What Are Some of the Classical Proofs That Prove the Universe is Not Preeternal?

Answered by Sidi Faraz A. Khan

Question: I’ve got two proofs for proving that the world must be made of a finite number of bodies at all time,I just need to know if they work:

First-odd/even proof:

a-On one hand if you have for example an infinite number of horses then this number must be either even or odd because if you remove all the couple of horses available from an infinite amount of horses it will stay either zero horse,then your infinite set was even,or it will stay one horse,then your infinite set was odd.You can’t have more than one horse left when you remove all of the couple available because you would still have left couple of horses to remove.

b-On the other hand an infinite number of horses cannot be even because if you add one then you ll have an even number and how an infinite number can lack one item?And also this infinite number cannot be odd for the same reason.

So because of the contradiction regarding the conclusion of a and b it is impossible to have an infinite number of discrete items making the world.

do you agree?(it can be found in the Iqtisad of ghazali but I’m not sure of my understanding )

2nd proof:

If you have an infinite number of planet in the universe for example it is still possible to add one planet to this infinite set of planets.So on one hand we would have the new set of planet strictly greater than the old one in quantity and on the other hand we would have two infinite counts of the same type where none can be said to be greater than the other.This is absurd so the number of discrete items must be finite at all time.

Do you agree?

If not can you give me one that works.
Barrak Allahu fikum
wasalam

Answer: Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

I pray this finds you in the best of health and faith.

Both proofs you allude to, along with another proof, are used by Imam Ghazali in his al-Iqtisad fil I’tiqad in his rebuttal against the claim that the universe is preeternal, specifically in light of the fact that the universe is composed of things temporal (hawadith). It has more to do with time (i.e., having a starting point) rather than finite composition, although parts of his argument could be applied to that as well.

The First Proof

You do not mention this proof in your question. He states that if the universe were preeternal, despite being composed of things temporal, then that which is infinite would have expired, followed by a gap of its nonexistence. Hence, the preeternal would have ended, which is obviously absurd.

The Second Proof

This is the first proof you allude to in your question. He states that the universe must have a beginning point because its preeternality would entail an infinite number of planetary rotations. This number would logically have to be either: (a) even, (b) odd, (c) neither even nor odd, or (d) simultaneously even and odd.

All four of these possibilities are inconceivable, since no number can be (c) neither even nor odd, or (d)simultaneously even and odd.

This is because an even number is that which can be divided into two equal parts, while an odd number is that which cannot. And every number can either be divided into two equal parts or cannot. So both (c) and (d) are absurd.

This infinite number [of planetary rotations] can also not be (a) even, since the only reason “even” is not “odd” is because it lacks one unit. If one unit is added, it becomes odd. But how can an infinite number lack one unit? So (a) is absurd.

And this infinite number cannot be (b) odd either, since “odd” becomes “even” by the addition of one unit, yet it remains odd due to it lacking that one unit. And, again, how can an infinite number lack one unit? So (b) is absurd.

The Third Proof

This is the second proof you allude to in your question. He states that the preeternality of the universe would entail the existence of two infinite numbers, one of which is smaller than the other (since some planets revolve faster than others, while the number of revolutions of each would be infinite). And it is absurd that one “infinite” can be smaller than another “infinite.” This is because the smaller one is that which, were something added to it, would become equivalent to the larger. And how can the infinite be in need of something additional?

A Consideration for Our Times

On a final note, it is important to keep in mind that these and other proofs were expressed by our scholars in the language of medieval philosophy, since it was philosophers of their times who challenged the Islamic creed of divine oneness.

Today, our community would need to produce scholars who could formulate proofs in the language of modern science, as that is the primary discourse challenging our beliefs. These proofs would need to be expressed in light of subjects such as quantum physics, higher mathematics, molecular biology and the like. If successful, such a framework would constitute a new – and much needed – chapter in our kalam tradition.

And Allah knows best.

wassalam

Faraz

Checked & Approved by Faraz Rabbani