Well, either no one has yet found any problems with my argument or no one finds it particularly interesting.
So, I'm just going to add a couple of points. Initially, I said that this argument addresses the issue of whether there was a first cause or if there is infinite regression. While, at first blush, the argument seems to support infinite regression, I'm going present an alternative to the first cause/infinite regress dichotomy, that still might hold if this argument is valid. To do this, we have to distinguish between a state of infinite regression and a static state with potential but no events. I will also posit that no events = no time. And if we have a state of unchanging potential, then we do not need to appeal to an actual infinity in the form of infinite causal regress. Therefore, we need neither rely on a first cause from absolute nothingness, nor an infinite causal chain, in order to explain why there is something rather than nothing. Having cake and eating it too?
So, I'm just going to add a couple of points. Initially, I said that this argument addresses the issue of whether there was a first cause or if there is infinite regression. While, at first blush, the argument seems to support infinite regression, I'm going present an alternative to the first cause/infinite regress dichotomy, that still might hold if this argument is valid. To do this, we have to distinguish between a state of infinite regression and a static state with potential but no events. I will also posit that no events = no time. And if we have a state of unchanging potential, then we do not need to appeal to an actual infinity in the form of infinite causal regress. Therefore, we need neither rely on a first cause from absolute nothingness, nor an infinite causal chain, in order to explain why there is something rather than nothing. Having cake and eating it too?
