/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous !P45fr4QSwk No.13800778]

So what’s the actual problem with an infinite regress describing the universe?
Why do WLC and Aquinas have such a problem with it?

[Anonymous No.13801117]

>>13800778
>So what’s the actual problem with an infinite regress describing the universe?
There isn't one
>Why do WLC and Aquinas have such a problem with it?
They're autists

[Anonymous No.13801198]

>>13800778
an induction proof in which the base case is not true, is not valid

[Anonymous No.13801209]

Aquinas was a master of mental acrobatics in defense of muh christendom.
Once you look at his famous "arguments", you will realise that some of them don't even make sense at all, and for those that do, they don't imply the existence of a sentient, monotheistic God.

[Anonymous No.13801216]

>>13800778
People used to think actual as opposed to potential infinites weren't possible, probably because they couldn't fathom their formal properties. Too bad Cantor B them TFO.

[Anonymous No.13801734]

Samuel Clarke said that an infinte chain of cause and effect was impossible becuase the cause of the chain couldn't be outside of the chain, as the chain explains the history of the universe, but the chain wasn't caused by something inside the chain either. If the cause of the chain was inside the chain, then the chain would be a necessary being. But how can a necessary casual chain be made out of contingent parts? This is impossible. Therefor, for said chain, there is nothing outside or inside of it that explains why it exist( such as a necessary part), yet there are caused, contingent things in the series. This means that something began to exist
from nothing, this is a contradiction becuase creation is enable by somethings attributes, and nothing has no attributes, and therefor something can't come from nothing, meaning that said chain is impossible.

[Anonymous No.13801838]

>>13801734
Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism use many of those same arguments and similar ones in their philosophical writings to attack as contradictory and illogical the position of several other Buddhist/Hindu schools that beginningless cause and effect could cause the universe to exist (such as how Theravada interpret dependent origination)

[Anonymous No.13802061]

>>13801198
Why?

[Anonymous No.13802359]

Nothing is wrong with that. What Kant showed was that we could prove that it's either an infinite regress OR a finite one. The fact that we can prove either is the problem, not that it may be one or the other.

Ultimately for Kant nature IS an infinite regress, but as appearance - to understand what this means, take this Baumgarten quote as an explication:

"If the matter in this world is said to be infinitely divisible, then this is understood either absolutely, as saying that there are no indivisible parts in it, and is false, or it is understood relatively, as saying that in dividing this matter no parts can be observed by us except those that are further divisible, and it is then true that matter is indefinitely divisible."

[Anonymous No.13802683]

>>13802061
Literally by the definition of induction.

[Anonymous No.13802695]

>>13801216
>He thinks Cantor's autistic cardinality definition extends beyond set theoretic scope and aplies directly to cosmological arguments
>Wow dude, they said on Numberphile, that some infinities are bigger then others
Pathetic, this is way back in the day Cantor met such an opposition.

[Anonymous No.13802707]

>>13800778
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Mr9xlUTQo

[Anonymous No.13802715]

Their main problem is coping. They don't want to cope with the infinite void this regress leads to, so they combat it with the god that was given to them by their cultural upbringing.

[Anonymous No.13802758]

>>13802707
>fucking dominoes
When you see them, you know they're fucked.
There is a distinct diference between infinite causal regress and infinite temporal regress. Don't debate theology if you haven't read it seriously. (Just so you don't embarass yourself, the comonly refered to passage of Aquinas's "five arguments" is his resume in a beginers intro to theology, [for amature use only])

[Aeternitate Mundi No.13802760]

There's none at all.

[Anonymous No.13802775]

Only an eternal universe needs God.
>What did an eternal changeless god do before creation
Is a contradiction—God being eternal has eternally produced.

[Anonymous No.13802793]

Who can refute this wit?

[Anonymous No.13802810]

>>13800778
Isn't the central point of Zeno's paradox technically same as infinte regress?

