William Lane Craig argues that the universe (and time with it) began to exist, and he marshals several arguments to that end. Immanuel Kant, however, contends that the question of whether time began or not cannot be answered. He tries to show this by arguing both sides of the question:
Part I: Time Has a Beginning
1. If there is no beginning of time, then at any given moment an actually infinite series of successive states would have elapsed. (premise)
2. But it is impossible for an actually infinite series of successive states to elapse. (premise)
3. Hence, there must be a beginning of time. (from 1 & 2)Part II: Time Has No Beginning
4. It is impossible for anything to begin without an elapse of time. (premise)
5. Hence, if time began, then there would have to be a time before time. (from 4)
6. But it is impossible for there to be a time before time. (premise)
7. Hence, it is impossible for there to be a beginning of time. (from 5 & 6)
Kant’s first argument parallels one of Craig’s arguments for the beginning of the universe. The second argument results in the opposite conclusion. Kant himself thought that these two arguments were equally good, and, therefore, that the question of the beginning of time was beyond the bounds of human reason.
Is Kant right that these arguments are equally good? Or are they equally bad? Can Craig consistently defend the first argument while rejecting the second? If so, how might he be able to pull that off? Or does the second argument refute the kalam?
Considering what we currently know about space-time, which is still very little, but much more than Kant or Craig ever knew, I agree that both arguments are equally good, but equally faulty. Humans tend to measure time linearly. Our perception of time is heavily governed by our short (or long, depending on how you look at it) life expectancies. But time is relative to size and speed. 75 years is nothing compared to the life of our planet, and is a REALLY long time compared to the life of a fruit fly…
Therefore, our experience of “time” is simply the observation of the MEASURABLE universal forces (Gravity, strong/weak nuclear, and electromagnetism) on matter (us, planets, galaxies etc.) We have been able to observe the speed of light slow down as it is crushed by the gravity of a black hole. If space-time can slow down (become more condensed), then it is plausible that it can move “Backwards” (I use the term backwards to appeal to our sense of linear time). We also observe that matter is created from the destruction of other matter, which inevitably gets “Destroyed” to only form new matter… a cyclical, rather than linear progression.
From these two observations of nature, it is plausible to conceive a black hole’s destructive force as a means of recycling space-time into a new “universe” which could feasibly enter into existence “before” the time of the “universe” from which it came. In conclusion, it seems that the only way for both arguments to be good is to allow for the existence of a multiverse, as oppose to a universe.
Thanks for the comments, Nathan.
Three points. First, I doubt that we now know much more about space-time than Craig. He’s a contemporary author who has written 5 scholarly books on time and is very well-versed in the lastest developments coming out of physics.
Second, you say that both arguments are equally faulty. But where exactly do they do wrong? Can you identify the faulty premise? The faulty inference?
Third, you seem to think that the linear conception of time may need to be replaced with something like a cyclical conception of time. I’m not sure that makes sense. A series of events in time is ordered by an ‘earlier than’ relation, which seems to be linear: If A is earlier than B and B is earlier than C, then A is earlier than C. A cyclical view would have to abandon that and, in so doing, would arguably amount to getting rid of time altogether.
Ex nihilo nihil fil. I thought about this statement for a second. From nothing, nothing comes. Is nothing even a logical possiblity. When do we ever see nothing in the world. When someone asks, “what are you doing?” Are you really ever doing nothing. With that idea, i think its possible to refute the idea of having a begining of time. Time is a linear progression of cause and effect dealing with matter in the universe. If there has allways been something then there seems to be a possibility of an infinite regress in the cause and effect chain. I think the problem of times having a begining or not rests on an assumption that nothing is even a possibility.
I agree with Rob in that time seems to be paralleled with cause and effect… although we really only can perceive time as we do, with a sensation of change, a progression, a moving forward. I do think these arguments are equally good, but the question to whether we can figure out whether time had a beginning seems to be dependent on how we define time to begin with. If time is change, then there wouldn’t be time elapsing if the universe was stagnant. I almost am compelled to say, “who cares?” but I realize the effect of this question’s answer on the Kalam argument. My further question then is– can we say God is outside of time as we know it? Then it would not really matter how we define time or take its beginning to be, God exists in a “meta-realm” outside of it. Thinking about presentism, it seems that this counteracts an eternal God unless God does reside outside of time. I think that this is the crucial issue, how is God related to time?
