his shit is so wrong, in their debate.

"The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."
... Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145

Presuming anything about the universe is intuitively obvious is a huge mistake. Relativity, uncertainty etc etc are not intuitive as is much of the fundamental level of Quantum Mechanics.

[GrandizerII]

Ok. So, while, I was away, I was thinking of another way the argument could be formulated: for a Being Bn, if it is contingent, it depends on a prior Being Bn-1. But Bn-1 likewise, if it too is contingent, further depends on Bn-2. And so on and so forth until we come to B1 and B0. Since we are speaking of real beings, there is no B0. Therefore, B1, the First Being, is non-contingent.

I don't see how this argument shows that B1, therefore, is non-contingent. This series, the way you put it, could go on backwards forever. B1 is just a label.

But perhaps these words "contingent" and "necessary" don't indicate too much to the average reader, though they are well known in modal logic and other fields.

For the record, contingent can be understood to mean that it could have been otherwise or not existing at all. Some people do equate the term "contingent" with "dependent", but that's not necessarily how all philosophers treat it.

Very well, then, we will use simpler terminology. Let's use temporal/eternal instead. For every Being Bn, if it is temporal, it depends on a prior being in the timeline, Bn-1.

Not necessarily. For example, God (by entering time) becomes temporal, but it doesn't mean therefore God depends on a prior being in the timeline.

Nevertheless, this series cannot go on backward to infinity (will come to why, and the objections raised in a minute), Therefore, at some point we will reach the very beginning of time, and the final temporal being, B2, will have been caused by B1. And B1, the First Being, is thus proven to be a Non-Temporal Being, an Eternal Being, the First Cause of the Universe.

You sound a bit confused here. Necessary and contingent are one thing, eternal and temporal are another. You're conflating these concepts and confusing yourself in the process.

Anyway, an obvious challenge here is how an non-temporal being could cause anything, or do anything for that matter.

This conclusion is confirmed by Empirical Science. Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%8...in_theorem

---

 "The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.

---

Therefore, we have a certain conclusion of Empirical Science that the Universe is not infinite in the past but temporal and thus is not B1.

First problem here, which is a very common problem, is mixing up what Christian philosophers tend to mean by "universe" with what cosmologists tend to mean by "universe". A universe in the cosmologist's sense may have a beginning, but it doesn't mean therefore a universe in the philosopher's sense must have a beginning.

Second problem here is that BGV doesn't actually say that any universe must have a beginning. Note the words in that quote: "expanding throughout its history".

This is also intuitively obvious: if in fact the universe were already infinitely old, it would follow that everything that could happen in the future has in fact already been taken place; and why? because an infinite time has already elapsed sufficient for it to take place. These are the kinds of absurdities to which apply the mathematical theoretical concept of infinity to a collection of things such as moments of time will lead to.
Also, the argument is not that an actual infinite cannot exist, but that: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. And since the past series of temporal moments is a series formed by successive addition, it clearly follows that that series cannot be actually infinite.

This argument presupposes the A-theory of time, which has its controversies and appears to be contradicted by the current findings of modern cosmological science. The view may be intuitive, but it doesn't mean it's correct.

This intuitive mathematical and logical conclusion in fact is what the BGV Theorem, from leading experts in the field, has established scientifically.

The argument from successive addition against an infinite past has nothing to do with the BGV theorem.

Finally, if you think, you can reach Infinity by Successive Addition, I have a simple proposal for you, dear friends: start writing 1,2,3 etc on notes of paper. And then keep going. As soon as you get to Infinity, get back to me, and I'll immediately concede the Argument. Lolol. You see what I'm saying? And if btw you object you won't have enough time to since you die, then ok, entrust it to other contingent/temporal beings, before you do. Then let them continue the series. Will they ever get to an actual number called Infinite by Successive Addition? No, in fact they will not. But supposing they ever do. Now go back 10 pages and tell me what number they were on. How did they transcend the difference from a finite number to Infinite all of a sudden? They could not have. The number formed by successive addition will always be finite. Again, the conclusion clearly follows: a series formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. Hence, the universe is not actually infinite in the past, etc.

There is no "to infinity" in the sense that there is a destination referred to as such. What counting to infinity means is that you count forever and you never finish. Surely, you believe that's not impossible if you believe in an endless future, right?