[Anonymous No.13803016]

>>13800778
here is my brainlet take I just thought up:

A cause in its totality is greater than its effect, a example from nature is:
>The Big Bang

If there is infinite regress than there must be a infinitely great cause within the chain

If the infinitely great cause caused an equal they would be identical to a infinetly great degree therefore they would be one and the same

[Anonymous No.13803186]

>>13803016
Read Elements of Theology by Proclus

[Anonymous No.13803217]

>>13801117
>>So what’s the actual problem with an infinite regress describing the universe?
>There isn't one
t. Borges
You'd be a poor cartographer.

[Anonymous No.13803226]

>>13801117
>>13800778
Could never traverse an infinite past to actualize the present. You have to understand potency and actuality and a bit about how limits work.

There would never pass sufficient time to actualize our present time (or any moment of time). Just like an infinite future could not be reached for us... But the present is actualized so there is no infinite regress in the past.

[Anonymous No.13803232]

>>13802793
History and Fact, united and bickering (as usual).

[Anonymous No.13803261]

Because it's a literal absurdity. Is this not obvious? Have you ever looked at a mathematical proof that relies on infinite regress in order to make an argument by contradiction? Its illogical lmao

[Anonymous No.13803263]

Craig makes a different argument than Aquinas so he might have different reasons.

The argument from motion is concerned with hierarchical causality or levels of causation. Another way to think of it is as dealing causation in the "here and now" as opposed to a historical chain of causation. Aquinas illustrates what he's talking about using the example of a person holding a stick and using it to move a rock on the ground.

Everything that is in motion is moved by something else. Some things, like a rock, do not have the power to move themselves. For a rock to move it must be moved by something else, like a stick which is itself being pushed by a hand because the stick doesn't have the power to move itself. The stick is an instrumental cause of the rocks movement because it is deriving its power of movement from the hand, and the hand is deriving its power of movement from the brain, and the brain deriving its movement from something else, a higher source.

The chain of movement must ultimately terminate with something that is itself unmoved by anything else because a series of instrumental causes can't go on indefinitely, and to say otherwise would be to suggest that a stick could pick itself up and move a rock without the assistance of a hand and brain. Instruments don't have the power to move themselves so positing an infinite series of instruments can't explain the existence of motion.

[Anonymous No.13803269]

A problem is entropy. A universe where any moment had an infinite past necessarily means that each moment has maximum entropy, which means the possibility of work is always in the infinite past of any particular moment. A universe with infinite regress can not perform work at any particular moment because there is never free energy at any particular moment, having reached maximum entropy in its infinite past.

[Anonymous No.13803270]

>>13803261
>>13803226
This^°
But the absurdity is not self evident to most people.

[Anonymous No.13803280]

>2019
>taking metaphysics seriously
OMEGALUL

[Anonymous No.13803316]

>>13803263
Another good mental image are gears: even in a system with infinte gears there has to be a moving ger, for the hole system to move

[Anonymous No.13803341]

>>13801209
>they don't imply the existence of a sentient, monotheistic God.
Can you explain what you mean? If we come to the conclusion that there is an unmoved mover, it's necessarily singular or "mono" and eternal since anything that goes in or out of existence is in motion, and because there's something rather than nothing it made the decision to put things into motion so it must have some sort of will or personality. Because it's the ultimate source of movement, in a sense it's actively sustaining motion so it is theistic in that it interacts with the universe.

[Anonymous No.13803347]

>>13801209

Catholics deliberately make bad arguments to destroy Christianity because they are Atheists.

[Anonymous No.13803364]

>>13803341
The idea that there had to be some original cause for the universe (the first link in the chain of causality) still doesn't imply the existence of a SENTIENT, MONOTHEISTIC God.

[Anonymous No.13803374]

>>13803341
The unmoved mover type arguments don't rule out the possibility of all sorts of 'sources' of creation.

> it's necessarily singular or "mono"
An initial, supernatural, creative point or act doesn't imply that there is only one creator involved, it could be a synergistic act using multiple entities.

