Infinite time.
by metacognizant
A short, fun little argument I’m developing. I don’t take it very seriously, as I don’t think that an infinite temporal regress is possible, but I do think that this argument would have a lot to say for it if an infinite temporal regress is an actuality.
1) Given infinite time, all broadly logical possibilities will be–and must be–actualized.
2) If they must be actualized, they are necessarily actualized.
3) It is broadly logically possible that a sentient being will arise and will come to possess all knowledge and grasp the truth value of all propositions.
4) This being is therefore omniscient.
5) If a being is omniscient, a being is omnipotent.
6) If a being is omniscient, a being is also morally perfect.
7) Because an infinite time has elapsed, this being arose an infinitely long time ago.
C) Therefore, given infinite time, there necessarily exists a being that is personal, omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, and has endured for infinity.
Justification for (5):
5.1) If one is omniscient, one knows all things in their entirety
5.2) If one knows all things in their entirety, one knows how to manipulate, create, and control all things, either directly or indirectly.
5.3) If one can manipulate, create, and control all things either directly or indirectly, one is omnipotent.
5C) Thus, an omniscient being is omnipotent.
Justification for (6):
6.1) An omniscient being knows all true propositions.
6.2) A being with free will will always act in a way that he judges that there is overriding reason to act–whether or not an outward action is performed depends upon the choice; whether to act or to remain idle.
6.3) An action is morally good if, all things considered, it is better to do action than it is not to do it.
6.4) There is overriding reason to do morally good actions than to refrain from doing them.
6.5) A judgment about what is and is not a morally good action is either a true or false proposition
6.6) Therefore, an omniscient being will always make judgments about overriding reasons for doing actions that are true judgments
6.7) Therefore, an omniscient and free-willed being always do a morally good action.
6C) Therefore, an omniscient being is morally perfect.
Some might like to question (6.4), but I’d like to remind everyone that it is a tautology.
A note: I’ve had a couple people reply to this blog, calling into question certain premises, even though I had explicitly stated that this argument required justification as originally presented. I chose not to allow those responses, simply because I had stated that I was going to justify the premises later, and I feel that now that the premises have been justified, all things should be solved. If you had posted a reply that I did not let through, and you feel that my justification did not address your concern, please simply repost your objection.
Some guy who thinks about thinking. 
Hey! Two things- first, a question about this post: Why would your step one work for the Christian God and not any other one? Since there is technically a possibility that a god just like the Christian one, but all evil instead of all good exists, then must that exist too? I’m not sure why, if you believe steps one and two are true, it is even necessary to go further. I suppose I’ll wait for further comment until you expand.
And second! I made a separate post devoted to the comment you made on the AAF blog, and there are some very insightful comments in addition to my own thoughts. Just wanted to make sure you were aware it existed. Check it out here:
http://uiucatheists.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-on-comment.html
Well, whether or not the being is evil is answered by (6) being justified, and (4) is the requisite for both (5) and (6), so there could not be an omnipotent evil being if (6) holds. However, you’re very correct in stating that this being may be nothing like the Christian God. What this argument actually entails is that (as there is an infinity of time), beings such as this have been actualized an infinite number of times, leading to an infinity of gods! Clearly, this looks more like Mormon theology, or versions of Hindu theology that assume a (potentially) infinite number of manifestations of Brahman. Not to mention, that God had a beginning is utterly incompatible with Christian theology. This is just an argument I was having fun with, not one that I take very seriously.
Also, thanks for letting me know about the blog post. I’ve replied to it :).
Still not sure whether one can use the assumption of infinite time. It’s a sticking point for anyone who sees that as an unrealistic assumption given the possible beginning and end of time (and/or space-time in general) in various scientific theories.
Also I’m still unconvinced there is a non-zero probability of a sentient being arising that can know all. It runs into limits of observability that may require a secondary observational universe being required to observe everything in the observed universe. Otherwise one runs into all sorts of dead ends of feasibility.
Interesting train of thought, nonetheless.
Well, the assumption of infinite time is taken because I’ve talked with quite a few people who attempt to avoid the force of the kalaam cosmological argument by positing that perhaps time never did begin to exist.
Well, it’s broadly logically possible that a sentient being will eventually come to be omniscient. There are a few reasons for this: (i) certain scientists, such as Peter Atkins, claim that science is well on the way to giving humanity omniscience, and it follows that the first person to come to understand all of what science claims once it grants humanity that luxury will be omniscient; (ii) our universe is one of the larger universes imaginable–this is why the initial entropy conditions of our universe are so incredibly improbable, and are sometimes cited as evidence that God exists–and so if a sentient being arose in a universe vastly smaller than our own, it would not take as long to become omniscient and it could then use its own universe as an observational universe for any new universe created; (iii) no reason can be given that it is impossible, and thus, however improbable it is, given infinite time it will be actualized: this is the nature of infinite time.
Thanks for the reply.