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

[brewer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Check it out NX. You've failed in demonstration that infinite regress is not possible. You might want to escape 13th century thought, or better yet live under 13th century conditions. If you did my guess is that you'd be dead.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Check it out NX. You've failed in demonstration that infinite regress is not possible. You might want to escape 13th century thought, or better yet live under 13th century conditions. If you did my guess is that you'd be dead.

(Bold mine)

Truth to tell, so would I.

Boru

[brewer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Check it out NX. You've failed in demonstration that infinite regress is not possible. You might want to escape 13th century thought, or better yet live under 13th century conditions. If you did my guess is that you'd be dead.

(Bold mine)

Truth to tell, so would I.

Boru

Yeah, but none of these nut jobs consider that. They think that 13th century thoughts and actions are applicapable to 21st century values.

[Belacqua]

Go back and reread what he wrote. He quite literally wrote "In other words, at least One Being in Existence exists non-contingently" (bold added). If he's not stating the argument right by your view, take that up with him, 'cause it ain't my problem. I'm answering his argument directly, and pointing out that he's trying to smuggle a being in arbitrarily.

Yes, it's a persistent language problem. I also think that a lot of Christians should be more careful about this. 

Our thinking is structured largely by the language we use. Unfortunately English concepts often don't map well onto Aristotelian or Thomist ones. So there is always a danger of confusion concerning "a being" or "an entity," as well as, as I mentioned, "cause." 

(For example, Japanese has different nouns for a tangible thing and an intangible thing. So from the start it's generally clear what kind of "thing" we're talking about -- in some cases it's clearer than English. There is also a rich vocabulary for philosophy in this vein, addressing materiality and ideality. All this is inherited from Buddhist thought.)

It's the sort of thing that people can work out. When both sides are friendly and open-minded, we can ask for clearer definitions and make things clearer. I understand that's not a very common state for conversations.

He needs to demonstrate that this could not possibly be a process and must be a being (complete with capital B!), and then he need to justify jumping from a creative being to his particular godling.

Let me go get some popcorn. He's gonna need a bigger boat.

Yes, the argument in the OP is far from complete or persuasive as it stands. It is one part of a systematic theology. 

For example all of the Five Ways hold that infinite regress is impossible, but don't explain that within the argument itself. That's why I always say that none of them is a self-contained argument, but more like a syllabus for a semester-long college class. Each step of the argument has prerequisites. Of course Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas have elaborate arguments as to why infinite regress isn't possible. 

So again, in a friendly conversation we can certainly ask "wait a minute, why isn't infinite regress possible?" and then ideally that could be explained also -- and rebutted and discussed. 

And as I said before, none of the Five Ways addresses why a First Cause is "his particular godling." That calls for several further arguments.

As you say, it needs a big boat. 

I don't know if the OP is willing to go to those lengths, or if he's aware of the prerequisites we'd need to find his argument sensible. Often I try to discuss these things with people and they seem unwilling to have a conversation.

[Paleophyte]

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.

In the instant that you admit the possibility that this non-contingent cause could be a natural event you'll find that you have no argument. Your religion requires One Being complete with capitalization. Philosophy does not.

[Belacqua]

In the instant that you admit the possibility that this non-contingent cause could be a natural event you'll find that you have no argument. Your religion requires One Being complete with capitalization. Philosophy does not.

Nishant might disagree with me on this, but as I understand the Thomist argument, it does not posit an event that happened in the past. 

Again, people read it that way because the word "cause" in English refers to an efficient cause -- the thing that pushed the first domino so that all the other dominoes fell. It's different in Aristotelian and Thomist arguments, however. They aren't talking about the Deist God, who makes the universe, winds it up like a clock, and walks away. Their God is necessary to sustain the universe in being, continuously. 

So when asking about a cause of X, we have to ask "what has to exist in order for X to exist?" Then we get a chain of essential, not temporal, causation. So for our sun to exist, we need hydrogen (among many other things). If our sun disappeared, hydrogen would still exist, but if hydrogen disappeared, our sun would disappear too. That's what is meant by "essentially prior." 

So our sun needs hydrogen, hydrogen needs subatomic particles, subatomic particles need this and that and the next thing. Eventually you get to a "deepest" level. What does physics call it these days? Space/time? Matter/energy? I'm not sure. But of course for space/time to be, there must be being, which is what the philosophers call the First Cause. 

Your argument is still relevant, in that scientists can still posit that the deepest level, the one thing that is necessary for everything else to exist, is natural. We could argue that being itself, which is necessary for space/time to be, is itself natural. But I don't think this argues against a First Cause. It just claims that we should call the First Cause natural. And I don't think theologians would have any problem with that - the natural/supernatural distinction is notoriously tricky. 

As always, to associate this First Cause with the Christian God requires many other arguments, which aren't addressed in the Five Ways.

[Fake Messiah]

As always, to associate this First Cause with the Christian God requires many other arguments, which aren't addressed in the Five Ways.

So a Christian theologian, Aquinas, is not associating First Cause with the Christian God, but is arguing for naturalism. Now that's bullshit.