>because there's something rather than nothing it made the decision to put things into motion so it must have some sort of will or personality
It could be emanationism, like in the Neo-Platonic sense of an abundance of power overflowing from the one Monad, being stratified into lower and lower realms of differentiation, no personality or "will" involved, but following some internal necessity.

> Because it's the ultimate source of movement, in a sense it's actively sustaining motion so it is theistic in that it interacts with the universe.
Sustaining motion doesn't imply interest or personality or telos, it's just a function.

I agree that there is design, harmony and reasons to believe in God based on observing nature. But I don't believe in making "syllogisms" out of these reasons, going from premises to conclusion as if it all follows deductively...it doesn't. And anyone can pile a bunch of these arguments together to prove Allah, or the greek Monad or the gnostic Demiurge, or the mormon Gods, it's all very vague.

All these things we see are just "fingers pointing to the moon" as they would say in buddhism. These things are just clues and signals...

[Anonymous No.13803378]

>>13803364
I literally just made the argument that it does. An analysis of change reveals that the source of all change or motion must be singular and have a personality. It is theistic rather than deistic because it is the active source of all change, meaning it is constantly interacting with and sustaining the universe. That's what it means to be a monotheistic god.

[Anonymous No.13803390]

>>13803378
> An analysis of change reveals that the source of all change or motion must be singular and have a personality.
Sustaining physical events isn't a personality.
Being personal means you are interested in persons and relate to them and care about them, and have a goal intended for them. The mere fact of motion/change doesn't prove a personal God exists.
And you seem to be saying God causes everything??
Then there's no free-will for man. You think God micromanages everything personally?

[Anonymous No.13803391]

>>13803364
Yes it does, you need to invent all the formal principals too prior to any motion. Motion may only require force from an unmoved mover, but an unformed former requires nous and logos.

[Anonymous No.13803394]

>>13803374
Ugh, I hate when people quote and respond to individual sentences. It's a mess. The unmoved mover or pure act must be singular because if there were two, the only way to tell the difference is if one lacked something the other didn't. Pure act can't lack anything.

You say the reason there's something rather than nothing is because it could be this or could be that, well argue the point. In the context of the argument where we already concluded that there is an unmoved mover, the reason something exists rather than nothing must be because it has a will or personality. This is why I don't like when people quote and respond to individual sentences.

I didn't say that sustaining motion implied a personality. That is a separate point. Sustaining motion does imply theism because any god is theistic by definition when it interacts with the universe. Sustaining motion is an interaction.

Your picture is really dumb by the way.

[Anonymous No.13803399]

>>13803390
I didn't say that sustaining motion implied a personality. Because the first actual is eternal it must have a personality(or will) in order for the chain of actuals and potentials to come into existence. If that were not the case, there would be nothing except the first actual. Because there are objects outside it, the first actual has, by necessity, a personality. Without personality we would find ourselves in a paradox.

[Anonymous No.13803400]

>>13802683
What's the definition of induction?

[Anonymous No.13803416]

>>13803374
>that jpeg
scholasticism was never ment to 'prove' christianity as if the trinity could be deduced from reason alone apart from revelation.
>inspired by pagans and jews
I guess we should throw mathematics out :^)

[Anonymous No.13803425]

>>13803378
> An analysis of change reveals that the source of all change or motion:
> 1. Must have a personality.
> 2. Is constantly interacting with the universe.
I don't see how you've arrived at 1. and 2.
Could you lay it out for me?

[Anonymous No.13803429]

>>13803425
I just explained it here >>13803399

[Anonymous No.13803436]

>>13803429
You didn't explain anything, you just said "it has to be that way or otherwise it would be a paradox"

[Anonymous No.13803439]

>>13803436
If you only look at the last sentence, sure. That's all I said.

