To halve something a potentially infinite amount of times is not the same thing as saying that you have an actually infinite amount of something. which this leads to infinite regress. But if the series were literally infinite, there ... 4 The infinite regress argument will not, however, work for Humean causes. As others in this thread have mentioned with Zeno’s Paradox, we don’t have to look far to find an infinite series of causes. William Lane Craig . You are just proving that infinity cannot be reached which this is different from that infinity does not exist. If an infinite number cannot be achieved i fail to see how an infinite regress could actually be achieved. Logically speaking, at no point does an infinite regress justify any proposition. regardless, infinite regress is impossible simply by virtue of the 'turtles all the way down' problem. The end time is still a great unknown. But there is no otherwise. Imagine a simple situation in which there exists a first cause and one intermediate cause. You are just proving that infinity cannot be reached, I think an actually infinite number is meaningless because there is no actual quantity that can be said to be infinite. But there is no otherwise. Think of 1/x where we gradually go toward x=0. To argue for an infinite regress of events, you are by definition arguing for an an actually infinite number of a finite amount. (The reductio ad absurdum technique.) If it were, it would be a first reason, not an intermediate one. Infinite regress of causes is impossible So, 4. For official apologetics resources please visit. Humans are notoriously lazy when it comes to thinking about infinity, so most people think, “Even with an infinite regress, at some point, my conclusions are justified.” When, in reality, the opposite is the case. I'm hoping this version of the question will be more clear and easier to respond to. Aquinas does not explain why there cannot only be secondary causes. We can only go back as far as time allows us to go in our known universe. If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. Theism I've read in defense of the second premise of most cosmological arguments that in an essentially ordered series infinite regress is impossible because if it did then there would be no first cause and therefore no source of causal power. In philosophy, the infinite regression phenomenon frequently … The idea that you can have a potentially infinite series of halves is not the same thing as arguing for an actually infinite regress of events. Why does Aquinas think that an infinite regress is impossible? If yes then 1/x is an actual infinity. Still, if an infinite regression among proper causes of existence (extrinsic sufficient reasons) is impossible, then such a regression, if demonstrated, would require a first cause (extrinsic sufficient reason) which is its own sufficient reason … Because he holds that effects Now we add more intermediate causes and after each one if we try to remove the first cause the series becomes invalid. I was reading Dawkins' book and he argued that God almost certainly doesn't exist because of infinite regress. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, resulting in infinite regress.It is a problem in epistemology and in any general situation where a statement has to be justified. We could have infinite intermediate causes, so there is no need for first cause. It is called intermediate precisely because it is passing along a reason that it itself does not fully explain. From a Thomist perspective, an infinite regress of secondary causes is possible. Beyond that, the causal chain could loop back on itself or do all kinds of wonky stuff, too. Dr. Craig, I cannot thank you enough for your apologetics work. Thus, there must be a first sufficient reason, which is its own reason – otherwise the principle of sufficient reason itself would be violated. But it still stands that the infinite causal chain must have a first cause. Think of Zeno’s paradox. Because there is no such thing as an actually infinite number of something. P6 An infinite Causal chain is impossible; Therefore, C A first cause must exist. It's false that everything has a cause As you can see, 4 doesn't need us to entertain a God as an uncaused cause. I’m not familiar with Zeno’s paradox. Zeno’s paradox shows you can have an infinite number of steps (each one becoming smaller than the previous) in a finite interval. Why infinite sum of things is impossible? Aquinas rejected it because it is a flaw. William Lane Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Anthropic Principle Many scientists say that some events (on the quantum level, for example) are literally uncaused, and some say that the universe itself could have been uncaused. Of course, if that is done, then eternalism as a whole collapses, since all “events” in the cosmos suddenly fall into normal time sequences with the past no longer existing and the future not yet existing, even though absolute simultaneity for spatially separated events is still denied. Why not just conclude the universe as the uncaused cause. I don’t agree with this part either. Infinity simply doesn’t exist for a finite universe. However, just for the sake of understanding it, It'd be nice