Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Al-Ghazali and later Bonaventure showed that an infinite temporal regress generates formal contradictions, not merely contingent implausibilities.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Formal contradiction requires proving infinite regress entails P and not-P; mere explanatory gaps don't constitute logical contradictions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Medieval thinkers conflated metaphysical causation with temporal sequence; infinite temporal regress needn't involve the causal contradictions they claimed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Modern mathematics handles actual infinities (real numbers, set theory) coherently without formal contradiction, undermining the medieval logical objections.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An infinite series requires a prior infinite series to cause it, leading to circular dependency that violates the law of non-contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Actual infinity (completed infinite totality) is logically distinct from potential infinity, and regress requires actual infinity to be actualized.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An infinite causal chain cannot explain why anything exists rather than nothing, as infinite members never exhaust explanatory requirements.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.