Has anyone heard a good argument against infinite regress?

[The Black Jester]

Understood?

If I have misunderstood you, I absolutely apologize.  However, in this sentence:

However, this inability to prove by theorem inadvertently is a fairly convincing argument for it's reality.

and in this one:

The fact that we can not grasp everything suggests that infinity exists.

...you seem to be suggesting that our cognitive closure with regard to the concept of infinity can be taken as positive evidence of the object (i.e., actual infinities) to which the concept refers.  I don't agree.  While it is true that if an actual infinity did exist, it follows that, given our limited minds, we would not be in an epistemological position to properly conceptualize it, it doesn't necessarily seem to me to follow that, from mere fact of being in that epistemological position, the situation must therefore be that actual infinities exist.  Simply because our epistemological position is consistent with both realities being the case.  If infinities exist, we wouldn't be able to contemplate them because of both our limited faculties, and, as you point out, the nature of infinity itself, but if infinities do not exist, we still wouldn't be able to form a concept of an infinity.

[jumbojak]

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.

I apologize for disappearing after posting this question.  After reading the  articles by Almond I started researching the question in depth: starting with Craigs book Reasonable Faith I progressed to Adolph Grunbaum's refutation of the Kalaam ( oddly it was Craig who pointed out Grunbaum's criticism of his work).

It seems to me that Grunbaum succesfully undermines the Kalaam by questioning the concept of causation before the existence of time. In his book Craig calls this "undifferentiated time" shortly after questioning Hawking's use of imaginary numbers ( I assume he means complex numbers, however I wonder if he could be confused about the nature of i. Just because it is not a member of the set of real numbers does not mean it has no physical implications.).

Craig seems to be forced to explain the existence of the universe from a prior state of undifferentiated time by asserting the cause of the universe was simultaneous with God's existence. Perhaps I am confused by his line of reasoning. I will admit I cannot make sense of  a universe which is eternal in the same sense as God while  simultaneously being caused by God.

In fact, I find it quite satisfying to think of the universe as eternal in the sense that there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. It just is. Without a notion of causation in undifferentiated time it makes no sense to say that the universe was caused by some transcendent being.

Having said that, my opinion on the possibility of infinite temporal regress has changed significantly. There does seem to be a need for a beginning of time and although many of the absurdities are somewhat absurd themselves ( often due to to a poor presentation by second-rate apologists ) I am now of the opinion that an infinite regress is impossible.

I was not satisfied with Almond's solution although I am not totally convinced my opinion is correct. Time is difficult to imagine. Has anyone read Roger Penrose's book on Conformal Cyclic Cosmology? It would seem like a logical next step given its proposal that there will be an "end of time." I have not read the book so please forgive me if I am mischaracterized the theory due to my limited investigation of the subject. At any rate the possibility or impossibility of an infinite regress is irrelevant.

And after reading most of his book I am convinced Craig is not being intentionally dishonest regarding the soundness of his arguments. He really believes they prove the existence of God. Part of his outright dismissal of critisism may be due to bias induced by his personal experience as a Christian, or what seems to be a very real fear of a purposeless existence, but it is not outright dishonesty.

Combine this with some of the really awful caricature responses to the Kalaam and I can understand his attitude toward his detractors even if I do not appreciate it.

[En_Route]

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.

It follows that anything which is defined as  having as one of its properties being beyond human comprehension must therefore exist. By  Jove, I've think you just proven the existence of Jove. And indeed every other God in the pantheon.

[technolud]

Fair enough Jumbojak, you've fleshed out your argument.  Being unfamilier with Craig and the Kalaam or the Grand Hotel I noodled around a bit.

Widipedias write up on Craigs interpertation ends with this:

The argument concludes, often through a process of elimination, that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being,[25] which is God.

This strongly aligns with the "No explanation must be God" theroy.

Even in your own rebuttle:

In fact, I find it quite satisfying to think of the universe as eternal in the sense that there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. It just is. Without a notion of causation in undifferentiated time it makes no sense to say that the universe was caused by some transcendent being.

finding it "quite satisfying to think of the universe as eternal" seems to fall far short of the required starting point to "Prove' the existance of God.


As a weak atheist, I'm remain open to the possibility  to the existance of God.  However arguments which are founded either on the "we can't explain otherwise so it must be"  or "I believe it and you can't disprove it" certainly don't get me into the theist camp.

As a footnote, even though the Grand Hotel has an infinite number of rooms, by definition the are all occupied.  There is no empty room at the "end" to place the last person into.  It seems to me for each new person you put into room #1, you just create one equivalent person forever caught in the process of changing rooms.  The hallways ultimately are full.

[The Black Jester]

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.

It follows that anything which is defined as  having as one of it's properties being beyond human comprehension must therefore exist. By  Jove, I've think you just proven the existence of Jove. And indeed every other God in the pantheon.

I wondered if RR's argument struck anyone else this way as well.  It seems quite close to the ontological proof of God's existence, which fails for similar reasons.  the nature of a concept can tell us nothing about the nature of reality.

[jumbojak]

Fair enough Jumbojak, you've fleshed out your argument.  Being unfamilier with Craig and the Kalaam or the Grand Hotel I noodled around a bit.

Widipedias write up on Craigs interpertation ends with this:

The argument concludes, often through a process of elimination, that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being,[25] which is God.

This strongly aligns with the "No explanation must be God" theroy.

