[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[The Grand Nudger]

The reason that infinite regress is a problem is not that we can establish that it is impossible, but that we cannot draw any "ultimate conclusion" from it. It's a problem because we use logic to reach conclusions - not because there's some flaw in the universe that we use logic to attempt to comprehend.

[Mystic]

Every effect requires a cause.
A chain of effects is an effect.
An infinite chain of effects is therefore is an effect.
An effect requires a cause.
An infinite chain of effects requires a cause.
An infinite chain of effects by definition also doesn't require a cause.
Contradiction. Therefore an infinite chain of effects is impossible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which helps to very dramatically demonstrate what I posted directly prior to your post Mystic. It's like a program stuck in a loop. Whether or not the code can accomplish the task may be entirely separate from whether or not the task can be accomplished (evidenced by our ability to overcome those loops in programming, for example, as we better understand the task or problem). Another example of this would be the mt/mp problem that we've discussed before (and let me see if I can dredge up the link again) that would suggest - if we can swap these interchangeably, that an event in the future can be a causative agent for an event in the past - turning our notions of causality pretty much upside down (it's been suggested that this isn't so much a problem with logic as a problem with language - but it serves to elaborate upon the point).

All of this-before- we mention that even our understading of what is or is not logical, or what a valid argument can do for us - depends entirely upon the accuracy of the premise. In this case, that every effect requires a cause.

[Mister Agenda]

Every effect requires a cause.
A chain of effects is an effect.

You mean a chain of causes and effects.

An infinite chain of effects is therefore is an effect.

An infinite chan of causes and effects has no beginning and therefore is not an effect.

An effect requires a cause.
An infinite chain of effects requires a cause.

An infinite chain of causes and effects does not.

An infinite chain of effects by definition also doesn't require a cause.

Correct, bearing in mind the infinite chain includes all the causes.

Contradiction. Therefore an infinite chain of effects is impossible.

No, but it was a good try, and I think you may have proven than an infinite chain of cause and effect does not itself require a cause. That said, I lean toward uncaused causes being possible and infinite regression not being a necessary explanation, I'm just less certain of it than you.

Also, it occurs to me that every cause we observe in the universe is also an effect. Something might be made of that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I think putting the word "infinite" in there pretty much eradicates any chance of establishing a beginning. If there were a beginning, -it wouldn't be infinite-.

[Mystic]

Well, if something occurred that was not caused, it would not be an effect. It would simply be an event. If something popped into existence without a cause, it would not be an effect, it would be simply an existence.

Effect by definition implies a cause. The question, is everything necessarily an effect? Theists will say God is not an effect. Naturalism will say the universe originally was not an effect.

However, you can't state the universe is an effect and at the same time not caused. That seems like a contradiction. Infinite regress of cause and effect, contradicts itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which, conveniently, is what we're currently faced with with regards to something like "the big bang" - to which infinite regress is so often applied. At the very least, it is an event with no known cause - so what sense does it make to call it an effect?

The difference, between god and the universe - is that the universe is present. It's an important difference..lol.

[Mystic]

You mean a chain of causes and effects.

No, because you can end that with an uncaused cause that is not an effect.

An infinite chan of causes and effects has no beginning and therefore is not an effect.

Hence the contradiction. Why is a chain of effects an effect? Because every part of it is an effect. The same applies to an infinite chain. Can you tell me one part that is not an effect?

Also, it occurs to me that, with the exception of virtual particles, every cause we observe in the universe is also an effect. Something might be made of that.

See what I said to Rhythm. Someone can say there is events or existences that come into existence without a cause (although I don't believe it's logical to believe it's possible) but they would not be an effect.

An effect by definition requires a cause.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, if something occurred that was not caused, it would not be an effect. It would simply be an event. If something popped into existence without a cause, it would not be an effect, it would be simply an existence.

Effect by definition implies a cause. The question, is everything necessarily an effect? Theists will say God is not an effect. Naturalism will say the universe originally was not an effect.

However, you can't state the universe is an effect and at the same time not caused. That seems like a contradiction. Infinite regress of cause and effect, contradicts itself.

I expect the universe may be an example of an uncaused cause. However, that doesn't mean that an infinite regress contradicts itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, because you can end that with an uncaused cause that is not an effect.

Which is likely to amount to special pleading.