Here is an article I wrote on an older argument for the existence of God:
http://mutakallim.com/2014/07/13/argument-from-particularisation-for-the-existence-of-god/
---------------------------------------------
Argument from Particularisation for the Existence of God
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
The following argument is called by some as the ‘particularisation’ argument for the existence of God, although this argument can take many forms, the version being detailed is free from atomist physics. It is the version postulated by the Muslim theologian and philosopher, Al-Juwayni in his Luma’ al-adilla.
In regards to the modern lay-atheist or agnostic, none of these premises in the argument should be seen as controversial, although proof will be given for each premise.
The argument can be given as the following 5 step argument (definitions will be given):
1 - The Universe is temporally originated
2 - Whatever is temporally originated is a possible existent (contingent), that is, it can be conceived to exist, or not exist.
3 - Therefore, the Universe is contingent
4 - A particularising agent is needed in order to give preponderance to the existence of the Universe over its non-existence
5 - This particularising agent is what we call God
Defense of Premise 1
There are multiple ways to show that the Universe was temporally originated (i.e. it began to exist).
Modern atheists and agnostics should not have a problem with this, as this premise can be defended by appealing to scientific theories such as the Big Bang, currently, all the scientific evidence points to such a beginning.
However the scope of this post will be simply to appeal to logical argumentation, and philosophical reasons for believing in this premise will be given below, however it should be pointed out, that if a ‘new-atheist’ does choose to deny this premise, even though modern cosmology leads to this conclusion, we must question his motives for denying this premise.
1.1 Impossibility of an Infinite regress of past events:
If the Universe was eternal, there are two possibilities. The first, being that since eternity-past, events have been occurring, or, the universe as a state of time and matter is eternal, yet only a finite time ago had events taken place.
Looking at the first case, it clearly collapses into an infinite regress of prior causes and events. Imagine the following situation.
An infinitely long firing squad has been chosen to fire upon you, however each soldier can only shoot if the one behind him shoots, i.e. the first soldier can only shoot if the second soldier shoots and so on, the n-th soldier can only shoot if the (n+1)-th soldier has shot.
In this situation it is clear that not a sound will be heard, for if there was a shot, it would require the shot of the one behind him, which requires the shot behind him, and so on out to infinity never ending.
Now, an atheist or agnostic may wish to opt for the second option, that is, the universe existed as a state of time and matter since eternity-past, yet only a finite time ago had events taken place.
This however creates more problems than it solves for the atheist. For we may ask, why did the universe start producing events 13.7 Billion years ago? Why not further back?
Indeed, the time at which the universe had its ‘first motion’, could have been any moment since eternity-past. This would then require an agent to give preponderance to the time 13.7 Billion years ago, but to distinguish between 13.7 Billion years ago and say, 137 Billion years ago, would require some sort of Will. But then Will entails Life, providing a strong case for the existence of a Willful being outside space-time, we can stop here and say that this being is God.
The above argument from an infinite regress relies upon the causal principle, however if the opponent wishes to deny this causal principle, i.e. “out of nothing, nothing comes”, then we simply have a metaphysical disagreement, for there is no convincing a person who believes that things can come from nothing. Yet we move on to perhaps more stronger proofs.
1.2 Impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite
This argument rests on showing that the existence of an actual infinite is impossible, and that if the Universe has existed since eternity-past, then this would entail an actual infinite number of events. We can express this argument as the following [1]
1.2.1 – An actual infinite cannot exist
1.2.2 – An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
1.2.3 – Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist
The defense of premise 1 can be given in a variety of ways, first here is what
Al-Ghazali the famous Muslim theologian and philosopher says in his
Incoherence of the Philosophers [2]
The world’s past eternity is impossible because it leads to affirming circular movements of the heavenly spheres [planets] whose number is infinite and whose individual units are innumerable, even though they divide into a sixth, a fourth, a half and so on. For the sphere of the sun rotates in one year, whereas Saturn’s rotates in thirty, so that the rotations of Saturn are a third of a tenth of those of the sun. Again, the rotations of Jupiter are a half of a sixth of the rotations of the sun; for it rotates once in every twelve years. Now just as the number of rotations of Saturn is infinite, the number of the solar rotations, although a third of a tenth of the latter, is also infinite. … “Is the number of rotations even or odd, both even or odd, or neither even or odd?”. If you were to answer that it were both even or odd, or neither even or odd, then this is known to be false by rational necessity. If you were to say that the number of rotations is even, then the next year it will be odd, how can we say then that the infinite is in need of one?