[Anonymous No.13803445]

>>13803439
> Because the first actual is eternal it must have a personality(or will) in order for the chain of actuals and potentials to come into existence. If that were not the case, there would be nothing except the first actual.
Why?
>Because there are objects outside it, the first actual has, by necessity, a personality. Without personality we would find ourselves in a paradox.
Why?

[Anonymous No.13803448]

>>13803394
>It's a mess. The unmoved mover or pure act
Unmoved mover and actus purus are not identical concepts, you can't just equate them without an argument.
I can accept an unmoved mover and reject actus purus.

>must be singular because if there were two, the only way to tell the difference is if one lacked something the other didn't. Pure act can't lack anything.
This sort of heresy reduces the distinctions of qualities & personhood within the trinity to just nominal or virtual distinctions.

>You say the reason there's something rather than nothing is because it could be this or could be that, well argue the point. In the context of the argument where we already concluded that there is an unmoved mover, the reason something exists rather than nothing must be because it has a will or personality. This is why I don't like when people quote and respond to individual sentences.
I gave you a reason aka the Neo-Platonic case for emanationism accounts for an "unmoved mover" (the impersonal Monad) and why there is a phenomenal material world.
Or it could be Allah or something else you don't believe in. These natural theology arguments don't establish the God you believe in.

>I didn't say that sustaining motion implied a personality. That is a separate point. Sustaining motion does imply theism because any god is theistic by definition when it interacts with the universe. Sustaining motion is an interaction.
Your definition of personal isn't adequate. To be personal means to interact with persons, to relate to them, and care about them. Would you call a God who ignores man and only interacts with fish and black holes "personal"?
How you went from "motion exists" to "therefore God is personal" is unclear...

>Your picture is really dumb by the way
Why? The arguments are used by folks from all sorts of religions to prove their God(s)...

If you are a Christian you should start from Jesus/Trinity first and then you show how the world makes sense from this initial starting point.

WHen you start arguing for God backwards by appealing to planets or causality or motion then you will never reach the God you want, but just some abstract "monad" or "force" or "allah" or "mormon pantheon" ....How do you not see this?

[Anonymous No.13803450]

>>13803374
>multiple entities
this implies a continuoation of the causal chain, which reverts to the previous discussio, that is held as setlled
>The Monad being subject to eternbal necesity
analogously reverts to causal chains
>Sustaining motion doesn't imply interest or personality or telos, it's just a function.
I agree, but would use this originially as an argument.
>And anyone can pile a bunch of these arguments together to prove Allah, or the greek Monad or the gnostic Demiurge, or the mormon Gods, it's all very vague.
If you take Allah to be different from God, then you're talking about atributes ascribed to Him by Christian and Islamic doctrines (the do however coincide on uniqness and will). This applies to the Demiurge. For mormons God is theologically only the Father, however their doctrine is shit anyways.

As to aspects of axiology it is true that they have to be reliant on some kinds of revelation. And generally the problems you mention stem from the practice of speaking of God in term we apply to creatures, so I would agree that it some sense God can't be categorized into singular and non singular; yet it is theologically unsound claim that god is multiple and not singular.

[Anonymous No.13803454]

>>13803445
You're legitimately too stupid to get it. The first act must have a personality because if that were not the case, there would be nothing except the first actual.

>>13803448
I let it go the first time but I'm not reading this shit until you learn to write. I've already had my fill of stupidity today.

[Anonymous No.13803465]

>>13803454
>the First Mover must have a personality/consciousness because I say so, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, goodbye

[Anonymous No.13803466]

>>13803448
>Your definition of personal isn't adequate.
Who said anything about a personal God? You're conflating the concept of personality and personal and you want people to spend time on you.

[Anonymous No.13803469]

>>13803425
Yeah I generally don't know what he>>13803378 mean.
Aquinas actually expect many counterargument on that 5 proofs. In that Summa theologica those popular counter is literally next to it.
But Aquinas never concluded he can defend that argument on it. He reacted as just ignoratio elenchi. "Yeah I don't care whether that arrives Sentient and Monotheistic or not. The important point is we have first mover". That's how Aquinas did.