if someone could explain why this is true. If one regresses the chain to infinity, the total sufficient reason is never found – and thus, the final effect lacks a sufficient reason. There’s an infinite number of infinitely small discrete steps within a finite period of time, thus implying infinite series of secondary causes within that same finite amount of time. More later inshallah. Each one leaves some of the needed reason lacking. Is it possible to reach from 1 to zero? STT: Is it possible to reach from 1 to zero? Think of universe. The reason the universe “has to” stop at an “unmoved mover” (another way […] But if you agree that i have proven that an infinity cannot be reached, then you must agree that we couldn’t possibly have reached an infinite number of events in actual reality, so what sense does it make to say there is an actually infinite past? To speak of an an actually infinite quantity or number is to speak of something that is made of finite parts or irreducible points that add up to an actual infinite. The demiurge simply fashioned the universe out of the disorderly material already existing. To argue for an infinite regress of events, you are by definition arguing for an an actually infinite number of a finite amount. Why infinite regress is impossible? He made the point that the big bang theory is the simpler explanation for the origin of the universe and that refutes God's existence. … infinity is an irrational term when appled to a finite universe. The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. An Infinite regression is a loop of premises that continue on in ad infinitum. There is no sufficient reason in an infinite chain of causality and there is no need for it so it is meaningless to argue based on it. There is only ever the potentially infinite number. 1 … Is it because according to quantum mechanics things at the subatomic world do not have causes? Criticisms of the First and Second Ways. It's simple: no proposition is ever justified which relies on an infinite amount of premises. Is an infinite regress impossible, as Aquinas says? Infinite regress is impossible because infinity is an irrational term when appled to a finite universe. Why is infinite regress impossible? There is no exact amount that can define a point were you actually have an infinite number of something and so the idea is meaningless.Thus if there were an infinite regress, this would be a contradiction because you would have an actually infinite number in the past; and so it’s impossible. The regress is infinite but virtuous. (This is what the argument is postulating). Because by definition infinity does not end. To speak of an an actually infinite quantity or number is to speak of something that is made of finite parts or irreducible points that add up to an actual infinite. He was looking for the *first* cause, something that is 'necessary'. Solely a first cause that initiates the entire chain can do that – a first cause uncaused. Infinite regress is impossible because infinity is an irrational term when appled to a finite universe. Therefore there must be a first cause of everything. From this article, which I just found by Googling “why is an infinite regress impossible?”…. Aristotle argued that knowing does not necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration: Some hold that owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premises, there is no scientific knowledge. It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause. Is the Passage of Time Real or Just an Illusion? The regress is finite, but has no end (Coherence view). For the sake of argument, a person could disbelieve in the infiniteness of God and still believe that an infinite regress is impossible (and thus use it in proving God's existence). It’s indefinable.There is always a finite amount no matter how large the quantity or how many numbers you add. If all such causes are merely intermediate, then some causal activity is passing through the entire chain, but no member of the chain can explain it. In these cases, an infinite regress argument can show us thatwe have reason to reject a theory, but it is not because the theoryyields a regress per se, but rather because it has this otherbad feature, and the regress has revealed that. There is no exact amount that can define a point were you actually have an infinite number of something and so the idea is meaningless.Thus if there were an infinite regress, this would be a contradiction because you would have an actually infinite number in the past; and so it’s impossible. If we remove the first cause, of course, the situation is invalid. @Qasim_Husayn Edited May 2, 2016 by Muhammed Ali. Is There a Link Between Atheism and Skepticism? The reason is that an instrumental chain of causes (a chain of sticks used to push a rock) can’t get started by itself. If everything has a cause then there'a an infinite regress of causes 3. If one regresses to infinity in looking at intermediate reasons, the fully sufficient reason will never be found, since none of the intermediate links provides the complete reason for the final effect. When St Thomas dismissed an infinite regress of causes, he did so, not because he thought there could never be an actual infinity