Christianity &c

[Guest godthedog]

Infinite regress IS impossible because you can't create something from nothing.

i think you're confusing the notion of infinite regress. there's 3 competing ideas here:

 

(1) the causal chain stops with god, who is essentially his own cause

 

(2) the causal chain stops, but not with god

 

(3) the causal chain doesn't stop

 

you're using (2) to describe infinite regress, when it should be (3). infinite regress doesn't say you can create something from nothing. it says that the causal chain extends infinitely in both directions.

 

saying something can be created from nothing is like saying THIS:

 

0--a--b--c...

 

infinite regress says THIS:

 

...c'--b'--a'--a--b--c...

 

applying infinite regress, it doesn't say the big bang was uncaused. it says something ELSE caused the big bang, then another thing caused THAT thing, etc. it says there have always been things in existence, infinitely into the past.

 

as i said, i think argument C is compelling, but that doesn't really deal with causation, it deals with contingency: dependency. it's an important difference.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh]

This thread should really be more truncated.

 

Can I have my money now?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No; you used it incorrectly.

[Guest Fallen Angel]

Aye, you certainly did.

 

Main Entry: truncate

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): trun·cat·ed; trun·cat·ing

Date: circa 1727

1 : to shorten by or as if by cutting off

2 : to replace (an edge or corner of a crystal) by a plane

- trun·ca·tion /tr&[ng]-'kA-sh&n, tr&n-/ noun

[Guest Fallen Angel]

Better:

 

Main Entry: trun·cat·ed

Pronunciation: -"kA-t&d

Function: adjective

Date: circa 1704

1 : having the apex replaced by a plane section and especially by one parallel to the base <truncated cone>

2 a : cut short : CURTAILED b : lacking an expected or normal element (as a syllable) at the beginning or end : CATALECTIC

 

It's impossible for this thread to be "cut short," you see. You could probably find a correct use of the word, if you wanted to. Rest assured that no matter what happens, you aren't actually getting any money.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Infinite regress IS impossible because you can't create something from nothing.

i think you're confusing the notion of infinite regress. there's 3 competing ideas here:

 

(1) the causal chain stops with god, who is essentially his own cause

 

(2) the causal chain stops, but not with god

 

(3) the causal chain doesn't stop

 

you're using (2) to describe infinite regress, when it should be (3). infinite regress doesn't say you can create something from nothing. it says that the causal chain extends infinitely in both directions.

 

saying something can be created from nothing is like saying THIS:

 

0--a--b--c...

 

infinite regress says THIS:

 

...c'--b'--a'--a--b--c...

 

applying infinite regress, it doesn't say the big bang was uncaused. it says something ELSE caused the big bang, then another thing caused THAT thing, etc. it says there have always been things in existence, infinitely into the past.

 

as i said, i think argument C is compelling, but that doesn't really deal with causation, it deals with contingency: dependency. it's an important difference.

Yes, I got confused there.

 

Infinite existence with no first cause seems much more "impossible" to me than God being the prime mover.