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 If traversing an actual infinite series of prior events is logically incoherent, the impossibility of an eternal world is demonstrable a priori.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
An eternal universe need not be 'traversed'—all events exist timelessly in a B-series; sequence doesn't require completion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Logical incoherence and physical impossibility differ; infinite series may be logically consistent even if metaphysically impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Self-caused or necessary-being explanations avoid infinite regress without requiring traversal of an actual infinite past.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Completing an infinite series requires reaching a final member, but infinite sets have no final member by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Causation requires a prior cause; infinite regress leaves no uncaused cause to initiate the causal chain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Traversing events sequentially through time requires a finite duration or starting point; eternity provides neither.
?
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.