[Deesse23]

As always, to associate this First Cause with the Christian God requires many other arguments, which aren't addressed in the Five Ways.

So a Christian theologian, Aquinas, is not associating First Cause with the Christian God, but is arguing for naturalism. Now that's bullshit.

What did Aquin do, after showing that the first cause was "being", as Bel stated. Did he deconvert? Did he become an atheist?

[Nishant Xavier]

Ok, so in Good Thomistic Fashion (as in the Summa), let's address the objections first:

The first one, quite common in this thread, seems to be something along these lines.

Objection 1: "The First Cause is not yet proven to be Jesus Christ, therefore I don't have to admit it."
[Alternately, "Since Saint Thomas believed the First Cause is Jesus Christ, ergo ... etc" still fallacious].

Response: that's a Non Sequitur. One could come to Jesus Christ in say premise 10 or so. That does nothing to show step 3 or 4 of the Argument is not logically valid and follows necessarily from the preceding premises. The only way for Atheists to show that is to contest one of those same steps.

Steps 1 to 4 as outlined in the OP could be affirmed by people from various persuasions, including Deists, Hindus, some Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians, beside others. It says nothing, as yet, about the Personality, or Goodness, of the First Being/First Cause, but only about Its Existence.

The Moral Argument, from Conscience, would help in establishing the Creator's Goodness, and thus His Personality as well; this argument is focused first on establishing that a First Cause of the Universe exists, while the Universe itself, and all things within it, exist contingently and not necessarily.

For a secular example: if one proved Pythagoras' Theorem by appealing to Pythagoras' Theorem, that would be circular. But not if one proved it from first principles that can be independently known. And the fact that one may later build on PT, or apply it in various ways, does not diminish the proof.

Objection 2: "Even if a Necessary First Cause of all things exist, this First Cause could allegedly be the universe/something else natural itself."

This objection does not take into account what we proved about B1, the First Being. The First Being is non-contingent. Contingency is shown in 2 ways. First, (1) something that is contingent began to exist; (2) second, something that could even conceivably cease to exist is certainly contingent. Now, most Scientists agree the Universe began to exist, in the Big Bang, and also, almost all agree that, at least in theory, that the Universe either will or could cease to exist one day. Therefore, (3) the Universe exists contingently, not necessarily. Why is this relevant? Because we proved in the OP, mathematically, that B1 exists Non-Contingently. Therefore, B1 cannot be the Universe, but refers to the First Cause of the Universe itself. 

Recall the proof of the non-contingency of B1. Since there is no B0, and Bn by definition is contingent only if it is dependent on a prior being Bn-1, it follows that the First Being in existence is non-contingent; the First Being exists necessarily. And for the above reasons, that the visible universe does not demonstrate the necessary properties of B1, the First Cause is not the universe; rather, it is the First Cause of the Universe that exists necessarily or non-contingently.

Objection 3: I, an Atheist, affirm, just like that, that an Infinite Number of Beings can exist (and the proof for this is?). Therefore, even if the argument holds for all finite n, it fails when n is infinite. Therefore, I don't have to believe in a First Cause".

Once more, notice how Atheists exempt themselves from the obligation to prove what they claim (in this case, the absurdity that an Infinite Number of Beings can exist) and the necessity of demonstrating that in a series of logical steps. Then, they demand that we Theists should do so.

We Theists can, but they cannot. Anyway let's examine this objection.

Firstly, notice we haven't assumed anything about N. N indeed holds good for all values, whether it be 2 or 100 trillion. That shows any and all contingent beings in existence, whether today or 4 thousand years ago, should have been able to use these steps to come to the knowledge of the First Cause. What of the claim that the number of beings in existence could be actually infinite?

I mentioned this objection in the OP and answered it briefly thus: "The only alternative to the existence of an actual first being is an infinite series of contingent beings, but that is impossible because an infinite series never ends; and if there were an actual infinite of real beings, we would never have gotten to the present moment; again, an infinite series cannot be formed by successive addition, because no matter how [many] beings you add to each other, whether it is 1 or 1 trillion, n will always be finite. Therefore, granted that we got here, granted that we are 1 in a series of contingent beings, the number of beings in existence is finite."

Again, a simpler refutation is from Modern Science; since most Physicists are agreed the Universe is of Finite Age (roughly 13.7 BN years), it clearly follows that an Infinite Number of Beings could not have existed in said finite time. That such arguments should be seriously proposed by Atheists, in order to undermine Premise 2, shows how weak the Atheistic position ultimately is. 

Regards, 
Xavier.

[no one]

Try posting your own words, not some copy and paste bullshit.

Your position on god is, "Me no likey me insignificance. Me so special. Magic must exist."

Just because your tiny 1/4 watt bulb cannot wrap its dim little self around its meaninglessness, doesn't make your " argument" sound.

god is make believe.

Also, stop being a coward. Stop hiding behind your wall of copied balderdash , actually answer anything without mining your cherry picked twaddle.