if there is an infinite regress of causes, an infinite number have already passed at any point, so there is no problem. The only problem is if there is a *start* to that infinite sequence.
I do not know whether there was an infinite chain of causes in the universe or not. In either case, the universe as a whole is uncaused. But that is a necessity since causality part of the universe, not vice versa.
Faulty metaphysics? How about anything to do with 'potential existence'? Aristotle is also very poor about causality and the notion of substance.
That all philosophers reject something isn't necessarily a problem. Most scientists accept it. They do so because it works.
No, it is NOT a example of question begging. It is a question of quality of the evidence and whether it is suitable for the conclusion made. Anyone making a claim of a violation of well-tested physical laws has an enormous burden of proof. Mere personal anecdotes are simply not sufficient. Nor, for that matter, are writings of uncertain provenience making such claims.
I am not making the assumption that Matthew (assuming he was the author) is wrong. I am making the conclusion he was. His proposed evidence is not even close to being sufficient to make his claims worthy.
And the belief in a supernatural *is* warranted? Please!
I do not know whether there was an infinite chain of causes in the universe or not. In either case, the universe as a whole is uncaused. But that is a necessity since causality part of the universe, not vice versa.
Faulty metaphysics? How about anything to do with 'potential existence'? Aristotle is also very poor about causality and the notion of substance.
That all philosophers reject something isn't necessarily a problem. Most scientists accept it. They do so because it works.
No, it is NOT a example of question begging. It is a question of quality of the evidence and whether it is suitable for the conclusion made. Anyone making a claim of a violation of well-tested physical laws has an enormous burden of proof. Mere personal anecdotes are simply not sufficient. Nor, for that matter, are writings of uncertain provenience making such claims.
I am not making the assumption that Matthew (assuming he was the author) is wrong. I am making the conclusion he was. His proposed evidence is not even close to being sufficient to make his claims worthy.
And the belief in a supernatural *is* warranted? Please!
