2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago.
If all events occurred finitely long ago, then it is not an infinite regress. — Devans99
4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -∞) — Devans99
What does it mean for an event to have taken place infinitely long ago? — S
And no, there's nothing about an infinite regress which necessitates that each event in the chain cannot have occurred a finite length of time ago. — S
"4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -∞)
— Devans99
What? You need to explain that properly. — S
I don't know. Nonsense as far as I can tell but thats because infinity is nonsense. I'm trying to present an argument based on the rules of infinity and then to arrive at a contradiction. Problem is infinity is so shot through of contradictions that it's hard work to avoid them on the way... — Devans99
If all of the of events occurred a finite time ago, there must a point in time before which no events occurred. — Devans99
Its a problem with infinity; events are time ordered but that ordering breaks down at -∞; — Devans99
all events at an infinite distance in time from us are co-incidental which is mad... — Devans99
It would help if you actually understood the rules of infinity that mathematicians recognize, which are different from the rules of finite quantities; then perhaps you would finally realize that they are not contradictory at all.I'm trying to present an argument based on the rules of infinity and then to arrive at a contradiction. — Devans99
"If all of the of events occurred a finite time ago, there must a point in time before which no events occurred.
— Devans99
Why must there be? You never set out your reasoning fully, which leaves me guessing. — S
So there must be an event that occurred at t = -∞ (else it would not be an infinite regress). But that event cannot have a predecessor as there is nothing before -∞. — Devans99
Sorry that last argument I tried was not right. — Devans99
An event is defined by all events that caused it (so if A->B and B->C then A,B->C). So with an infinite regress, no events are fully defined (its always ...,A,B->C which is not a complete definition). Events must be fully defined to be part of reality. — Devans99
The past actually happened so all of those past events must form a concrete set of events. But if there is an infinite regress of events then the set must be actually infinite in size. An infinite concrete set... how is that possible? — Devans99
The Prime Mover argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regress in time. If there was infinite time to travel how did we ever get here? — TheMadFool
You're just making up your own rules, it seems. I don't see any reason to accept your made up rules. — S
How is it not? The burden is on you to demonstrate a contradiction. — S
Put it this way, would you exist if you were not born? — Devans99
Time is a series: A->B->C. — Devans99
For the whole series to be real, it has to have a first member. — Devans99
So an infinite regression cannot be real; it has no first member ( ...->B->C ) so none of the series is defined. — Devans99
Another analogy is pool: The player hits the cue ball, the cue ball hits the black and the black goes into the pocket. — Devans99
With an infinite regress, the black goes in the pocket without the player hitting the cue ball. — Devans99
What is the cardinality of an infinite set? — Devans99
It must be some number X bigger than all possible finite quantities. But that's impossible, because there is no largest number (X+1>X). So an infinite set cannot exist. So an infinite regression (in the past) is impossible. — Devans99
Here is what I find most interesting about these types of arguments. The cosmological argument's conclusion of a necessary being is currently the argument that is supported best by existing scientific theory. Ever since the acceptance of the Big Bang, and a finite universe by science made the single best argument against the CA outside existing science. There have been hordes of science followers who happily abandon science and propose all kinds of pseudoscience things to avoid or find an alternative for a necessary being.
I find this paradox interesting. — Rank Amateur
The revised axiom rules out an uncaused cause. The argument above rules out an infinite regress. That leaves circular time. — Devans99
It seems to be a common misconception that the Big Bang supports, or contributes toward supporting, the cosmological argument. You would need to get past the singularity — S
You have really been operating with this axiom all along, as the necessary conclusion from your two previous premises, "every effect has a cause" and "everything is an effect." Obviously no proponent of unmoved mover arguments would agree with your revised axiom, and neither would anyone who affirms agent causation rather than causal determinism. What is the warrant for presupposing that all events are caused by other events?Also, I think I'd like to change my original axiom at this point to 'events are caused by events'. — Devans99
as someone mentioned above the rejection of causation — SapereAude
Sure, but we are discussing the nature and origin of the entire existing universe, not everyday experience. Moreover, many philosophers (and people in general) reject causal determinism, instead affirming agent causation as part of our everyday experience. For example, I am the cause of this particular post; it was not completely dictated by prior events. I could have chosen to say something different, or not to say anything at all. I could have submitted it earlier or later than I actually did.Cause and effect I think is a sound axiom from the standpoint of everyday experience. — Devans99
instead affirming agent causation as part of our everyday experience — aletheist
If the universe is cyclical and governed entirely by causal determination, then the exact same series of events transpires over and over again. Even if you allow for some random fluctuations with each iteration, this is not a rational explanation of anything; it ultimately treats everything that exists and every event that occurs as a meaningless brute fact. — aletheist
If the universe is an eternally repeating cycle, perhaps with some random variations here and there, then no timeless being is required to create it; again, existence is simply a meaningless brute fact that does not call for a rational explanation. The reality of God is much more compatible with unmoved mover arguments.I think there might be follow on arguments that re-enforce the view that there is a God ... So if time is circular, it suggests God did it somehow (a timeless being therefore beyond cause and effect, creates another timeless entity, the universe). — Devans99
Why do you think that heaven and hell are not achievable?An eternal circle is the Occam's Razor design for eternal life. If I were God, it's the one I'd go for. It's actually achievable (unlike Heaven and Hell). — Devans99
Sort of like a square circle? :grin:So I acknowledge in advance that two of my favourite ideas (Circular time and God) are hard to square together... — Devans99
If the universe is an eternally repeating cycle, perhaps with some random variations — aletheist
Why do you think that heaven and hell are not achievable? — aletheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.