[Anonymous No.13803471]

>>13803465
If you don't understand the paradox then you must be stupid because it's very simple.

[Anonymous No.13803472]

>>13803454
I'm addressing each of your points, instead of reducing your whole post into a strawman.
What is wrong with writing clearly? You have multiple arguments in your posts.

>hurr everyone is stupid except me!
>stop dissecting my fallacies!!!
Yikes.
Is this peak Thomism? Sad.

[Anonymous No.13803479]

>>13803394
>Ugh, I hate when people quote and respond to individual sentences.
Even Marx did the same shit WTF

[Anonymous No.13803482]

>>13803448
>Your definition of personal isn't adequate. To be personal means to interact with persons, to relate to them, and care about them. Would you call a God who ignores man and only interacts with fish and black holes "personal"?
If you agree that God interacts with fish and black holes, by the act of their creation at all moments, then you must by necessity agree that the same holds for man. And there also is a sense by which God cares more about a man that a fish, by the fact that man only by his faculty of intellect can appriciate creation as the act of God.

[Anonymous No.13803484]

>>13803472
You're literally not, you're just making a mess. I already pointed out that you're conflating personal with personality as if I'm arguing for a personal God when I argue that God has a personality. That was just from a quick glance over, I'm not reading that shit. If you're not able to address each point without that crutch of quoting and responding to individual sentences then you're not worth talking to. Especially since you've already taken things and removed the context, and thus changing the meaning of what I've said.

[Anonymous No.13803491]

>>13803471
If it's so simple, why don't you just explain the paradox and get this over with? Or at least link it on Wikipedia or some shit.

[Anonymous No.13803495]

>>13803491
I've explained it multiple times. If you can't see it I can't help you.

[Anonymous No.13803499]

>>13803471

The unmoved mover argument just means the first cause of the phenomenal world was not itself materially caused. It could very well be a free-willing Angel, or pantheon of demi-Gods. It could be the Greek Monad.

It's not a paradox for God to create the world and then turn his back on it and be disinterested [ and thus be impersonal towards it]. Or for him to only be interested in non-human affairs [and thus be impersonal towards us, not judging us or communicating]. The fact of physical motion doesn't imply a super-physical personality exists...

>you're stupid you're stupid
Do you have turrets? Why are you calling everyone stupid?

[Anonymous No.13803503]

>>13803448
>To be personal means to interact with persons, to relate to them, and care about them. Would you call a God who ignores man and only interacts with fish and black holes "personal"?
No. To be personal means to have consciousness and a sense of self.
"I think, therefore I am"

[Anonymous No.13803522]

>>13803499
The unmoved mover argument addresses all change, phenomenal or not. It couldn't be an angel or a pantheon of gods because they wouldn't explain their own movement. Look, I've lost my patience with this nonsense. I'm done dealing with stupid people. You don't know what the hell you're arguing against but you like to talk so have fun with that.

[Anonymous No.13803531]

>>13803503
So... how do you gonna react with "How you went from "motion exists" to "therefore God is personal" is unclear"?

[Anonymous No.13803536]

>>13803531
I'm not the person you think you've replied to

[Anonymous No.13803545]

>>13803522
I'm genuinely sure that he only implies in phenomenal change.
>mover argument addresses all change, phenomenal or not
What you're talking right now is very Platonic, it doesn't seem like one regarded as an important follower of Aristotelianism would say.

