RE: The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.
July 22, 2023 at 10:54 am
Nishant said: "For every Being Bn, if it is temporal, it depends on a prior being in the timeline, Bn-1."
Polymath said: "Prove this."
Every being Bn that is temporal begins to exist at some point in the timeline. Therefore, it depends on a prior being Bn-1 that already existed at a prior point in the timeline. And this being Bn-1, if itself temporal, depends on a prior being, Bn-2. And so on and so forth, until the beginning of time. Since there is no B0, the Final Being, the First Being, B1, is non-Temporal, i.e. Eternal.
Btw, while I respect St. Thomas, and Dr. Craig, the Argument from Contingency, to the best of my knowledge, has never been formulated mathematically before. It's an absolutely solid argument, and many have become Theists because of it. I think even more will as the mathematical formulation of the argument gets out. That some Atheists may not believe is true, yet the conclusion is certain: An Eternal First Being exists, non-Temporal, responsible for subsequent Beings B2 to Bn beginning to exist in the Universe.
As for other issues, yes, Dr. Craig, a Professional Philosopher, has written extensively on some of the absurdities the idea that a successive addition forming an actual infinite would lead to, and I agree with him. It appears even you do on that particular point.
If so, consider this syllogism:
1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition (which you said you agree with above)
2. The temporal series of past events is a series formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
You are trying to deny the conclusion, while saying you admit the premise.
Your words: "NOBODY assumes that an infinite can be obtained by 'successive addition' from a finite amount."
Now, as to your claim "time was always infinite in the past": what you are really saying is 3 above. Yet, you agree with 1.
Do you then disagree with 2? If so, you need to establish it. The premise is at least more evident than its denial.
If the universe is roughly 15 Billion years old, give or take, that is an independent confirmation it is not actually infinite.
Again, all you have to do to realize the Universe cannot be actually infinite in the past, given that we got here, is count backward into the past.
You claim it is a false analogy to say that if we started from 1,2,3, we will never get to infinity, but allegedly, starting from infinity, we can get to 0.
All you have to do is count backward in time. If we started from -infinity, we would never get to 0. We got to 0, therefore we didn't start from -infinity.
Regards,
Xavier.
Polymath said: "Prove this."
Every being Bn that is temporal begins to exist at some point in the timeline. Therefore, it depends on a prior being Bn-1 that already existed at a prior point in the timeline. And this being Bn-1, if itself temporal, depends on a prior being, Bn-2. And so on and so forth, until the beginning of time. Since there is no B0, the Final Being, the First Being, B1, is non-Temporal, i.e. Eternal.
Btw, while I respect St. Thomas, and Dr. Craig, the Argument from Contingency, to the best of my knowledge, has never been formulated mathematically before. It's an absolutely solid argument, and many have become Theists because of it. I think even more will as the mathematical formulation of the argument gets out. That some Atheists may not believe is true, yet the conclusion is certain: An Eternal First Being exists, non-Temporal, responsible for subsequent Beings B2 to Bn beginning to exist in the Universe.
As for other issues, yes, Dr. Craig, a Professional Philosopher, has written extensively on some of the absurdities the idea that a successive addition forming an actual infinite would lead to, and I agree with him. It appears even you do on that particular point.
If so, consider this syllogism:
1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition (which you said you agree with above)
2. The temporal series of past events is a series formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
You are trying to deny the conclusion, while saying you admit the premise.
Your words: "NOBODY assumes that an infinite can be obtained by 'successive addition' from a finite amount."
Now, as to your claim "time was always infinite in the past": what you are really saying is 3 above. Yet, you agree with 1.
Do you then disagree with 2? If so, you need to establish it. The premise is at least more evident than its denial.
If the universe is roughly 15 Billion years old, give or take, that is an independent confirmation it is not actually infinite.
Again, all you have to do to realize the Universe cannot be actually infinite in the past, given that we got here, is count backward into the past.
You claim it is a false analogy to say that if we started from 1,2,3, we will never get to infinity, but allegedly, starting from infinity, we can get to 0.
All you have to do is count backward in time. If we started from -infinity, we would never get to 0. We got to 0, therefore we didn't start from -infinity.
Regards,
Xavier.
