Infinite regress of causes12/18/2023 ![]() There can not be an infinite regression, there must be a beginning, therefore God. THE ASSERTION OF THE FALLACY OF INFINITE REGRESSION, IS A COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. It is only the theist that pretends they know and make wild assertions of the existence of a God as the origin of everything. We have no idea at all of the physics that exist beyond Planck Time. You must also understand that the origin of our universe may have nothing at all to do with the origin of the cosmos. It is easier to claim that we really do not know than it is to call something impossible. However, I know, for certain, something exists.Įxistence, therefore, appears paradoxical. It seems that it would be far more reasonable that nothing existed. On the face of it there are only two logically possible accounts for The Totality's existence:Īn infinite causal chain stretching backwards in time orĮither logical possibility seems equally causally impossible. We live in a real world with real consequences for real behaviors and to reduce everything down to the ultimate cause (or nothing) is a useless avenue of inquiry and leads us to nowhere. This is the imputes behind the idea that "Nothing Can Be Known to 100%." It does not matter. This, in no way implies that the reasoning itself is fallacious. When those reasons are given, he can demand their justification, and this in turn leads to an infinite regress of justifications. ![]() The skeptic can always ask a philosopher for justifying reasons. The universe naturally expands and contracts only to expand again. ![]() The other option I am aware of is a circular chain of events. If there is a first cause, that event necessarily must come from itself or from nothing in order to break the chain. All events rely on a precursor event in a causal chain of events. People do not like it because it is not clean. Infinite regression in itself is not a fallacy. There is no reason to assume an infinite regression is not real. this system of in bedding threads gets confusing and isn't as easy as putting most recent post at the bottom for most users. I am not sure if the mods talked about this. We don't have to pick one or the other when they are both so clearly wrong. even if they say god made it I don't know why they don't say, "I don't know if its always been here or not, but I believe something made the universe."įor me, "deny-everything" just isn't science. I have no idea why theist need god to have always been here. when people say to me "what if it was God?". To stop infinite regress just say this universe was the first and admit we don't know what was before it. What does that mean? processing in a meaningful way? we would have to talk about that. We do know we are here now and the universe seems to be processing information in a meaningful way. It doesn't matter how we go here in this god argument. What do we do then?įor me, and I suggest for us all really, put them side by side, use commonsense, and see if they seem like they are equal. who has a mechanism? ok, we can say neither are testable yet. That being said, If I claim the the universe seems to have been "born" and theists say "god made it". "god was always here." isn't proving a thing. basically, a claim with a mechanism, explanation, and repeatable predictions are more valid than claims that don't have them. Its more about a mechanism than anything else. Saying it proves anything is there or not is silly. Drhfuture I start with 'we don't know." infinite regress is a useless starting point.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |