Q&A: The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi. In rejecting the objections to the cosmological argument, the Rabbi wrote that an infinite regress / eternal existence requires an actual infinity, and talk about an actual infinity is difficult. But why is God not an actual infinity, but only a potential one?
Answer
What does it mean to say that God is an actual infinity? I don’t understand the claim.
Discussion on Answer
Why do you assume that? The duration of His existence is greater than any span you can imagine. That is entirely potential.
So why does an eternal universe assume an actual infinity? Its existence is greater than any duration you can conceive of.
Put differently: if saying that some universe has existed forever assumes an actual infinity, the same is true regarding God.
Who said that an eternal universe assumes an actual infinity?
Simply speaking, when the claim is made that our universe is eternal, we are talking about an actual infinity and not a potential one. The reason is that this claim is meant to rule out the need for the existence of a first cause. What always exists does not need a cause. But here we have to assume that the universe has existed for infinite time; it is not enough for us that it has existed for as long as we want (“however long we like”). In terms of the turtle-chain, there is an assumption here that there is some turtle “down below,” and not merely a potential reference to successive stages.
The above passage is a quote from Booklet 2, The Cosmological Proof.
Sorry. I understand. The question is not correct.
He has existed for an actual infinity of time.