Thomas Aquinas…
In a debate with Michael Shermer held in August 2008 in Sydney, Dr. John Lennox declared his amazement in the fact that Dawkins did not call his book: “The (Created God) delusion”! I can only salute him for this witty comment! Because simply, no theist believes in a “created god”! The concept of infinite regress – as shall be elaborated later on – is by no means an argument to hold against the rationale of the creator!
24
In this section of the chapter, we can see how Dawkins goes to extremes in applying philosophical tricks for the sake of putting off the argument of god! Those tricks are not without a simple and reasonable answer as we shall see! Those are not unsolvable problems of reason as he presumes them to be! They are simply the outcome of a corrupt philosophy, nothing more nothing less!
Dawkins starts examining the arguments of Thomas Aquinas for the existence of god, and I quote:
―The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don't prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.‖ (The God Delusion p.77)
Now the professor thinks that by refuting Aquinas‟ arguments, he will “disprove” the existence of God! Okay then … let‟s see those arguments and his answers to them!
―The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God. …‖
Well, to build his objection on describing the answer of “god” here as an “escape”; this is clearly no argument, and it reflects the sheer poverty of reason upon which all atheists build their position as we shall demonstrate!
Why call it an escape? Because he doesn‟t like it? Because it‟s too simple an answer? Because it can‟t be tested in a lab? Why? Since when was the clearest and most obvious of all answers to such a question (supposing there are any other answers at all to begin with!): “An escape”? Escape from what and to where? If you have managed to come up with another answer, professor, then by all means put it forth and prove its rationality! But DO NOT describe the only reasonable answer any man can think of to such a fundamental question as an “escape”!
25
At least, at the very least, give the rest of mankind (besides atheists) the credit of believing in something that is good enough to be a possible „explanation‟! Since you‟re so fond of fallaciously putting “statistical probability” into every “gap”, professor, tell me then, what are the odds that 85 % or more of humans alive today (and a much bigger percentage of humans indeed all along the history of mankind!) have all been delusional on the creator, and are only just “escaping” the “problem”?
You say this is “infinite regress” and then call the notion of God an escape from it! But whoever said it‟s “INFINITE” or endless to begin with? And at that, let us ask you: what is the meaning of this infinity that you – a limited being clearly limited by the system that confines you – are speaking of here? Simple reason shows that it has to have an ending, as it is the natural property of everything that we see in this universe!
The basic components of the universe are clearly finite! Every system that we can now observe is built of smaller components, built from the decomposition of previous systems! So no matter how far up and down the levels of complexity would go, it has to come to a limit! Otherwise the very concept of equilibrium and balance would be obsolete! Actions would not yield equal and opposite reactions; they wouldn‟t yield a reaction at all! Positive polarities would not demand equal negative polarities! The system, no matter how huge it really is, has to be limited and enclosed!
All those motions, all those reactions, all those intertwined causes we rejoice in contemplating and discovering (and we can only see the tiny tip of the iceberg) must all be enclosed in one huge envelope that is controlled and sustained by an external agent; the creator! So when you say “infinite regress” implying that the levels of causes in the system are endless in their count, you are actually breaching the system itself, and proposing a model that destroys the rational necessity of its enclosure and consistency!
26
Even the mathematical infinity itself is an expression of the rational necessity of this limit at the top of all material causes, beyond which comes the external creator!
„Infinity‟ is treated in mathematics as a quantity in itself! We found we had no choice but to deal with it as such. An exceptional type of quantity (number, or value) of course, but a quantity nonetheless! There‟s no escaping this! It‟s like we know there has to be a final value at the far end, but we just cannot afford to determine it, trace it down or even imagine it, thus in our limitedness we call it “infinity”; the numerical inverse of the zero! It‟s an expression of recognizing the existence and general qualities of X coupled with admitting the incomprehensible nature (quantity) of X! Please reread this previous sentence carefully because it is important.
This incomprehension comes from the fact that though we know – recognize - that this value has to exist at the end of the line, we understand that whatever comes after it, is simply uncountable, and does not fall within the field of what “counting” itself is about! It is wrong to suppose that there‟s nothingness beyond it! Something odd happens there that breaks the trend and terminates the line; but it‟s not the turn into nothingness! Simple reason denies this meaning, and necessitates the existence of something there that is totally different in its quality and the way it works than anything that could be counted by human numbers!
This is why this quantity (infinity) is the only quantity where it is true to say (X+n = X) where “n” is any real value other than zero, and X substitutes for infinity! At that point, there is no meaning for any further addition or multiplication or any mathematical operation whatsoever! It is a point beyond the capacity of mathematics itself as a tool! The scale or the number-line simply ends there! The purpose of mathematics and human analogy stops there! And though it is obviously a rational necessity that something does exist beyond that point; it is also clear that whatever it is, it cannot be quantified or analogized to anything within this system!
27
This phenomenon of mathematics (numerical infinity) has only one rational explanation: It describes that point in the universe where all that is reasonably quantifiable by the human mind ends! Is this mathematical quantity thus – by definition – a connotation of “endlessness”? No! It is clearly the last recognizable point – though obviously unreachable to human reason - on the scale of all that can be counted, analogized and quantified WITHIN THIS SYSTEM! And the very fact that we do recognize this point the way we do, and deal with it the way we do, proves that this regress of causes, levels of causes, or layers of complexity, or whatever scale you wish to apply it to, does indeed come to a final point where this mode of reasoning itself has no choice but to recognize that something fundamentally different in nature or attributes comes in place beyond it! Something that is truly limitless, countless, and cannot be analogized or quantified by any means that could be afforded by man! In other words; mathematics in its very nature cannot go there!
I urge my reader to contemplate deeply on this insight!
Mathematical Infinity obviously does not mean that this model, this countable model of the universe that we observe and deal with by our tools of reason, keeps going on to no end! It does not mean that the scale is open ended (which is the common – and basically linguistic - understanding of the term infinite), it actually means that it does indeed have an ending; one that cannot be determined by any tool of reason that we humans possess! The point of arithmetic infinity is simply the point where our minds fail and we can no longer count!
It may be worthwhile to add that astronomers managed to calculate the size of the observable universe. This size they calculated – roughly 30 billion light years - is not all that the universe is! It‟s only how far they can currently see! In fact, the universe as a whole; has to be as wide as this “infinity” value that we ponder about! The edge of the universe, beyond which exists the creator Himself, has to be at that point that is recognized by mathematical reason as the last point where numbers have any capacity to count or to mean anything at all! That is, no matter how huge the biggest value you can think of is, the universe is much wider; and this goes on not forever, but until the actual value of “infinity” – unachievable by man - is reached!
28
And since we cannot reason this value or even imagine it, it must follow that no matter how far we may ever manage to go or to measure in the universe, there will always be much further away to go, and much more to measure and count! We – the limited humans - will never come even remotely close to that place on our own! The very concept of mathematical infinity proves this meaning, because if we could reach that point, then it‟s not “infinity”, and we can still count further and go further beyond it! This is how the universe is built, and how our minds are formatted to make sense of it! Our very tool of reason screams in our faces that it is indeed limited, and that it must be that beyond this unreachable limit is the almighty Himself, in perfect accordance with what reason necessitates His attributes to be, and what He – indeed - teaches about Himself!
Thus I hold that reason, physics, astronomy, and mathematics necessitate that there be an end point at the top of the scale, any scale within this system, at which the regress ends, and where the tip of the chain is held by its keeper, sustainer! And even though it may be recognized as “infinity” to our human mathematical capacity, it is by necessity of reason the end point! It proves – in its abstract meaning – that our capacity to do science and philosophy was not made to help us understand anything about the ways and the nature of what is there beyond: The uncreated creator of this limited system! Infinity in this sense is not the indication of endlessness of the universe itself, but of the human inherent inability to determine or even imagine the value defining the end of the system! I emphasize this meaning and I say that if this is your conception of mathematical infinity, then yes, the regress of causes is mathematically infinite, and at its very end, beyond the point of infinity (∞); comes the creator! And if – on the other hand – you define infinity as endlessness (linguistically, not as the mathematical quantity) then I say „infinite regress‟ is false and in this case I would argue that the regress is FINITE, not infinite! Either ways, it has to end at the uncreated creator, by necessity of reason.
