First Cause Argument: Finite Universe

A Finite Universe: A Premise for a First Cause 

There are two main schools of thought regarding the origins of the universe: Either the universe has always existed with an infinite past, or the universe was at one point created and thus finite. I will contain my response as another essay to support the premise of a finite universe in linear form and why the universe could not have always existed in a state of actual infinity. This essay will not address causal loops - that is addressed here.

Before we even dive into the why's and why not's of an infinite universe, we need to understand a basic idea of Mathematical Set Theory. Below are two mathematical sets, labeled "A" and "A1", and we will use them to explain the basic ideas of what we will be discussing later:

A - {0,1,2,3,4 ...}

A1 - {0,2,4,6,8 ...}

As you can see set "A" contains all numbers up to infinity, while set "A1", a sub set of "A", contains all the even numbers up to infinity. What has been presented is one Mathematical Set and one Mathematical Subset. For anything to be a subset every member in that subset must be contained in the parent set. So if subset "A1" has the letter "a", then "A1" could not be a subset of "A" because set "A", the parent set, does not have the letter "a" as a member.

Now here is a question. If set "A" and subset "A1" are actual infinity, which is larger? The answer is that they are equal. This conclusion is derived from the fact that each member of both sets can be evenly paired.

A -   { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ...}

A1 - { 0 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 ...}

Since these two sets continue on for infinity they would continue to be paired equally.

On the other hand, outside of actual Infinity, there is potential infinity. A potential infinity designates a set of numbers which can be continually added, but is unlike actual infinity in that the subsets are not equal to the parent set. The latter is seen in every day life, the prior, I will contend, does not exist.

The first argument is that actual infinity cannot exist in our universe. In actual Infinity, the old saying, "The whole is greater than its parts", is false because the parts are equal to the whole. I am going to give a couple of examples to show the nature of actual infinity:

Imagine a library that contains an infinite amount of red books and an infinite amount of black books. Each book contains an infinite amount of pages. There are two specific assertions that we will be taking note of. First, the total combined amount of infinite red and black books would equal the amount of infinite red books. Secondly, if we read every page in the library, consisting of an infinite amount of pages, it would be equal to reading only one book with the infinite amount of pages. As you can see, actual infinite decimates addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

Another example of a part being equal to its whole is in the affirmation that one-billionth of an inch would have an equal amount of points as the universe does in its totality. Again, every part, in actual infinity, is equal to the whole. This again is not possible because in our universe we have accumulation (ie. added parts equals a whole, not every part equaling a whole).

The second argument against an actual infinite universe is noting that infinity is Non-Transversal. What this means is that if our universe always existed, the universe should have an infinite past. With the premise established, we can say that, if the past could not be transversed, then we do not have the present; for the present equals the past transversed.

When we see a plane flying over head we can assume a chain of past causes had to be tansversed to the point of the present state. For the plane to be flying we could assume that the pilot got into the plane. Perhaps we could also assume that the plane needed fuel before departing the airport. In any assumption we make, we can assume that there has been a series of past events which were transversed and lead up to the present plane flying over head.

The next thing we must consider is the idea of counting to infinity. You may have pulled this one out during a game of hide-and-seek where you tell the counter to count up to infinity so you have enough time to find the awesome hiding spot everyone knows about. The problem is if you count for the duration of your life you will never reach infinity. Why? This is what we call potential infinity. The mathematical set we deal with in this equation is concerning the possibility of continual addition. Meaning the numbers are finite, but can always be continually added by 'x' number. An easy rule is if you can state the number it is finite because you can always add 1 to it; which you cannot add 1 to infinity and change its nature. You cannot count up to infinity and likewise you cannot count down from it.

With these two premises, that you have chained events and that you cannot count up or down from infinity, tells us one thing. If the past was infinite, an infinite chain, you cannot transverse the infinite as you similarly could not do so in counting. The conclusion is that the past could not have been transversed and thus we could not have the present. The past would still be continuing and we would not have a present state (Remembering that the present is equal to the past transversed). Of course this is not so and another reason why the universe is not infinite.

As Blaise Pascal stated, "The finite are annihilated in the presence of the infinite." Whenever the actual infinite are applied to the finite application of our day-to-day universe, we find not only no ability to tend the actual infinite, but if it were applicable, time itself would cease to exist. The most classic example is Zeno's puzzle. If actual infinity did exist, we could not even declare motion as being real because we would have to transverse infinity in each step we took - again 1) we know motion does exist and 2) it isn't possible for actual infinity to exist.

Hope this helps.

