Has anyone heard a good argument against infinite regress?

[jumbojak]

I have been studying Craig's Kalam argument and have noticed that he depends quite heavily upon the idea that an actual infinite cannot occour and therefore infinite regress is impossible, however I cannot find any convincing evidence that this is actually true. Hilbert's Grand Hotel, the example he uses most often, certainly seems rediculous but it does not seem to present any contradictions. Any ideas?

[Ali]

http://www.paul-almond.com/Craig.pdf

Another one would be simply that the human mind is not adept at grasping the concept of infinity, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.  My dog's brain seems incapable of grasping the concept that I will break my non-aggression policy and kick her ass if she steals one more thing off of T's plate, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

[markmcdaniel]

Craig Kalam's argument is flawed and badly flawed at its core. Central to his argument is that the universe exist and that it must have been brought into existence. If you accept this then you have to postulate that the universe has a creator. However also central to his argument is that true infinity is impossible.These two postulates are incompatible. By this argument, the universe must have been created, but, this creator ,having been brought into existence, must in turn been created. The creator of the creator must have also been created and on and on. This gives us an infinite regress. However the problem cannot be defined away by saying that the creator is eternal, because, this requires an infinity. Either way this argument inevitably leads to an infinity regress which of course by the terms of the argument is another impossibility.

[Recusant]

However the problem cannot be defined away by saying that the creator is eternal, because, this requires an infinity.

He attempts to get around this by saying that his god is "timeless and eternal." The thing is, no matter how carefully he defines his god to be exempt from his objections to a naturalistic universe, he's engaged in special pleading. As well, since the most dominant paradigm of current cosmology says that space-time came into existence in the Big Bang, there would have been no time per se "previous" to the Big Bang, and so we have a timeless continuum of some sort. It seems to me that this differs from Craig's god mainly in that his timeless continuum has consciousness. Using the principle of parsimony (Ockham's Razor), it seems justifiable to discard what is apparently a superfluous element (consciousness), and we're left with a naturalistic universe. How consciousness is supposed to even exist in a timeless state is not clear, but I think it would come down to more special pleading.

Also, I second Ali's recommendation of Paul Almond's work.

[xSilverPhinx]

...and so we have a timeless continuum of some sort. It seems to me that this differs from Craig's god mainly in that his timeless continuum has consciousness.

I don't get this. How can a continuum be timeless?

And how can consciousness exist as a continuum without memory? How can memory exist without time?

My head hurts.

[Recusant]

...and so we have a timeless continuum of some sort. It seems to me that this differs from Craig's god mainly in that his timeless continuum has consciousness.

I don't get this. How can a continuum be timeless?

According to my understanding of modern cosmology, the timeline of our universe begins with the Big Bang. I think I overstated the case when I asserted the existence of a timeless continuum which may exist outside of our space-time. It's unknown what (if anything) exists outside of our timeline, and if it could be said to have a quality that we would recognize as time. I agree that this stuff is confuzzling, but it can also be enjoyable to attempt to grasp, I think.

And how can consciousness exist as a continuum without memory? How can memory exist without time?

Questions of this sort can be dealt with by some nice theological fancy-work, I guess, coming down to "with God, all things are possible."

[xSilverPhinx]

...and so we have a timeless continuum of some sort. It seems to me that this differs from Craig's god mainly in that his timeless continuum has consciousness.

I don't get this. How can a continuum be timeless?

According to my understanding of modern cosmology, the timeline of our universe begins with the Big Bang. I think I overstated the case when I asserted the existence of a timeless continuum which may exist outside of out space-time. It's unknown what (if anything) exists outside of our timeline, and if it could be said to have a quality that we would recognize as time. I agree that this stuff is confuzzling, but it can also be enjoyable to attempt to grasp, I think.

Yeah, especially if our reality is a part of a higher dimension reality which might have something that's sort of like time. Very odd to imagine. ??? 

Questions of this sort can be dealt with by some nice theological fancy-work, I guess, coming down to "with God, all things are possible."

The perfect non-answer I've contemplated using when taking an exam for a subject administered by a religious teacher

[Stevil]

It is a great assumption to make by suggesting that the infinity of space was completely empty before our universe's big bang initiated.

Are we truly that arrogant to suggest that our universe is the only one?

William Craig suggests that there is something that is eternal, timeless and caused existence, he calls that something god and assumes it is intelligent and decided to create existence.
In this way he is invoking the Logical Fallacy known as Begging the Question. His assumptions become his conclusion.

It is entirely possible that the very nature of empty space is the eternal, timeless cause of existence. That which we call empty space has properties and rules within which we experience spontaneous quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are eternal, timeless, autonomous and cause particles to pop in and out of existence. Ladies and Gentlemen, please allow me to introduce you to your god.

[jumbojak]

The Kalam is easily show to be unsound when inspected critically. The obvious point of attack is at the accomodations made for elements of the set of objects that supposedly did not begin to exist.  Try as I might I cannot fathom any possible element in this set except god.

What amuses me is the motivation for such an line of reasoning: the belief that an infinite regress is impossible. This belief only seems to be justified by assuming that absurdity implies impossibility which is ironically reminiscient of the argument that order implies design.

Note that although Craig's god is certainly absurd in some respects he would never admit that this was the case, just as design proponents would never admit that their God requires a designer. The parallels are quite striking.

[Hector Valdez]

Infinite regress, the idea that something can not, essentially speaking, be contained. The concept, however, is self-proving, as any successful attempt to contain infinity would result in disproof. However, this inability to prove by theorem inadvertently is a fairly convincing argument for it's reality.

[The Black Jester]

Infinite regress, the idea that something can not, essentially speaking, be contained. The concept, however, is self-proving, as any successful attempt to contain infinity would result in disproof. However, this inability to prove by theorem inadvertently is a fairly convincing argument for it's reality.

I'm not certain it's true that the mind's inability to conceive of something is demonstrative of anything one way or the other...

[Hector Valdez]

Inability of mind, nothing. It is in the properties of an infinite regree that it is self-proven. A mind that could grasp infinity would not be grasping infinity. Understood? The fact that we can not grasp everything suggests that infinity exists. Not because we can not grasp it, but because the concept requires a certain innaccessability.

[The Magic Pudding]

I've tried it but I still can't find my keys.

[Stevil]

But doesn't this show up Craig's willingness to be dishonest.

Surely he must know his logical argument has logical fallacies and yet he presents it anyway.

[technolud]

What happened to Jumbojak on this thread?

This sounds like more of "if you can't explain it, it must be God's work" to me.

I for one don't know what happened before existance (big bang or equivalent) but that doesn't pre-suppose "God" for me.

Deal with it.