29
In a further insight, I would like to point out that this meaning supports the attributes of the creator‟s almighty self that He teaches in Islam. He has to be – by necessity of reason - the sole holder of total control, with no partner, and no chance whatsoever for any creature to compete with Him or to rebel against Him or to share power with Him; otherwise the system will be liable to crash! The Quran coins this argument clearly in this verse: ((Had there been therein (i.e., in the heavens and the earth) gods besides Allâh, then verily both would have been ruined.)) (Translation of meanings 21:22)
It is essential for the sake of the system itself, that no element within it should ever have the capacity to breach it on its own will and power, or escape from His total dominion! This is why man has to be limited in such a clearly demonstrable way, even as he attempts to imagine how big the universe itself really is! He was not made to be a god, or to share dominion upon the universe with its creator! In this respect one can see that even when you call it “infinite” regress, it does not refute the existence of the creator; it actually proves it mathematically! It is the only explanation that comes in perfect accord with the way the human mind works.
―2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God. …‖
Yes indeed … so what‟s the problem with that, professor?
―3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.‖
I feel compelled to comment on the argument itself and its choice of words here. If by physical the author of this argument means “material”, that is; a subordinate element within this system, then yes indeed, the creator of the universe is non-physical! But if he means by physical; the contrary to verbal or metaphoric, then of course the creator is in this sense, physical; that is He is real! As for the meaning of the argument; it simply goes down to the very simple meaning: “Since this universe exists the way it does, it must have had a creator that differs from it in His properties.”
30
And this is obviously a rational necessity; the very same necessity we are trying to push back into the minds of atheists! 1
-----------------------------------------
1 It may be true that none of the commonly known versions of the Cosmological argument is sufficient on here's a rather long version of the cosmological argument, one that may seem to be inspired by "Set theory".. You may call it "the systemic cosmological argument" if you wish. I made it up just now only to make my point here!
Premise one: Every system that is composed of smaller components (the terms particles, parts, or elements may be used here), must begin to exist by means of a definitive cause that is external to it, which brought its components together.
Premise two: Composed systems interact systematically (emerging and decaying) as subsystems of an even bigger system in the universe.
Premise three: The universe is - by definition - the sum of all composed systems, subsystems and particles that we know exist (The mother system of which all conceivable systems are subsystems).
Premise four: The cause of all systems and components cannot be a system comprised of components himself, or else he will fall within the set of all composed systems!
Therefore it follows that the universe had a beginning and is - by necessity - caused by an external composer that is not "composed" or caused, has no beginning, and is not bound by any of the rules that bind this system or any of its components.
Premise one, to my eyes, is both an irrefutable A-Priori statement (it follows from the very meaning of the passive verb "composed") and is supported by all conceivable observations and human experience of the way matter (both animate and inanimate) works. Premise two and three are equally plausible, since all particles in this universe are in an ongoing process of composition and decay, in the form of systems and subsystems at numerous levels, the highest level of which is the envelope of all particles and systems that we call the universe! The view of the universe as a consistent collective system of all systems was never in need for verification, least of all today with all the knowledge we have gathered in the last two centuries about the way it works and the way its constants are all tuned, and its elements are all organized in perfect equilibrium. No one can claim that it is wrong to call the universe a closed system!
Now this version of the argument is far more powerful than other commonly known versions because it does not leave room for an objection by the claim that - for example - the universe cannot be proven to have had a beginning, or the ridiculous claim that the word "everything" in the common wording of the temporal cosmological argument is contradicted by the impossibility that time (in its abstract meaning) may have had a previous cause to it, viewing it as a "thing"!
It may be worth noting that someone may argue that the first premise here does not include the smallest particle that cannot be divided into smaller components! My response would simply be that no such particle was ever proven to exist, and it‟s not a rational necessity! Prove to us that there is indeed such a particle in nature, and then we will debate! But you can‟t do that, can you?!
