The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[The Grand Nudger]

It specifically rules them out. Beings are contingent. Beings need something to be in. You know...beings......

[Nishant Xavier]

Now, the argument may be formulated both logically and mathematically:

1. Now, every Contingent Being, by definition, is Contingent, i.e. Dependent on a Prior Being's Existence.

if we wrote it mathematically, for every Contingent Being, CB, CB(n) is dependent on CB(n-1); CB(n-1) on CB(n-2) etc.

2. But it is impossible for this series of contingent causation to go on until infinity.

Implicit in your argument is that a "being" of some sort or other caused anything.

Looks like begging the question to me. Reformulate your argument so that this undemonstrated premise is not present, and resubmit.

Thump:

1 is a basic Truth observed in Nature. You are contingent upon your parents, they on theirs, and this is true for animals, birds, and even other beings that are contingent upon the Planet's Existence in the first place. Therefore, that every contingent being is dependent on a prior being's existence is absolutely true and does not assume anything other than the stated premise itself. "beings of some sort" do cause other beings.

As soon as you see that every contingent being is dependent on another prior being, you should be able to see clearly that every being in existence cannot possibly be contingent being. In other words, at least One Being in Existence exists non-contingently.

The argument does not necessarily have to prove more than that. But it is successful in showing that much, unless either 1 or 2 can be refuted.

If you want to refute 1, give some examples of contingent beings that are not dependent on the existence of prior beings. 2 or 3 will suffice.

If you want to refute 2, you can try, but how would you even begin to do that? 2 is a logical and mathematical Truth. 3 follows from 1 and 2.

Regards,
Xavier.

[Silver]

A mathematical truth is not a philosophical or even realistic one. All a mathematical proof does is variably align concepts. You can input a leprechaun into a mathematical proof, but it still doesn't mean leprechauns exist in reality.

[Nay_Sayer]

Implicit in your argument is that a "being" of some sort or other caused anything.

Looks like begging the question to me. Reformulate your argument so that this undemonstrated premise is not present, and resubmit.

Thump:

1 is a basic Truth observed in Nature. You are contingent upon your parents, they on theirs, and this is true for animals, birds, and even other beings that are contingent upon the Planet's Existence in the first place. Therefore, that every contingent being is dependent on a prior being's existence is absolutely true and does not assume anything other than the stated premise itself. "beings of some sort" do cause other beings.

As soon as you see that every contingent being is dependent on another prior being, you should be able to see clearly that every being in existence cannot possibly be contingent being. In other words, at least One Being in Existence exists non-contingently.

The argument does not necessarily have to prove more than that. But it is successful in showing that much, unless either 1 or 2 can be refuted.

If you want to refute 1, give some examples of contingent beings that are not dependent on the existence of prior beings. 2 or 3 will suffice.

If you want to refute 2, you can try, but how would you even begin to do that? 2 is a logical and mathematical Truth. 3 follows from 1 and 2.

Regards,
Xavier.

ergo my statement was true, noteably you've ignored it.

[Fake Messiah]

So god exists because people have parents who have parents. Someone needs to read a biology book, especially the part about evolution and the evolution of sex, instead of theology books.

[Deesse23]

Arguments, especially fallacious ones, are not evidence. At best they are evidence of the ignorance of the op, of which we already have plenty.
The entire thread thus is silly and redundant.
Congratulations.

[no one]

Yet again, this coward uses their superpower of selective hearing, and doesn't respond to anything that cannot be "answered" without quoting their idiotic playbook.

So much for debating, huh sport?

[Deesse23]

Yet again, this coward uses their superpower of selective hearing, and doesn't respond to anything that cannot be "answered" without quoting their idiotic playbook.

So much for debating, huh sport?

If this is the best his god sent to convert us....
Come on god, a bit more effort please.

[The Architect Of Fate]

More boring cookie cutter apologist nonsense.....Yawn

[Belacqua]

It claims that an infinite series of contingent causation is impossible, but uncritically assumes that a super-high-powered being of infinite duration *is* possible.

I don't think this is a fair assessment. 

The argument doesn't assume a "high-powered being of infinite duration." It attempts to show that there must be one thing that is non-contingent. 

Other beliefs concerning this non-contingent thing require other arguments, and Thomists are very aware of that. 

the argument wouldn't validate the god of the Bible specifically.  It doesn't even validate a sentient being as the "first cause."

You're right. And again, the argument doesn't attempt to validate the god of the Bible specifically, or a sentient being as the first cause. It has a very limited ambition: to argue that there must be a non-contingent thing at the origin of the chain of essential causation.

This is from Wikipedia:

Aquinas did not hold that what could be demonstrated philosophically (i.e. as general revelation) would necessarily provide any of the vital details revealed in Christ and through the church (i.e. as ), quite the reverse.

Any idea about Christ as God, or God as the God of the Bible, or all of that other stuff, requires additional arguments. 

The Five Ways are more Aristotelian than biblical. And of course Aristotle knew nothing of Christianity.