1
Infinite Regression - Cause and Effect - a possible alternative ? on Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:11 am
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=infinite+regression+of+the+cause+of+the+universe&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
http://locksmyth.alchemyx.com/index.php?blog=1&p=95&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Argument from Contingency:
Premise 1 - Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, ether in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause that brought it into existence.
Premise 2 - If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3 - The universe is an existing thing.
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2 - The universe began to exist.
2.1 - An actually infinite number of things cannot exist
2.2 - A beginning less series of past events involves an actually infinite number of things
2.3 - Therefore a beginning less series of past events cannot exist
Conclusion - Therefore the universe has a cause
So the Argument from Contingency provides absolutely no information and one cannot draw any conclusion from it’s premises. I note, sardonically, that TheBibleMatters? didn’t try to draw a conclusion either, I suspect that rather then believing that no conclusion can be drawn that he believes the conclusion to be self evident.
So nothing enlightening came from that argument and the second argument is the same one in a fancy dress.
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause. As stated earlier we can only make this claim about existence within this universe. Again this should read Whatever has it’s origin within the universe has a cause. nothing further can reliable be stated.
Premise 2 - The universe began to exist. True. Wow I’m upto the fifth point and finally one that is true.
2.1 - An actually infinite number of things cannot exist True, because infinite isn’t an actual quantity.
2.2 - A beginning less series of past events involves an actually infinite number of thingsI don’t know, within our universe certainly, but didn’t we just establish that an infinite series cannot exist in reality? This premise seems superfluous.
2.3 - Therefore a beginning less series of past events cannot exist That certainly sounds true.
Conclusion - Therefore the universe has a cause What where did that come from? Oh hang on I forgot your ridiculous premise that you know cause and effect apply outside the universe. That’s the problem as I see it.
I know the infinite regression problem of if a creator created the universe then who created the creator and how that leads to an infinite number of creators. I also know that creationists ignore the problem and plead special case for god. God they say is out side the universe is eternal and never came into being and is thus exempt from cause and effect. However with my limited knowledge of the origin of the universe, the ‘big bang’, inflation what ever you wish to call it I know that time did not exist until it was formed in the big bang. Without time; cause and effect are meaningless. This means that the very beginning of the universe, before time which was formed in the universe, is a special case for all the same reasons god is, it is outside the universe thus out side time and thus cause and effect have no meaning. So we are left with two options.
1. Plead special case for god and insist that cause and effect exist out side the influence of time, but god is immune to their effect and then that god created the universe.
2. Plead special case for the universe itself, acknowledge that time began at the big bang with all the other laws and properties of the universe, that cause and effect cannot exist without time and thus there is no requirement for a cause.
We can then use Occam’s razor to determine which option is wisest to accept. Option one requires the addition of an unknown god to the origin of the universe and makes the claim that it is beyond cause and effect by virtue of being external to the universe. Option two requires only the universe which we currently experience and the acknowledgment that time and cause and effect are properties of the universe and cannot be applied before it’s existed.
Option two clearly requires less speculation, thus it is the preferable option, unless evidence can be found to support option one.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/infinite_regress_arguments/
http://creationwiki.org/Infinite_regression
The logical problem with such an argument is that it begs the question of what set the original chain in motion. It thus becomes an example of perpetual motion, something no inventor has ever been able to achieve.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407104858AArJQCt
Infinite regress would be logically impossible. It would mean that their is no primary cause..... which ruins the cause and effect relationship. The chain could be nearly infinite, but their would have to be a stop.
http://locksmyth.alchemyx.com/index.php?blog=1&p=95&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Argument from Contingency:
Premise 1 - Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, ether in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause that brought it into existence.
Premise 2 - If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3 - The universe is an existing thing.
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2 - The universe began to exist.
2.1 - An actually infinite number of things cannot exist
2.2 - A beginning less series of past events involves an actually infinite number of things
2.3 - Therefore a beginning less series of past events cannot exist
Conclusion - Therefore the universe has a cause
So the Argument from Contingency provides absolutely no information and one cannot draw any conclusion from it’s premises. I note, sardonically, that TheBibleMatters? didn’t try to draw a conclusion either, I suspect that rather then believing that no conclusion can be drawn that he believes the conclusion to be self evident.
So nothing enlightening came from that argument and the second argument is the same one in a fancy dress.
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause. As stated earlier we can only make this claim about existence within this universe. Again this should read Whatever has it’s origin within the universe has a cause. nothing further can reliable be stated.
Premise 2 - The universe began to exist. True. Wow I’m upto the fifth point and finally one that is true.
2.1 - An actually infinite number of things cannot exist True, because infinite isn’t an actual quantity.
2.2 - A beginning less series of past events involves an actually infinite number of thingsI don’t know, within our universe certainly, but didn’t we just establish that an infinite series cannot exist in reality? This premise seems superfluous.
2.3 - Therefore a beginning less series of past events cannot exist That certainly sounds true.
Conclusion - Therefore the universe has a cause What where did that come from? Oh hang on I forgot your ridiculous premise that you know cause and effect apply outside the universe. That’s the problem as I see it.
I know the infinite regression problem of if a creator created the universe then who created the creator and how that leads to an infinite number of creators. I also know that creationists ignore the problem and plead special case for god. God they say is out side the universe is eternal and never came into being and is thus exempt from cause and effect. However with my limited knowledge of the origin of the universe, the ‘big bang’, inflation what ever you wish to call it I know that time did not exist until it was formed in the big bang. Without time; cause and effect are meaningless. This means that the very beginning of the universe, before time which was formed in the universe, is a special case for all the same reasons god is, it is outside the universe thus out side time and thus cause and effect have no meaning. So we are left with two options.
1. Plead special case for god and insist that cause and effect exist out side the influence of time, but god is immune to their effect and then that god created the universe.
2. Plead special case for the universe itself, acknowledge that time began at the big bang with all the other laws and properties of the universe, that cause and effect cannot exist without time and thus there is no requirement for a cause.
We can then use Occam’s razor to determine which option is wisest to accept. Option one requires the addition of an unknown god to the origin of the universe and makes the claim that it is beyond cause and effect by virtue of being external to the universe. Option two requires only the universe which we currently experience and the acknowledgment that time and cause and effect are properties of the universe and cannot be applied before it’s existed.
Option two clearly requires less speculation, thus it is the preferable option, unless evidence can be found to support option one.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/infinite_regress_arguments/
http://creationwiki.org/Infinite_regression
The logical problem with such an argument is that it begs the question of what set the original chain in motion. It thus becomes an example of perpetual motion, something no inventor has ever been able to achieve.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407104858AArJQCt
Infinite regress would be logically impossible. It would mean that their is no primary cause..... which ruins the cause and effect relationship. The chain could be nearly infinite, but their would have to be a stop.