of ‘things’ or ‘events’ (he was much smarter than that); he dismissed it on account of the fact that an infinite series of things, events, causes, or whatever, cannot explain something existing currently. Why does Aquinas think that an infinite regress is impossible? If one looks for the sufficient reason of A, it is not fully in B, since B depends on C to fulfill its own reason. Why are philosophers so concerned with the "infinite regress"? Explain. Infinite regress is certainly unimaginable - we can't imagine something existing forever with no beginning. What Is the True Understanding of Causality? For the most part I've just accepted that infinity is impossible, since it seems to be the accepted view. God then isn't an exception to the impossibility of an infinite regress rule (which would itself be impossible), but stands in a qualitatively different relationship to time altogether (one which doesn't require the passing of time at all). However brief, this summarization provides one of the first contexts for the cosmological argument and its use of infinite regress. IWantGod. Again, this is not presented as proof of God’s existence, but merely as proof that an infinite regress among essentially subordinated causes is metaphysically impossible. Several versions of the Cosmological Argument (Motion and Causality) make it one of their premises that infinite regress is impossible. There is not an amount, quantity, or number of things, that can add up to an infinite because an infinite is quantitatively indefinable. There is not an amount, quantity, or number of things, that can add up to an infinite because an infinite is quantitatively indefinable. Can you conceive of an infinite series stretching back in time or forward to the future? Sorry, I have to correct myself. Now, to reconsider that chain of intermediate reasons described above, we see that the same problem arises. June 28, 2018, 6:32pm #22. and since finite amounts cannot possibly add up to a point that can be defined as actually infinite it is meaningless to speak of an infinite regress because the addition of numbers only ever allows a potential infinite; never an actual infinite. Infinite regression suggests that the dominoes fell on their own, which is impossible. I've been faithfully using your podcasts, debates, books and articles for about 4 years now. - Isaiah 1:18. Infinity simply doesn’t exist for a finite universe. Following some unpublished work of Gregory O'Hair, David Armstrong identifies and diagrams several possible ways to escape the Skeptic's infinite regress, including: Skepticism - knowledge is impossible. For Plato, infinite regress is an impossibility. Eternalists claim that past, present, and future all exist equally, based on special relativity theory’s denial of universal simultaneity for spatially separated events. to wit, if god made the universe, then who made god, then who made the maker of … Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll Answers…. There is only ever the potentially infinite number. The regress ends in self-evident truths, the axioms of geometry, for example (Foundationalist view) Philosophy. Only if the series were finite would it be impossible for there to be something if there were no first cause or uncaused cause. The problem is that each prior reason is not really sufficient unto itself. The whole article at Reduction into Modernism is worth checking out. It seems that in many debates, people point to either an infinite regress or infinity in general and use that alone as a refutation. But that is impossible. The reason philosophy avoids any “infinite regress” is that it leaves us with situations which are redundant, unanswerable, impossible, or useless. This we call "God". Infinite regress is the idea of a process going back into the past with no beginning. Were it not for the “need” to conform timelike intervals to eternalism’s false hypothesis, the obvious reading of human experience and scientific observation within the same local world line would be that real causality occurs in “normal” time. Well our known universe had a definite start time. There are things as actual number of things. You can have actual infinity. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Why Does the Universe Exist? Because there is no such thing as an actually infinite number of something. This is why it's a logical flaw. Apologetics. Are Metaphysical First Principles Universally True? Infinite regress is impossible. Not unless the assumption that ”in order for something to exist there must be a beginning when it was created” can be demonstrated to be true. How can the God of the Philosophers be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Several of Thomas Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God rely on the claim that causal series cannot proceed in infinitum. Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning and end) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. I argue that Aquinas has good reason to hold this claim given his conception of causation. Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled, : The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. What makes infinite regress impossible? What is his argument? A+A+A+A…