Even in your own rebuttle:

In fact, I find it quite satisfying to think of the universe as eternal in the sense that there is no point in time when the universe did not exist. It just is. Without a notion of causation in undifferentiated time it makes no sense to say that the universe was caused by some transcendent being.

finding it "quite satisfying to think of the universe as eternal" seems to fall far short of the required starting point to "Prove' the existance of God.


As a weak atheist, I'm remain open to the possibility  to the existance of God.  However arguments which are founded either on the "we can't explain otherwise so it must be"  or "I believe it and you can't disprove it" certainly don't get me into the theist camp.

As a footnote, even though the Grand Hotel has an infinite number of rooms, by definition the are all occupied.  There is no empty room at the "end" to place the last person into.  It seems to me for each new person you put into room #1, you just create one equivalent person forever caught in the process of changing rooms.  The hallways ultimately are full.

You don't think I'm a Christian do you? The point to my reply was to say that although an infinite regress is impossible, this impossibility is irrelevant due to the arguments failure because of the equivication in the first premise.

And note that the Kalaam doesn't claim to prove God directly. All it claims to show is that the universe has a cause. As the article you quoted states the proponent of the Kalaam must infer what that cause is. The fact that they jump to God instead of some naturalistic cause baffles me as much as I think it baffles you.

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.

What makes you think that a human mind cannot grasp infinity? We actually have an excellent idea of the properties of infinite sets. Just because we cannot hold an infinite set in our heads doesn't mean we cannot determine what their properties must be.

[mp29]

 Here's my favorite: Regress is neither infinite nor finite. Regress is a verb and finite/infinite are adjectives. You can't use adjectives to describe motion.

[jumbojak]

Here's my favorite: Regress is neither infinite nor finite. Regress is a verb and finite/infinite are adjectives. You can't use adjectives to describe motion.

You can certainly have a finite regress of events. Imagine the final domino in a series of ten which have been knocked over. There is a series of ten events which ultimatley led to the final domino being overturned.

[technolud]

You don't think I'm a Christian do you? The point to my reply was to say that although an infinite regress is impossible, this impossibility is irrelevant due to the arguments failure because of the equivication in the first premise.

And note that the Kalaam doesn't claim to prove God directly. All it claims to show is that the universe has a cause. As the article you quoted states the proponent of the Kalaam must infer what that cause is. The fact that they jump to God instead of some naturalistic cause baffles me as much as I think it baffles you.

Actually I hadn't considered if you were a Christian or not.  Shouldn't really have any impact on the discussion.  I never thought all Christians thought "one way".

I agree with your second paragraph.

[jumbojak]

You don't think I'm a Christian do you? The point to my reply was to say that although an infinite regress is impossible, this impossibility is irrelevant due to the arguments failure because of the equivication in the first premise.

And note that the Kalaam doesn't claim to prove God directly. All it claims to show is that the universe has a cause. As the article you quoted states the proponent of the Kalaam must infer what that cause is. The fact that they jump to God instead of some naturalistic cause baffles me as much as I think it baffles you.

Actually I hadn't considered if you were a Christian or not.  Shouldn't really have any impact on the discussion.  I never thought all Christians thought "one way".

I agree with your second paragraph.

It doesn't have an impact technolud. I wanted to make sure I hadn't misrepresented my position. You confused me a bit by saying you are a weak atheist.

[OldGit]

Here's my favorite: Regress is neither infinite nor finite. Regress is a verb and finite/infinite are adjectives. You can't use adjectives to describe motion.

Sorry, but nowadays regress is accepted as a noun.  A nasty americanism, I know, but we can't fight semantic drift.

[technolud]

It doesn't have an impact technolud. I wanted to make sure I hadn't misrepresented my position. You confused me a bit by saying you are a weak atheist.

So now you've piqued my interest, are you a Christian?  Do you believe in God?

If you noodle around the forum you find lots of disucussion about different "levels" of atheism.  Generally a "strong" atheist is sure that no god exists.  A weak atheist like me isn't necessarily positive god doesn't exist, just that there isn't enough proof to convince me that he does.

[jumbojak]

No, I'm not a Christian. I find many atheists ( though certainly not all atheists ) who think anyone seeking to give Craig's arguments a fair appraisal must be a Christian themselves. If I were to give myself a label it would be as a weak atheist who is moving towards the strong position.

As I research more deeply I am increasingly inclined to believe that God is an incoherent concept. The properties such a being are ascribed ( omnipotence, omniscience, etc. ) appear less and less likley as time goes on. What does it mean to say that a person truly has the power to bring about any reality it wishes, or that such a person knows only all true statements?

Even if you discard every scrap of dogma associated with any religion that has  existed among intelligent life, you are still left with nonsense. 

[technolud]

I can see the allure of belief.  How great if there was actually a purpose, a pre-determined path.  Just can't bring myself to buy it.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

No, I'm not a Christian. I find many atheists ( though certainly not all atheists ) who think anyone seeking to give Craig's arguments a fair appraisal must be a Christian themselves. If I were to give myself a label it would be as a weak atheist who is moving towards the strong position.

As I research more deeply I am increasingly inclined to believe that God is an incoherent concept. The properties such a being are ascribed ( omnipotence, omniscience, etc. ) appear less and less likley as time goes on. What does it mean to say that a person truly has the power to bring about any reality it wishes, or that such a person knows only all true statements?

Even if you discard every scrap of dogma associated with any religion that has  existed among intelligent life, you are still left with nonsense.

What about a creator God who isn't actually omnipotent, etc. A non-omni God. Is such a God incoherent, in your thinking?