Calculon, no matter which point on the causal chain you pick, there is a finite number of steps between us and it. Since there is no beginning, there is obviously no way to get there.
You seem to be arguing that the universe can not simultaneously have a “start” and an infinite number of steps from then until now. Well, duh. Saying “infinite regress is possible” is just another way of saying it is possible that there was no start. You’re right, infinity +1 is still infinity, so next year, there will still be an infinite past, and the year after, and the year after…
Also, you certainly can attack premises, that is the nature of philosophical debate. You can attack the whole argument. In debating with someone, it helps to start from a point upon which you can both agree; then, by moving step by step through inferences upon which you both can agree, the conclusion is arrived at, and hopefully you can both agree. If at any point in the argument the parties don’t agree, then the party making the argument must reconcile. In other words, if both parties don’t accept the premises, no argument can be made. That is the nature of a philosophical proof; it must be compelling. No matter how sound the inferences, no matter how obviously the conclusion follows from the premises, no argument is compelling if there is disagreement about the premises.
And there is not an infinite chain of premises. In most cases, the premises we hold are mutually agreeable, or proven beforehand. As you go back a few logical steps, the premises get simpler and simpler, until everyone can agree on them without argument, and we call those axioms. I guarantee you, “All things have a cause” and “infinite regress is impossible” are not axioms in any system I know of. Either Aquinas has proven these premises somewhere else beforehand, or he’s reasoning from shaky ground and we are right to disbelieve him.
ch4rl3s, not to junior-mod, but why don’t you open up a new thread for your thesis? It’s really at best tangentially related to the discussion at hand, and would probably benefit from being given its own topic.
You seem to be arguing that an infinitely old universe would be one that had a beginning, and this beginning was infinitely long ago. That’s not what we’re saying - an infinitely old universe would not have a beginning. Do you see the difference?
Of course, everyone would agree that if there was a beginning, it could not have been infinitely long ago. You conception of the infinitely old idea seems to hinge on its still having a beginning.
Yes, that does seem to be what you’re saying, that there was a beginning infinitely long ago.
OK, you’ve made it explicit. Please understand that we’re not saying that an infinite chain of causality would have a beginning infinitely long ago - we’re saying that an infinite chain of causality would have no beginning. Every event would have a time n seconds before it.
Not that I think this is what’s happened, but as far as I know it’s among the possibilities, and you are saying that it’s impossible, which I strongly disagree with.
Regarding infinite regress, perhaps the point is obvious, but appeal to number systems that allow infinity IMO do not map to the question of infinite regress.
Infinities are constructed in number systems–under a variety of possible axioms–as a causal chain starting from a definite first cause, e.g. in Peano arithmetic:
0 is a natural number.
For every natural number n, the successor of n (S(n)) is a natural number.
For every natural number n, S(n) ≠ 0. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.
In my interpretation of these axioms, each successor S(n) is a effect caused by the existence of n as a natural number, and this causal chain clearly starts from the “special” number 0.
Infinite regression assumes a causal train running backwards from a final effect. Stating that these are equivalent is the same as saying there is no difference between cause and effect, which IMO contradicts the definition of the terms.
This argument only applies to the relatively minor point of infinite regress, which Aquinas claims is ridiculous. Simply appealing to infinities in mathematics, IMO, doesn’t refute that claim.
The point was that you can talk about +, but it doesn’t mean quite the same in the system including infinity. When you mix them up you get improper results. n - n = 0 in the normal system but infinity - infinity is not 0 in this one. To tell you the truth, 0 and 1 aren’t quite the same as in our system either.
There is also the problem that infinite regress assumes that now - 1 second is defined in all cases. That doesn’t appear to be the case in our universe. That is the reason I find infinite regress not very interesting - it is another case where a logical argument is invalidated by science.
By your logic an eternal God can’t exist either, because God existed for an infinite amount of time before creating the unviverse, therefore it is impossible that he could have “processed through” all that infinite time to get to this point.
I do not think this is a good thread to hash this over in, but essentially my position is that the future (if it’s linear and not looping) may be one of three ways: finite and fixed, or finite and growing without limit, or finite and growing towards a limit. The latter position is basically equivalent to the second one.
If the future is finite and fixed, then it is of course of finite span at all times. When we reach the end, then that’s it.
