Sticking a Fork in it. Ending the Infinite Regress Objection to the Cosmological Arguement

[warpspeedpetey]

I really think that is just wrong.

It seems obviously true to me. Can you state this symbolically or point me to a proof? Analogies can only take one so far.

…So if a bullet proof vest is made of fibers and each fiber in it is penetrable by a bullet, then the whole is penetrable by a bullet? Clearly not. There are many examples (including the ones I mentioned) of the whole not having the quality of all the parts.

A vest is not just a collection of fibers. Its Kevlar, shock plates, nylon, backing material, epoxies, etc. If it were just a pile of Kevlar fibers it wouldn’t be any more bulletproof than a pile of cotton balls. lol. The property of being bulletproof is not a function of the number of Kevlar fibers. There may be good analogies, but I need to see it in a formal proof to understand it.

 

[Dranu]

Ah! Apologies. Though, doesn’t pantheism seems to imply all beings are necessary?

Heheh true in a way, and I think the antidote to the position I am defending lies somewhere around there. One cannot reasonably speak of contingent beings in one sense when the whole is considered necessary, for if one part could have failed to be as it is, then the whole would not have existed in as it does in some way which is impossible for a necessary being. However, its not quite that simple. One could speak of them as being necessary** in kind**. That is, they fail to exist in many different ways at many different times (i.e. positions on the causal chain), but insofar as they do exist they are necessary in that way, and if they are not necessary in all ways then obviously they are contingent.
Trevor Stamm:

Why not one that is only infinitely long in the past and in progression to the future?

Wouldn’t this fall under the catagory of illogical impossibilities? How could there be progression if there wasn’t an establishment of what was to progressed from.

I’m not sure I follow you here.

What is on the line and exchange between each point isn’t the point, but the fact that points are already on that line is the point. As time is simply a measure of change from present to future, the future has not yet come to pass so therefore the future is not pre-established.

I am still not sure that the infinite regression implies that there is no real progression, but even if it did this could be all that time is (the difference between two points on the chain and the perception of time being our viewing of cause and effect (i.e. the change to those points). I see no apparent contradiction there.

If someone is willing to go this far to not accept that infinite regression or atemporal existence is fallacious, it’d be fruitless to continue the debate. Just my opinion though.

Maybe , but to defeat such ideology with reason (if this is indeed something we can reason out) allows us to understand our faith even more.

 

[Dranu]

It seems obviously true to me. Can you state this symbolically or point me to a proof? Analogies can only take one so far.

1.) Something is only a universally applicable rule if all instantiations of it are true.
2.)There are instantiations of the rule ‘that the whole has all the qualities of its parts’ that are false. (the analogies I have given you)
3.)Therefore, the rule that ‘the whole has all the qualities of its parts’ is not universally applicable.

A vest is not just a collection of fibers. Its Kevlar, shock plates, nylon, backing material, epoxies, etc. If it were just a pile of Kevlar fibers it wouldn’t be any more bulletproof than a pile of cotton balls. lol. The property of being bulletproof is not a function of the number of Kevlar fibers. There may be good analogies, but I need to see it in a formal proof to understand it.

Even so, I would imagine most of these parts are not bullet proof, but the vest (the whole) does not share that quality. Also think of analogies where the whole is made of parts with contradicting qualities. For instance, the Cartesian Coordinate system has positive and negative values, but the whole is not a positive negative value (for that would be absurd) even though its parts are positive or negative. Take a spinning top. The y-axis can be non-moving while the x-axis can be moving, however it would be a contradiction to say the top is moving and not moving (even though its individual parts are moving and some are not moving). So the top is moving in some ways but not in others,** but it does not share the absolute quality itself even though its parts have it**.

I don’t know. Maybe you are on to something, but you will need to address how my analogies can fail, because I have shown how they apparently work.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…2.)There are instantiations of the rule ‘that the whole has all the qualities of its parts’ that are false. (the analogies I have given you)…

This is what I was hoping to see stated symbolically, or linked to specific point of logic. Where is this rule from?

I don’t know. Maybe you are on to something, but you will need to address how my analogies can fail, because I have shown how they apparently work.

The most recent ones are not analogous to the regression argument. Their properties arise from the combination of different elements in the set. Not from the mere quantity of elements. The first ones, I simply offered Coplestons objection too. This is too technical of a point for analogies to be very effective. To be a good analogy of the situation it would have to be a dichotomous situation using mutually exclusive terms for elements of the set, and the properties of the set would have to arise from the quantity of those elements but all those fall to Coplestons objections as far as I know. I think it is just easier to state in symbolic logic or to link me to a formal argument supporting your position.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I’m not sure I follow you here.

Progression being forward motion from an existing point to an indeterminate point, I don’t see how there could be progression if there was never a point of origin to progress from.

I am still not sure that the infinite regression implies that there is no real progression, but even if it did this could be all that time is (the difference between two points on the chain and the perception of time being our viewing of cause and effect (i.e. the change to those points). I see no apparent contradiction there.

Or more simply, we are actors reading from a script? At this point, have we past the boundaries of reason into a world where possiblities are limitless? If so, I don’t think even Aquinas himself could reason with such a person. As he said himself:

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”