From this article, which I just found by Googling âwhy is an infinite regress impossible?ââ¦. Still, if an infinite regression among proper causes of existence (extrinsic sufficient reasons) is impossible, then such a regression, if demonstrated, would require a first cause (extrinsic sufficient reason) which is its own sufficient reason ⦠To argue for an infinite regress of events, you are by definition arguing for an an actually infinite number of a finite amount. But there is no otherwise. Whether the intermediate causes are limited or unlimited in number, they cannot alone explain the causal process that runs through the entire chain. Why is infinite regress impossible? Infinite regress is impossible because infinity is an irrational term when appled to a finite universe. It seems that in many debates, people point to either an infinite regress or infinity in general and use that alone as a refutation. I donât agree with this part either. Were it not for the “need” to conform timelike intervals to eternalism’s false hypothesis, the obvious reading of human experience and scientific observation within the same local world line would be that real causality occurs in “normal” time. You are just proving that infinity cannot be reached, I think an actually infinite number is meaningless because there is no actual quantity that can be said to be infinite. Why does Aquinas think that an infinite regress is impossible? It is called intermediate precisely because it is passing along a reason that it itself does not fully explain. Are Metaphysical First Principles Universally True? - Isaiah 1:18. Think of Zenoâs paradox. Logically speaking, at no point does an infinite regress justify any proposition. Iâm not familiar with Zenoâs paradox. What makes infinite regress impossible? If yes then 1/x is an actual infinity. Gorgias June 28, 2018, 5:01pm Dr. Craig, I cannot thank you enough for your apologetics work. Why not just conclude the universe as the uncaused cause. There is only ever the potentially infinite number. Now we add more intermediate causes and after each one if we try to remove the first cause the series becomes invalid. I'm hoping this version of the question will be more clear and easier to respond to. Sometimes it is uncontroversial that a theory that generates aninfinite regress is objectionable, because the regress reveals thatthe theory suffers from some kind of theoretical vice that is a reasonto reject the theory independently of it yielding an infiniteregress. Is it because according to quantum mechanics things at the subatomic world do not have causes? The problem is that each prior reason is not really sufficient unto itself. The end time is still a great unknown. Imagine a simple situation in which there exists a first cause and one intermediate cause. Why infinite sum of things is impossible? (The reductio ad absurdum technique.) Aristotle argued that knowing does not necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration: Some hold that owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premises, there is no scientific knowledge. June 28, 2018, 6:32pm #22. Infinity simply doesnât exist for a finite universe. It's false that everything has a cause As you can see, 4 doesn't need us to entertain a God as an uncaused cause. This we call "God". and since finite amounts cannot possibly add up to a point that can be defined as actually infinite it is meaningless to speak of an infinite regress because the addition of numbers only ever allows a potential infinite; never an actual infinite. The regress argument is the argument that any proposition requires a justification.However, any justification itself requires support. Therefore there must be a first cause of everything. How can the God of the Philosophers be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? To speak of an an actually infinite quantity or number is to speak of something that is made of finite parts or irreducible points that add up to an actual infinite. Aristotle first tackled this problem in his own philosophy, and it had a great influence on St. Thomas Aquinasâ cosmological arguments. IWantGod. But if the series were literally infinite, there ... 4 The infinite regress argument will not, however, work for Humean causes. There is not an amount, quantity, or number of things, that can add up to an infinite because an infinite is quantitatively indefinable. William Lane Craig . A Production of Word on Fire, "Come now, let us reason together." Infinity simply doesnât exist for a finite universe. Because there is no such thing as an actually infinite number of something. I already searched the forum and google it. Zenoâs paradox shows you can have an infinite number of steps (each one becoming smaller than the previous) in a finite interval. Several versions of the Cosmological Argument (Motion and Causality) make it one of their premises that infinite regress is impossible. Is the Passage of Time Real or Just an Illusion? We could have infinite intermediate causes, so there is no need for first cause. Because by definition infinity does not end. Otherwise, the chain would stop right there. Of course, if that is done, then eternalism as a whole collapses, since all “events” in the cosmos suddenly fall into normal time sequences with the past no longer existing and the future not yet existing, even though absolute simultaneity for spatially separated events is still denied. The regress is finite, but has no end (Coherence view). Why Does the Universe Exist? Infinite regress is the idea of a process going back into the past with no beginning. (This is what the argument is postulating). That is, since each premise is contingent on some reason, we then require another premise to justify that reason. In these cases, an infinite regress argument can show us thatwe have reason to reject a theory, but it is not because the theoryyields a regress per se, but rather because it has this otherbad feature, and the regress has revealed that. We can only go back as far as time allows us to go in our known universe. The regress ends in self-evident truths, the axioms of geometry, for example (Foundationalist view) If we remove the first cause, of course, the situation is invalid. Is it possible to reach from 1 to zero? If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. God then isn't an exception to the impossibility of an infinite regress rule (which would itself be impossible), but stands in a qualitatively different relationship to time altogether (one which doesn't require the passing of time at all). The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. To argue for an infinite regress of events, you are by definition arguing for an an actually infinite number of a finite amount. For Plato, infinite regress is an impossibility. Not unless the assumption that âin order for something to exist there must be a beginning when it was createdâ can be demonstrated to be true. 1 ⦠If everything has a cause then there'a an infinite regress of causes 3. Can someone please explain to me why an infinite regress of causes is impossible? There is only ever the potentially infinite number. Thus, there must be a first sufficient reason, which is its own reason â otherwise the principle of sufficient reason itself would be violated. What is his argument? which this leads to infinite regress. It is infinite otherwise it is bounded with by a boundary and that boundary is bounded by⦠etc. In philosophy, the infinite regression phenomenon frequently ⦠A+A+A+Aâ¦
Importance Of Milk,
Fortuner Vs Endeavour Safety Rating,
Examples Of Field In Mathematics,
Padra Chemical Company List,
Universal Push Pull Throttle Cable,
Common Co-living Reviews,
Folgers Simply Smooth K-cups,
Dark And Lovely Jet Black Hair Dye,