If the future is finite and growing, then it is still of finite span at all times. However, if it is growing at the same ‘rate’ or faster than the rate the our perception of ‘now’ is moving along it, we will never reach the end, despite the timeline always being of finite span.
Imagining the timeline to at any point be infinitely long is, in my opinion, contradicted by mathematics. “Infinity” (in math as I understand it, after some education) is not a length or quantity; it’s a label assigned to the case where an action or operation can be continued iteratively and/or trends to perpetually larger and larger (or smaller and smaller) numbers as you continue to trend in the direction of some limit. Which means that you can have a two-by-four that magically continually grows longer and longer without limit, which is extending ‘towards infinity’, but you can never have a two-by-four that has a static length of “long without limit” and no actual fixed length.
You realize that the entire theory of a timeline presumes that our perception of ‘now’ passed through all of it at one point or another? Denying ‘regression’ (which is just a review of that forward movement) is a denial of the exact thing we imagine the timeline exists to do.
But regardless; my veiw is that ‘timeline of infinite negative span’ is not a possible thing at all by what I understand “infinite” to mean. The thing itself is contradictory by definition. So there’s no need to sweat the details of it; the argument is over without them.
Calculon, all acting talent aside, your misunderstanding of the function and use of logical arguments is positively disturbing.
Rejecting the premises of any logical argument is a perfectly correct way to reject the conclusion. It is the responsibility of the arguer to convince others to except the premises, and then, after the premises are accepted, the argument compells the others to accept the conclusion too. Without the premises an argument is worthless.
A dissenter need not disprove a premise to undermine an argument; simply refusing to accept a premise is sufficient.
In fact, going to the extra effort to prove that a premise is false does not prove that the conclusion is false! It merely proves that the argument is inapplicable. Note the following proof:
P1: All dogs are helicopters.
P2: Most helicopters have four legs.
Conclusion: Most dogs have four legs.
Both premises are false, but the conclusion is true. False premises negate the argument’s value entirely; making it silent on the truth or falsehood of the conclusion.
Of course, the glaring problem with Aquinas’s argument from first causes isn’t that his premises are unsupported (though he could have done better about that, one supposes), or that his logic is bad (though it is; he assumes there can’t be causesless causes and then uses that to prove that there must be a causeless cause) - the big problem is that his conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises. That is, he makes a nice little proof that for any series of connected causes, there must be a first cause. And then he says, “Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” - without there being a single reason at all anywhere in his argument for us to accept for one instant that “everyone gives [it] the name of God”. God isn’t even mentioned in the earler part of the argument. Plus, I don’t give it the name “God”, which in itself prety much blows that conclusion right out of the water.
So that’s the critical problem. Now, as I recall, you claimed you could fill in that giant hole in his argument with other quotes from the text. Would you care to do that? I’d be quite interested to see that ridiculous false Argumentum Ad Populum proven true.
That’s the default assumption. There’s no reason to “pass beyond” it until some evidence can be provided as to why anybody should.
I also think it’s disingenuous when theists say this kind of thing because they have no trouble at all making the exact same assumption about an infinite number of other gods and paradigms besides their own.
This is all strawman bullshit based on a massive false premise. Atheism implies NONE of this garbage. Just because somebody is not convinced of thje exsitence of sky gods does not mean they think they have a “purpose” to spread their own DNA, or that they think they have any “purpose” in life at all, or that they are mandated to be self-intersted. The notion that people need a “reason” to exist is a religious one.
None of the people you mentioned were atheists, by the way. They all believed in sky gods.
There’s no such thing as a “good” or “bad” atheist, since atheism means absolutely nothing but an absence of belief in gods. It has no ideological component. No doctrine, no implications for behavior, no implication of “purpose.” Nothing. There isn’t anyway to be good or bad at it. Atheists can obviously be incidentally good or bad people, but not believing in gods has nothing to do with it.
You’re entire thesis here is a blatantly fallacious strawman. There’s nothing rational about it.
And as medicine improves and our belief in it increases, the effect becomes more and more profound. If you believe that medicine can do more for you than it actually can, you have a much better chance to survive.
[/quote]
All the placebo effect is good for is pain. It can’t actually cure anything. It doesn’t make the medication “real,” and it doesn’t work if you know it’s fake. All the same things can be said of religion. If someone gives you a placebo and TELLS you it’s a placebo, it sn’t going to do anything. You can’t just force yourself to believe it. It works only by deception. Just like religion.