[Angrboda]

Theists seem to overlook the fact that the question of why something rather than nothing can apply to their god as well. Imagine there is no universe, there is only a god. Why is there a god rather than nothing?

Can you answer that question, Xavier?

[polymath257]

Ok. So, while, I was away, I was thinking of another way the argument could be formulated: for a Being Bn, if it is contingent, it depends on a prior Being Bn-1. But Bn-1 likewise, if it too is contingent, further depends on Bn-2. And so on and so forth until we come to B1 and B0. Since we are speaking of real beings, there is no B0. Therefore, B1, the First Being, is non-contingent.

But perhaps these words "contingent" and "necessary" don't indicate too much to the average reader, though they are well known in modal logic and other fields. Very well, then, we will use simpler terminology. Let's use temporal/eternal instead. For every Being Bn, if it is temporal, it depends on a prior being in the timeline, Bn-1.

Prove  this.

Nevertheless, this series cannot go on backward to infinity (will come to why, and the objections raised in a minute),

Dealt with below.

Therefore, at some point we will reach the very beginning of time, and the final temporal being, B2, will have been caused by B1. And B1, the First Being, is thus proven to be a Non-Temporal Being, an Eternal Being, the First Cause of the Universe.

Hence, Axiom I is: B1, i.e., an Eternal First Being exists, owing to whom B2 to Bn, i.e. the Sub-Set or Universe of Temporal Beings, began to exist.

This conclusion is confirmed by Empirical Science. Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%8...in_theorem

---

 "The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.

---

Therefore, we have a certain conclusion of Empirical Science that the Universe is not infinite in the past but temporal and thus is not B1.
This is also intuitively obvious: if in fact the universe were already infinitely old, it would follow that everything that could happen in the future has in fact already been taken place; and why? because an infinite time has already elapsed sufficient for it to take place. These are the kinds of absurdities to which apply the mathematical theoretical concept of infinity to a collection of things such as moments of time will lead to.

Huh? That would not follow. That an infinite amount of time had already occurred does NOT imply that the future has already taken place. You are confusing to aspects of infinite time: quantity and order.

For example, that there are the same number of points on a line of length 1 and a line of length 2 is NOT a contradiction. The length of a line is simply a more refined notion than the number of points.

So, that time has 'elapsed sufficient for it to take place' is NOT a proof that it has, in fact, taken place.

The mathematical notions of infinity do NOT produce absurdities except in the confusion of those that do not understand them.

I might suggest you actually read some modern math and learn the topics discussed here as opposed to making yourself look (more) foolish by displaying  your ignorance.

Also, the argument is not that an actual infinite cannot exist, but that: an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. And since the past series of temporal moments is a series formed by successive addition, it clearly follows that that series cannot be actually infinite.

An infinite cannot be formed by successive addition from a finite. But an infinite past would NOT be formed in that way. At any point in time, the past would *always* be infinite. There would be NO START. And that is the point.

This intuitive mathematical and logical conclusion in fact is what the BGV Theorem, from leading experts in the field, has established scientifically.

Nope. The BGV theorem assumes a classical cosmology and does NOT include quantum mechanics. So it describes what is required for an infinite past more than it shows such to be impossible.

Finally, if you think, you can reach Infinity by Successive Addition,

And who has claimed this? NOBODY assumes that an infinite can be obtained by 'successive addition' from a finite amount. If time is infinite into the past, it was *always* infinite into the past. So it was not formed by successive addition from a finite quantity.

I have a simple proposal for you, dear friends: start writing 1,2,3 etc on notes of paper. And then keep going. As soon as you get to Infinity, get back to me, and I'll immediately concede the Argument.

False analogy. You are assuming a finite starting point. For an infinite past, there would be no starting point at all.

Lolol. You see what I'm saying? And if btw you object you won't have enough time to since you die, then ok, entrust it to other contingent/temporal beings, before you do. Then let them continue the series. Will they ever get to an actual number called Infinite by Successive Addition? No, in fact they will not. But supposing they ever do. Now go back 10 pages and tell me what number they were on. How did they transcend the difference from a finite number to Infinite all of a sudden? They could not have. The number formed by successive addition will always be finite. Again, the conclusion clearly follows: a series formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. Hence, the universe is not actually infinite in the past, etc.

Regards,
Xavier.