I believe that both the arguments are good but like with any argument they can be opposed to. I agree with Shannon that the crucial issue is how God is related to time. To question if God is outside time is interesting in the fact that, since the world progresses and grows is God constant outside that time? Are the perceptions of God the same now as they were hundreds of years ago? I would think not. And I believe that Rob also brings up a good point. As for me, I do not think that nothing is a possibility, so how did something occur to start time out of nothing? Plays into God giving a start to everything since God in a state of mind is not anything.
The arguments are equally as good in my opinion both are very hard to find fault in and I hate to agree with it but Kant may be right that the beginning of time is beyond human reason. I mean forget defining or understanding beginning of time I do not believe philosophers have been able to come up with a definition of time that is agreeable upon. To quote St. Augustine “What… is time? I know well enough what it is, provided nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.” (Confessions, Book 11) Time can never be explained without consciousness assuming it to begin with. In my opinion time is beyond our understanding even if our Consciousness gives us a sense of time, it is still beyond our understanding. Kant is correct to say that beginning of time is was beyond human understanding and in my opinion one major reason would be due to our inability to understand time or maybe our human understanding of time.
Rob, Shannon, Amy, Brad, thanks for the comments.
Rob, the “ex nihilo nihil fit” principle is distinct from the question of whether nothing is a logical possibility. The principle says that you can’t get something from nothing; it doesn’t say whether some logically possible world is a null world, such that if it had been the case then nothing, absolutely nothing, would exist. That distinction made, it is consistent with “ex nihilo nihil fit” to hold that time has a beginning, provided that there can be something like God that transcends time.
Shannon, the question of God’s relation to time is an important one, particularly when it comes to thinking about how God might or might not be able to relate to creation. Can God interact with us? Or is there simply a one-way, God-to-creation direction of influence?
Amy, I think you’re right that, given the “ex nihilo nihil fit” principle, if time has a beginning then the cause of the beginning of time must have been a “something”. What kind of something? Well, it’d have to be able to start time without already being in time.
Brad, that quote from Augustine is a classic. Time is a perplexing subject. But I wouldn’t be so quick to conclude that both of Kant’s arguments are equally good and therefore that the nature of time is beyond human understanding. It may be, rather, than one or both of Kant’s arguments commits a fallacy of the not-so-obvious sort.
Alan,
I concede that it is arrogant to assume that we know more about space-time than Kant or Craig. I should’ve put a “probably” in there.
Second, both arguments are faulty. Premise 2, “But it is impossible for an actually infinite series of successive states to elapse,” is an assumption. Perhaps it is possible for an actually infinite series of successive states. Premise 6, “But it is impossible for there to be a time before time,” is a category error– time is ill defined. Why is it impossible for there to be a time before time. Just because we have no way to measure what happened before what we can measure doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In neither of the arguments is it clear whether time is a series of states, or if it’s a state as a whole. Either way, a series of states can be modeled as infinite using a mobius strip, circle, etc.; and the heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that something in one whole state can simultaneously exist in a different location at the same “time.”
The way we typically perceive time is as a linear measurement, event A precedes B. We measure the rhythms of life in this way-a progression of states. We also look at time as a single state–everything in between event A and B. If we’re measuring everything between the beginning of the universe and the end of the universe as time, then time can be thought of as self-contained and relative. This agrees with the idea that God exists outside of time.
Kant makes striking arguments based on the ideas of time. First, I would like to not that Part 1 seems very sound to me. I would agree with both premises and the conclusion. Part 2 I seem to have a little more trouble with. I actually would like to object to p5. I feel that Kant is manipulating words. “If time began, then there would have to be a time before time.” Can we not have anything begin with time. For example, time begins when the universe began, or to reverse – The universe began with time. Or we could even possible object through a b theory of time. Instead of being a “time before time” can time not begin with time?(not to sound redundant)
i don’t have a problem agreeing with brad and kant in saying that we don’t understand time. Even if there is a not-so-obvious fallacy in Kant’s arguments, one isn’t to say that, by finding this fallacy, we would understand time. Arguing about arguments about time may be fruitless because, even in this blog, people have different ideas of time. it is hard for me to even comprehend anything without time or outside of time or before time for that matter…possibly God, since he may be outside of time, is the only one who can understand it