Dracula: A Book Review

A Midnight Terror
(A Book review of Dracula by Bram Stoker)

"No man knows till he experiences it, what it is like to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the woman he loves." – Dr. Seward’s Diary

What would you do? What do you hope? When darkness grimaces above and the endless sea crashes below. From the silent halls you answer with speed. From the desolate you run to stop the coming tide. Beneath the bowing walls and rushing swords you find your friend, your greatest companion, your lovely wife, holding open wide your soul - death is within and not without.

From deep within Transylvania, Bram Stoker reveals the horrors of a nameless evil, an evil that shadows every dream and steals from every soul. Fused with superstition, religion and sacrifice, these collections of diary entries would become known as Dracula and has survived the destruction of time for one reason: This is not about a vampire, but the vampire.

We all know his name, but few know why this book has survived as a timeless classic; beyond the blood filled movies lays a moving story – a Perl deep in the ocean. It may be true for Dracula, however, this book has not continued to survive by blood alone, but by the seeming unerring loyalty of friendship.

From start to finish, all are Personal Diary entries, newspaper clippings and sparse Journal fragments. This may allude as incompetent in horror and suspense, but in all writing styles, I have never found a more passionate way to write such a tale as this. In ever touching fashion, Bram Stoker depicts the horrifying nightmares and grotesque visages from the people who saw it themselves. But more importantly, the shimmering Perl, is the revealing of the characters’ personal journal entries as they struggle to stand against such an evil; for better or worse, for happiness or sorrow, for death or life, they stood by the friends they knew, the wives they loved, to fight an enemy they feared.

We all understand that honourable sacrifice: to perish for the ones you love. But would one knowingly sacrifice himself to a war one could not believe – ever to be forgotten? Are you willing to sacrifice yourself for the things you believe in, or for the things that will be written down? As the sea of a passing storm may begin to crumble our stronghold, when evil takes the form of the ones we love, Hope is only lost when the lost stop hoping. This Perl is as bright as the morning ere after the passing night and a responsibility that cannot be ignored.

This is true: there is a price that must be paid in the end for the things we want most. The moral of this story, as afraid as I am to say, is perhaps one that comes at too high a cost. I could never recommend this book except for one who already wishes to read it. The mountains are high in the sun, but so the valley plunges deep into the dark.

If all is lost in Stokers' journals, there is one thing to grasp. When death is within and not without, what are we to do but smile back? Act upon what we have already chosen, for to choose our path when it comes, is to be destined to fail before we start.

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery Pt. 2

The Debate Chronicles (I): The Bible Justifies Slavery
Rom 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God.

Atheistic Assertions:
1) Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral
2) Endorsement: in support of
3) Jesus Christ supported the Old Testament. This is relevant because the Old Testament endorses and encourages slavery

Response:

Due to the inherent complexity of this argument, I will divide my response into three main categories: the argument of definitions, the argument of contextualization, and, what would be considered, the refutation of your argument.

When it comes to definitions, it is imperative to not only be correct in our affirmation, but to define these words in such a way that they could be applied in our context with homogeneous application.

The three crucial definitions are Morality, Endorsement, and Slavery. You defined them as follows:

Morality: simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. To minimize unnecessary harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral

Endorsement: in support of

Slavery: is immoral because it causes harm to another {without consent}

First, I will contend that your definition of Morality is insufficient because the base principle is “intent of minimizing harm”. The contention is derived from two basic principles. First, you are affirming that our improvement to society comes as the hands of lesser evils, which by-passes the necessity of any good actions; or that good actions are actions that are lesser evils – good being inherently evil. Either way, you do not uphold inherent “good”, but only gradations of evil. Secondly, as I did, you failed to apply a definition as to why your morality would have any objective validity. If you cannot prove why any other person should ratify your beliefs then you strike down the whole discussion in itself; at least in its absolutist form. I do not intend to incorporate a debate here in itself, but adequate definitions are required.

 Next, the definition of endorsement, and further how you apply it in your argument, is both invalid. To support or advocate something is not at all the same to have a level of permissibility for it. As an example we could use the following side-by-side comparison:

“If you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

or

“When you go to the store, please get a gallon of milk.”

What is the main difference between these two ideas? The level of permissibility. The term “if” designates permissibility in going to the store, while the term “when” only allow permissibility as to “what time” you go to the store and does not question if you are going to the store – you are assumed in going. Thus, my argument that the Bible does not condone slavery is correct because “if” allows for permissibility. Your mistake when you assert a “When” ideology over the stated “If” (Exodus 21:2).