Deal with the false analogy and we  can discuss further. Also, stop using WLC's arguments without adding more to them. They are faulty and just show his mathematical ignorance.

[Bucky Ball]

Theists seem to overlook the fact that the question of why something rather than nothing can apply to their god as well.  Imagine there is no universe, there is only a god.  Why is there a god rather than nothing?  

Can you answer that question, Xavier?

I apologize for being "ad nauseam" repetitive on this point, (but no one ever answered it), and in fact on another forum, one of the most militant theists there at the time, 
said in reply to it ... "oh" (just "oh" and nothing more) ... as he saw there is no answer for this : if a god (timelessly/eternally) alone "exists" it can have no descriptors or attributes as they are generally "applied" to the god. In fact even the term "exists" is one of those properties/descriptors, which are ALL subsets of Reality. And the question remains, ... "where did Reality come from, IN WHICH the gods "exist'. 

Angrboda's excellent point above is just another way of making this point. Why is there there a god, rather than nothing ? 
The notions of most theist deities are very complex, and the gods are not "simple", and are described by theists as having all sorts of attributes.
Why would it have to be "good", especially considering what is observed in this universe ?

[Nishant Xavier]

Nishant said: "For every Being Bn, if it is temporal, it depends on a prior being in the timeline, Bn-1."

Polymath said: "Prove  this."

Every being Bn that is temporal begins to exist at some point in the timeline. Therefore, it depends on a prior being Bn-1 that already existed at a prior point in the timeline. And this being Bn-1, if itself temporal, depends on a prior being, Bn-2. And so on and so forth, until the beginning of time. Since there is no B0, the Final Being, the First Being, B1, is non-Temporal, i.e. Eternal.

Btw, while I respect St. Thomas, and Dr. Craig, the Argument from Contingency, to the best of my knowledge, has never been formulated mathematically before. It's an absolutely solid argument, and many have become Theists because of it. I think even more will as the mathematical formulation of the argument gets out. That some Atheists may not believe is true, yet the conclusion is certain: An Eternal First Being exists, non-Temporal, responsible for subsequent Beings B2 to Bn beginning to exist in the Universe.

As for other issues, yes, Dr. Craig, a Professional Philosopher, has written extensively on some of the absurdities the idea that a successive addition forming an actual infinite would lead to, and I agree with him. It appears even you do on that particular point.

If so, consider this syllogism:

1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition (which you said you agree with above)
2. The temporal series of past events is a series formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

You are trying to deny the conclusion, while saying you admit the premise.

Your words: "NOBODY assumes that an infinite can be obtained by 'successive addition' from a finite amount." 

Now, as to your claim "time was always infinite in the past": what you are really saying is 3 above. Yet, you agree with 1.

Do you then disagree with 2? If so, you need to establish it. The premise is at least more evident than its denial.

If the universe is roughly 15 Billion years old, give or take, that is an independent confirmation it is not actually infinite.

Again, all you have to do to realize the Universe cannot be actually infinite in the past, given that we got here, is count backward into the past. 

You claim it is a false analogy to say that if we started from 1,2,3, we will never get to infinity, but allegedly, starting from infinity, we can get to 0.

All you have to do is count backward in time. If we started from -infinity, we would never get to 0. We got to 0, therefore we didn't start from -infinity.

Regards,
Xavier.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one has ever believed in gods because of the argument from contingency. You don't, just as our very first and easiest example - as you've already made crystal clear on the boards.

[Angrboda]

2. The temporal series of past events is a series formed by successive addition.

This is where you screw up every time. If there is an infinite series of past events, it wasn't formed by successive addition. That's not how infinite series are formed.

[Nishant Xavier]

Anthony Flew became a Deistic Theist after many years of discussions and debates, including with Dr. William Lane Craig, God Bless him for it.

Anthony Flew, seemingly at the very door of Christianity and Salvation also said: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” Amen. Well said. And yet we do not know if he made the final leap of faith before the end of his life; I hope for his sake that he did, so that he could now be in Heaven, or at least in Purgatory, and destined for Heaven in its own due time.

But all this goes to show, evidence does matter, arguments do matter, and they help people, in due time, who want to know the Truth, come to be saved. I agree with Dr. Craig's approach on the subject generally, which is also very Augustino-Thomistic, and places Logic and Reason in its proper place.