In fact, not only is it not a rational necessity; it cannot be justified by any rational process of analogy we humans can propose! If this particle is indivisible because it is too small to be divided; then it‟s not a particle at all, and it cannot be part of a bigger particle! It is true that a point – in Cartesian geometry – has (zero) length, but it is only true because a point is not meant to express a physical quantity! A point is only the abstraction of a particular place in space, a locus! There is no such a thing in real life as a (Zero) diameter circle (i.e. point)!
31
Whenever you plot a point on some piece of paper, it will always have a
Now watch how Dawkins comments on those three arguments; I quote:
―All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the
diameter; otherwise it will not be there at all! No matter how tiny an entity may be in reality, the way we see nature works, demands that it be divisible into yet tinier and smaller parts. Reason does not allow us to claim that at some point at the bottom of this system, there is a particle X that can only be divided into particles that are dimensionless (which means: it cannot be divided)! Something that has no width; is not to be called a physical particle, the accumulation of which should give us a particle that has a width! It‟s simply (nothing)! It‟s like saying (0+0=1) or (0 x 2 = 1); it‟s a false meaning! So not only can you not prove that such an indivisible entity exists; fact of the matter is it is not a rational necessity, not even a reasonable possibility!
We simply say that this regress cannot keep on going down to a (zero) particle, because if zero means nothing (which is indeed what is means), then we obviously cannot reduce the smallest “thing” to “nothing”! So there can be no such thing as a smallest indivisible particle, which is rendered indivisible because if it were divided, its parts would be (zero) in mass or volume! Every fraction (real number) could indeed be (fractioned) – in theory - to yet a smaller Real number, which goes down to an end that just cannot be conceived by man (A kind of infinity that is identified by mathematics as tending to zero: not an actual zero, but can only be treated as such). The smallest “fraction” in mathematics is not Zero, but it is too small a value for human reason – not to mention human senses – to deal with, or to distinguish from a Zero. So we can see that mathematics – in its blunt axiomatic referential – expresses the limitedness of our human tools of knowledge in this respect (in micro-scale) just as it does at the other end of the spectrum (macro-scale). We simply need to acknowledge this, and force our limited minds to just stop there! Reaching out beyond the imaginable is so tempting indeed; but unfortunately, it drives a man out of his mind!
Now I feel I should draw my reader‟s attention to the fact that even though I just crafted and furnished a rigid philosophical argument for the existence of God, and even furnished responses to possible objections to it; this is NOT by any means the way I know that God exists, and this is not the method I use to argue in His favor! His existence is by all means rationally axiomatic and is evident from all that comes to me from my senses, and from all that my mind makes out of that input! Thus we say that any argument of philosophy that seeks to present itself as evidence for His existence would be reductive no matter how masterfully it is crafted! This is why followers of prophets never asked them to “prove” the existence of God to them, but rather to prove their claims of prophethood! It has always been a rational and linguistic fact that demands no proof! Now the fact that certain miserable people started to question this fundamental notion does not leave me in need to forge such arguments of philosophy to prove to them that bright is the day and dark is the night! It only leaves them in need for a mental cure to sweep away those layers of false philosophy that have inverted their natural human reason and spoilt their commonsense! This is exactly why this literature turned out to be a huge two-volume book! I‟m not arguing for the truth, I‟m rather destroying huge towers of false argumentation and philosophy that have captivated western thought within the last few centuries! I will discuss in detail my position to the issue of arguing “for the existence of God” in volume 2. Just let it be clear for now that no matter what atheists may do in refutation of this “argument” I just forged; I couldn‟t possibly care less! I never said it is a text of scripture or God-given revelation anyway! So I tell them now: save your efforts and don‟t bother! Just read this book (both its volumes) all the way to the end, and see if you could break free from your biases and prejudices, and specifically from your deep despise and hate for Islam in particular, because if you could do that (may Allah give you the strength), then I guarantee to you that by the end of this long journey throughout these two large volumes, you will come out a different man!
32