And lastly, I will contend the loose definition of slavery. The problem is that you assume that all slavery is immoral, or at least it should be. However, slavery, in some forms, is still in use in America today and acceptable; we could argue the necessity or inherent barrier of debt slavery or wage slavery. Are these also immoral under your definition? My assumed definition of slavery, when I opposed your statements, was the grotesque extremities and violations of morality that I underlined when I defined love. If slavery, in its form, violates the ethical and meta-ethical definitions that I had provided, then I would assume it to be immoral, if not, then we would assume it to be moral – that is the whole point in providing definitions.

This next piece will be used to contextualize my previous argument and assert my desired implications. I am not rewriting my previous statements, but will provide a more clear application to its uses and why it still stands superior.

When we began our discussion, I established that the teachings of Jesus Christ are foundational to our faith, in both the New and Old Testament doctrines. You rightly recognized his authority in the Old Testament by quoting Matt 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”, however, again, you misunderstand a very important implication. Jesus Christ did not come to preach the Law, but to fulfill the law. What is the difference? Christians do not uphold a majority of the Jewish or Mosaic Laws because they were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. For example, we do not follow the Levitical laws which include Temple ceremonies, animal sacrifices, priesthood authorities, etc. So first in our understanding, there is a difference between Mosaic Laws and Christians obeying of those laws; this distinction should be kept.

After, you quoted extensively from Exodus concerning the Slave laws. The slave laws are also found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and I will be using the entirety of the slave laws to prove its morality.

The argument of a slave should be broken down into three main points: slaves when they are received, slaves when they are under their master’s rule, and slaves when they are released.

First, slavery was introduced under several basic conditions. You could sell yourself as a slave either because you had nothing (you were poor), or because of debt settlement; war was not a major income of slaves. A slave can only be bought, they cannot be stolen – that is a capital offense – and there is no requirement to own slaves; it is optional. If slaves are bought and have a family (including wives and children), they must be kept together; you cannot separate slave families. In other words, your characterizing of inducting slaves is not proportionate to actuality.

The life of the slave, in agreement to my prior point regarding your remarks, is equally out of proportion. If you read the complete extent of the laws, you will understand the full rights of the slaves and the restrictions of their masters. The slave masters had capital offenses because they were still governed by the Ten Commandments and other Jewish laws; there was no partiality under the laws because both, free and slave, were governed by the same laws. Even the extent of marriage and punishment of the slaves were of equal value. It was not uncommon in their day to choose the husband of their daughters, so it was equal that slave daughters could be chosen a husband (punishment was dealt in a similar fashion). The only arguable extent that the slaves were different from their free counter-parts was forced labor. But of course this would revisit my prior argument of debt and wage slavery – is forced labor inherently evil?

And lastly, the release of the slaves. Every slave was required to be released upon the seventh year without compensation; with their whole family if this slave had a family. Further, you could not just release them, but were required to give them food and livestock when they left; you couldn’t just “kick’em to the curb”. Another interesting fact is that people were not required to return runaway slaves; if they got away from their former masters and were found, they were essentially free without hassle. Alternatively, slaves could, if they wanted to, commit themselves as slaves for life to their owner – interesting to note, if your assumption that slavery was such an abominable act of injustice why would slaves ever want to remain with their masters?

So what is slavery? Slavery is many things, and you have picked the lowest denominator and said this is what the Bible is. If anything could be said, the Bible has put forth the highest moral treatment of slaves that has ever existed in human history. Even in later times when the wealthy would own doctors (they didn’t have medical hospitals) were slaves (like Luke). Because the title of slave was attributed to them, it did not mean they didn’t hold a place of honour or dignity in the area they practiced. Of course, there are bad masters and acts of immorality to slaves, but equally there are bad governments and brutalized civilians. Should we abolish them too? If you wage war against the term slavery, you will undoubtedly be required to answer to the Butler or Maid. What about debt slavery or wage slavery? You may declare it immoral, but through the eyes of the people it was not always.

In the finality of this response I will make one last assertion. This is sort of back tracking, however, I will revisit my ethical and meta-ethical arguments through Jesus Christ. When I spoke that the Biblical doctrines have always spoke upon human equality I used Christian men as examples and Christ as my definition. You agreed to Christ’s authority upon the Old Testament, but do not advocate His authority in its interpretation. The Jews were required to uphold the Mosaic laws in their act towards their Slaves, so are we, in Christ’s fulfillment of the laws, required to uphold the Old Testament as Christ states in the New Testament:

“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Luke 10:25-28”

The entirety of my definitions, of Biblical equality and love as stated in my previous remarks, are upheld because Christ’s authority is still commended – His commands still hold to what our actions are to be. If Slavery is defined and upheld under actions of Love, then it is not immoral. If you are permitted to have slaves and treat them under the sole definitions of Biblical doctrine then it is not immoral because, as you stated, “they are truly beautiful passages that characterized the virtues of Christian obedience.”