More strawman garbage. Why do religionists hate science so much? Tell me. What exactly ARE the “limits of science?” What do atheists think it can do that it can’t do?
Science is just a method for discovering information, not a religion, and it’s the best method available to us. What better method of discovering information is out there? Praying? Reading the Bible? Please clue us in.
And if one assumes nothing, then nothing follows. The point I want to make is simply stating without reason that premises are wrong is just intellectually lazy. Taken to the extreme it is also an irrefutable position, because no matter how many arguments one makes you can just sucessively reject the premises of each one.
In the context of this debate it is and important point, especially when coupled with the (IMHO) idiocy of saying that a specific belief is “the default belief”. So many arguments for atheism are little more than just a denial of premises of a theistic argument, and a bold assertion that the unproven-ness of the assumption means they are right. It is fallacious and intellectually lazy.
Assumption: I have a pet dragon.
Statement:Dragons can breathe fire.
Statement:Fire can be used to heat my house.
Conclusion: I won’t have to pay a heating bill this winter.
I question the validity of the assumption. Namely that if you did have a dragon, and dragons are generally not believed to exist, the observation of such would be a huge news story, and I would have heard about your dragon. Since I have not, then I do not believe your underlying assumption.
Didn’t you just say that you can’t state that premises are wrong? It’s an invisible, ethereal, etc. dragon too, so you can’t prove it doesn’t exist. Therefore you have no reason to dismiss my claim.
Personally? No. That says nothing about whether such chains can exist. There is no reason to believe they can’t.
Consider the present. It is definitely a start. Are you denying the possibility of an infinite chain of effects in the future?
Nobody progressed through it, because there was no start. Any individual object only progresses through a finite part of the chain. Just because no individual can “progress through it” doesn’t mean it can’t exist.
How is it different when you question Snarky’s premise than if we question St. T’s?
I can see that this whole infinity debate is going to run and run, well, forever.
But let’s take a step back. All anyone was saying was that St Tom’s assumption that there must be a first event has not been proved.
And they’re right. The concept of an infinite past has a long history in philosophy, and no-one’s found a logical* reason why it’s any more absurd than a universe with a finite past. Have a look; I doubt you’ll find a reputable cite that says philosophers have come to a consensus on this particular branch of metaphysics.
*So the argument rests on a premise that has yet to be established. *
And that’s all anyone has been saying.
*Of course, we now know that our universe has a finite past (at least after the singularity, before which we can’t say anything), for various physical reasons
Seconded; the infinite regress stuff is a technical point that can be debated but Aquinas’s flying leap from First Cause to God is a problem by any standard.
That’s not true; you can arrive at a premise mandated by empiricism. Indeed, if the chain of successive premises necessary to an argument has no empirical footing, i.e. if none of the premises that have led to conclusions which in turn have become premises etc. has a basis in observational fact, the argument cannot possibly be validated – its premises can either be accepted or rejected axiomatically. Of course, some degree of axiomatization is necessary – even the staunchest empiricist needs the assumption that observation is not totally misleading – but it often pays to keep one’s axioms to a minimum, which leads us nicely to the next part of your post:
First of all, lack of belief != belief. It’s really a mystery to me why this keeps getting brought up again and again. Second, yes, it is possible to arrive at a default stance for obtaining a description of the world, and to argue that atheism is that stance – I’ve laid out my arguments for that in this thread, and I’m not gonna rehash all this in here – and thankfully, according to your view on logical argumentation, I don’t need to, since I can simply take the premise ‘atheism is the only reasonable stance from which to derive a consistent description of reality’ as a given.
(By the way, I’m in favour of letting the whole infinity-thing drop, since we’re really just going in circles on that, and merely make a note that, whatever the resolution, it is in fact somewhat controversial, and otherwise agree to disagree.)
It’s an attempt to pretend a false equivalence between atheism and religion. First, in order to pretend that atheism is just as unlikely - which is wrong, it’s the rational default stance to assume that something which has no evidence for it and violates known laws doesn’t exist. And second, to pretend a false moral equivalence; which is also wrong, since as pointed out atheism can’t motivate anyone to do anything.
It is lazy to just state premises are wrong without reason. I gave a reason.
Secondly, just saying that your dragon is ephemeral, invisible ext still doesn’t work, because you have made a specific claim that it does interact with the material world through heating. By definition your dragon is not entirely undetectable.
