You have not. Let me refresh your memory about
first-order logic and
proofs in a first-order logic, and
what a logical contradiction is. Please specify exactly which
axioms lead to a contradiction if “there is an infinite causal regress” is substituted for “there is no infinite causal regress,” and demonstrate what sequence of deductions leads to this contradiction.
It is not my responsibility to explain some metaphysical axiom that you accept and I do not; it is yours. You have avoided nearly every challenge to your attempts at a Socratic-style restatement of Craig. If I wanted to know Craig’s arguments, I can find them in much greater detail in Craig’s work. Craig appeals to
intuition –
not logic – to justify his belief in the impossibility of an infinite chain of causes.
But here you are, claiming that an infinite chain of causes is
logically impossible. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that claim using a proof expressed
in first order logic, rather than dropping phrases you’ve read here and there and stalling for time by asking me to define the axioms of your own argument for you.
You must be getting all of this stuff - that you barely understand, and, that they barely understand, but, understand just enough to help you remain unreasonably argumentative - from some pro-atheist, anti-Catholic (or, anti-Christian) website or web-forum.
Catholic Answers Forum has been very charitable to many extraordinarily homologous non-theists, like you, for a while now. We
know that you do not really have the philosophical background for a sane discussion of scholastic philosophy. Thus, the only hope is by destroying scholastic philosophy’s validity and impact on reason. For example, we understand “potency
to act”, but, have no affinity with statement, “potency
in act”, except as some further (accidental) relationship of some privation of a quality in an extant being, such as knowledge is “potential-in-act” of say a child already in
actuality. Aquinas specifically makes use of the preposition, “to”, because it is the primary way of apprehending mobile being as
mobile being.
Motion is a from-to proposition, not a from-in one.
Potency and
act are two words that are extremely appropriate in describing the states of
privation and
possession. I am amazed that the languages of the world even have these four words in them, especially when, as you assert, they are essentially not useful, or are, irrelevant, (at least) to you. As merely
words, both “potency” and “act”, in their various forms, can be nouns, adverbs, or adjectives. In scholastic philosophy, they are used interchangeably, but, primary use is as adverbs, as a quality (potentially, or actually) possessed by, and, predicated of a subject.
Nonetheless, “motion” as regards scholastic philosophy is used somewhat more analogously than directly. “Motion”, in scholastic philosophy has much more to do with
substantial and
accidental change - three more useless words, as far as you’re probably concerned, most likely, yet, extant in the languages of the world perhaps since the dawn of speech notwithstanding.
It is also interesting that the languages of the world have the noun, “
nothing”, in them and use it in the manner of, “
ex nihilo nihil fit” with great regularity, and have done so for some 2,500 years, give or take. Thank goodness for DavidHume to show the world the error of its ways. Except that DavidHume has forgotten that
nothing has a definition, or rather, definitions. See:
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/nothing
That aside, what’s even more interesting is that all of scientific endeavor, all of scientific inquiry, has for its object, or objects, material mobile being, or beings. Interesting because, material mobile being is presupposed when considering inertia (objects in motion), energy-to-matter and matter-to-energy transfers, potential-to-kinetic transfer, simple local motion, substantial coming-to-be (wood to ashes), accidental coming-to-be (an apple reddening on the tree), and so on. More useless words, I suppose, nevertheless in use by man from time immemorial.
As far as “
infinity” is concerned, either one correctly understands that infinity is
not a number, or, one defines it however one wants. If one defines it correctly, as not a number, then one can grasp that infinity is
dynamic, that is, it is continuously moving, progressing, adding another real number, or thing, to it, never stopping and unstoppable. To think of infinity in arrears is to incorrectly understand
infinity. There can be no stopping point. Therefore, we could not have arrived at this moment, or sequential spot. If infinity is a number, is it an odd number or an even number. And, “yes” is a stupid answer to that question, in the sense that it was asked.
The Set theory of Georg Cantor does not in any sense define
infinity. It is merely a “conceptual scheme” to play with the exigency as if it were a real number. As used by Cantor, it is a bastardization and transmutation of the word
transfinite. So, since you don’t, or can’t, grasp the meaning of
infinity, discussing this stuff with you is a labor of energy not well spent, on our parts.
jd
It’s a good thing your argument has no merit.
