Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A chain of possible things cannot regress infinitely and ... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A chain of possible things cannot regress infinitely and must terminate in a being that is necessary in itself

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Every possible thing requires an external cause that preponderates existence over non-existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The aggregate of possible things cannot be self-caused
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An infinite regress of possible causes would itself constitute an aggregate of possible things requiring an external cause
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An actually infinite series of contingent causes is not logically contradictory, as Cantor's transfinite mathematics demonstrates infinite sets can be completed totalities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an infinite series of contingent beings can constitute a completed whole, the demand for an external necessary cause dissolves, since no member lacks a cause within the series.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ibn Rushd argued that Aristotle's eternal universe contains an infinite chain of generated things without requiring the chain itself to be contingent in the relevant sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume demonstrated that the move from 'each member of a series has a cause' to 'the series as a whole requires a cause' commits the fallacy of composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the existence of each contingent thing is fully explained by its proximate contingent cause, no further explanation of the aggregate is logically demanded beyond its members.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Divine AttributesNatural Theology

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation4 linked

    Related

    An actually infinite series of contingent causes is not logically contradictory,...An aggregate of possible things cannot be self-causedAn infinite regress of possible causes would itself constitute an aggregate of p...Every possible thing requires an external cause that preponderates existence ove...
    +4 moreShow less
    Hume demonstrated that the move from 'each member of a series has a cause' to 't...Ibn Rushd argued that Aristotle's eternal universe contains an infinite chain of...If an infinite series of contingent beings can constitute a completed whole, the...If the existence of each contingent thing is fully explained by its proximate co...

    Similar

    Therefore the causal chain must terminate in a being whose existence i...86%Causal chains of existence cannot form circles or infinite regresses.81%Therefore the chain of causes for any being must terminate in the firs...81%Therefore the series of contingent beings must terminate in an uncause...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: albalag
    View source passageHide passage
    Avicenna divides “actual” beings, as opposed to impossible things, into necessary in itself and possible in itself but necessary through another (Davidson 1987: 292–3; McGinnis 2010: 159–164). The necessary in itself is that which has existence in its essence and an impossibility arises whenever it is assumed not to exist. By contrast, the possible in itself but necessary through another is that which “has no existence in essence” and “no impossibility” arises whether it is assumed to exist or n
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit