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
    The force of the cosmological argument from regress does ... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The force of the cosmological argument from regress does not depend on the impossibility of an actual infinite or infinite regress of causes

    CausationNatural 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.The argument's force lies only in the supposition that things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature must be determined to exist by something that does exist necessarily by its own nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The argument's conclusion follows even if an infinite regress of causes is granted, provided that no member of such a regress exists necessarily
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An infinite regress of contingent causes constitutes a complete explanatory system that requires no external necessary being to account for its existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's contention holds that explaining each member of an infinite series individually suffices to explain the whole, making appeal to a necessary being explanatorily redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If every contingent member of an infinite series is explained by its predecessor, the demand for a necessary ground commits the fallacy of composition by treating the series as an additional entity requiring separate explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critique establishes that 'necessary existence' is not a coherent ontological category applicable to any being, since necessity is a logical property of propositions, not of things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessary existence is incoherent as a real predicate, the contrast between contingent and necessary beings that the argument's force entirely depends upon collapses, undermining both the regress-independent and regress-dependent versions equally.
      ?

      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

    Natural TheologyCausation

    Related

    An infinite regress of contingent causes constitutes a complete explanatory syst...Hume's contention holds that explaining each member of an infinite series indivi...If every contingent member of an infinite series is explained by its predecessor...If necessary existence is incoherent as a real predicate, the contrast between c...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kant's critique establishes that 'necessary existence' is not a coherent ontolog...The argument's conclusion follows even if an infinite regress of causes is grant...The argument's force lies only in the supposition that things which do not exist...

    Similar

    The three types of cosmological arguments differ in their approach to ...81%The second principle of the impossibility of an actual infinite regres...81%The argument's conclusion follows even if an infinite regress of cause...78%The cosmological argument rests on the causal maxim and the principle ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: sufficient-reason
    View source passageHide passage
    In passing I should like to note here that the more recent Peripatetics have, as I think, misunderstood the demonstration by which the Ancients tried to prove God’s existence. For as I find it in a certain Jew, called Rab Chasdai, it runs as follows: if there is an infinite regress of causes, then all things that are will also have been caused; but it does not pertain to anything which has been caused, to exist necessarily by the force of its own nature; therefore, there is nothing in Nature to
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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