Here Al-Ghazali asks us to imagine a scenario where the planets are rotating, in one rotation of the Earth, Saturn rotates thirty times. So since eternity past, both the number of rotations of the Earth and the rotations of Saturn are the same, i.e. ‘infinite’, yet this is inconceivable since there should obviously be more rotations of Earth, than of Saturn. Go forward thirty years, Saturn has made one extra rotation, yet Earth has rotated thirty more times in that time period, yet again total rotations are the same, being ‘infinite’, but then this is clearly inconceivable!
Another analogy given by the mathematician Hilbert is known as ‘Hilbert’s Hotel’, detailing a hotel, of an infinite number of rooms, all of them being full.
If a new customer comes to the door of the hotel, the manager can simply move the person in room ‘n’, to ‘n+1′, for all natural numbers n (i.e. move person 1 to room 2, person 2 to room 3 and so on). This leaves room 1 full for the new customer. Yet previously all the rooms were full!
If an infinite number of new customers come to the door of the hotel, the manager can simply move everyone from room ‘n’ to room ’2n’, leaving all the odd numbered rooms open, and free for the infinite number of new customers to fill, yet previously all the rooms were full!
So clearly, the existence of an actual infinite in the actual world would result in logical absurdity, and for this reason we must accept premise 1.2.1
Premise 1.2.2. should be quite clear, if we exist ‘now’, then since eternity-past, an infinite number of events have happened.
Thus, 1.2.3. has followed, and it shows that the past-eternity of the universe is absurd.
Defense of Premise 2
Terms need to be clarified here.
Firstly, everything imaginable can be separated into three categories of existence: impossible, contingent or necessary.
Something is Impossible, if it is inconceivable for it to exist, i.e. a square-circle, or a place north of the North pole
Something is Necessary, if it is inconceivable for it not to exist, i.e. the fact that a square has 4 sides, or that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C
Something is Contingent, if it is neither of these, that is, it is conceivable for it to exist, or to not exist. Unicorns can exist, there is nothing logically incoherent about them, whether they actually exist or not is irrelevant to its classification that it is contingent.
From the above definitions it is quite clear to see that if something is temporally originated, then it must be contingent, for if it is necessary, then it must always exist, for if something necessary is temporally originated, then there is a state of existence in which it does not exist, but this is inconceivable. The Universe does exist, so it cannot be Impossible, therefore it is Contingent (possible existent)
Defense of Premise 3
Follows directly from premises 1 and 2.
Defense of Premise 4
This principle may be confusing to some, but it is essentially this. There is nothing about the existence of the Universe that gives it preponderance over its non-existence. So it quite clearly requires the existence of some agent that gives the existence of the Universe preponderance over its non-existence.
Defense of Premise 5
In order to give preponderance of the existence of the Universe over its non-existence, a Will is needed, since by definition a Will is the ability to distinguish between similar things. Will entails Life. This creator of the universe must also be All-Powerful and All-Knowing in order to bring this universe into existence.
Then we clearly have a being with Life and Will, who has Created the Universe with Power and Knowledge. This is clearly who we mean when we talk about God, Allah, Exalted is He.
Closing Remarks
Clearly the conclusion follows from the premises by rational necessity, and one must accept the conclusion if one accepts the premises, if you are to be seen as rational. Later posts will be written to expand and refute common objections to this and other arguments of this sort. This is only one type of particularisation argument, and there are many others that rest upon an Atomist worldview, and God Willing, this world view will be shown to be coherent in later posts.
———————————————-
[1]: William Lane Craig, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 103
[2]: Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of The Philosophers, tr. Micheal E. Mamura, pp. 18