[Anonymous No.13803548]

>>13803495
>>13803491
The paradox is thinking actus purus is compatible with a personal God. i.e [His attributes or His operations are really identical with His essence, and His essence necessitates His existence.]
This leaves no room for ontologic distinctions in God (bye bye trinity). If he is pure act then he can't have personhood. if God is identical with each of his properties, then each of his properties is identical with each of his other properties, so God has only one property. This flies in the face of the idea that God has both power and mercifulness, neither of which is identical with the other. Secondly, if God is identical with his properties, then, since each of God's properties is a property, it follows that God is a property as well. In this case, God has just one property: himself. The problem is that properties do not in and of themselves cause anything. No property could have created the world, and no property could know anything at all. If God is a property, then he isn't a person but a mere abstract object, having no power, life, love, or even awareness.
And any creative-act-of-will we grant would just be an illusion, in fact it would be an automatic and necessary expression of his essence (bye bye freedom and being personal).
Thomism, not even once!

[Anonymous No.13803550]

>>13803499
God is not before time he is ouside of it. If you like, imagine Him creating the universe as 4 dimensional object. (not the best image if you follow Kant on transcendental easthetics, because spatiotemporal dimensionality is a category of inner apriori comprehnesion and, as Kant himself showed, would not neceserally meanigfully apply to noumenal existence and God ).

[Anonymous No.13803560]

>>13803548
>1+5=6
>2+4=6
>but 1 is not identical with 2 and 5 with 4
>therefore 4 is a paradox

[Anonymous No.13803564]

>>13803560
>*I meant 6 is a paradox

[Anonymous No.13803569]

>>13803560
>A is the same as B
>A is the same as C
Therefore B is the same as C

[Anonymous No.13803584]

>>13803569
Yes. That's the point why the logic that I was replying to doesn't work

[Anonymous No.13803595]

>>13800778
Time is a measure of change and therefore has a definitive beginning.
>>13802760
>Passes the buck ad infinitum
This is why infinite regresses are retarded. You can't just keep pushing back the chain of causality of the universe into infinity. There has to have been a distinct point when all existence came into being and change occurred.

[Anonymous No.13803600]

>>13803595

>You can't just keep pushing back the chain of causality of the universe into infinity. There has to have been a distinct point when all existence came into being and change occurred.

That's your opinion, not a fact

[Anonymous No.13803604]

>>13802793
Slander and jelly cope. No arguments there. Philoponus is based and already understood that Aristotle got the principle of inertia wrong.

[Anonymous No.13803609]

>>13803560
>>13803564
>>13803569
>1 and 2 and 3 and 5 and 6 and + and =
Numeric or operative distinctions are real distinctions. Your examples already assume real distinctions. But real distinctions don't exist in God given "actus purus". It reduces power (1) to (2) mercy. 1= 2
It reduces His will (6) to his intelligence (4). 6=4
it reduces his creative act of making adam (+) to his essence (-)... addition = subtraction
it reduces the Father to the Son, the Son to the Father, the Holy Spirit to the Burning Bush to his eternal ineffable Essence....

it's gibberish.

[Anonymous No.13803611]

>>13803226
>>13803270
The causal argument of Aquinas is not temporal, nothing says the further causes are far removed in the past.

[Anonymous No.13803613]

>>13803261
Argument by contradition are considered invalid by some mathematicians, and there are mathematical theories that allow for infiite regress.

[Anonymous No.13803620]

>>13803609
>it reduces the Father to the Son, the Son to the Father, the Holy Spirit to the Burning Bush to his eternal ineffable Essence....
Catholics aren't actual trinitarian. The trinity is only a linguistic construct. So no problem.
They worship the same God as muslims.

CCC 841
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

[Anonymous No.13803626]

>>13803341
>because there's something rather than nothing it made the decision to put things into motion so it must have some sort of will or personality
No, that's just unwarranted anthropomorphism. In fact a purely actual mover is not really something we can clearly conceptualize, it's in its own way as elusive as the infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.13803629]

>>13800778
He doesn't actually say this. Have you guys actually read in detail what you're criticising? Aquinas' argument doesn't rest on a finite series of causes. This only comes in through an assumption that you can in fact give a cause for a given effect. Otherwise things just fall apart and you need to go back and rethink your basic philosophy of the world.

[Anonymous No.13803633]

>>13803609
Power and mercy are not predicative atributes, rather they may be represented as monotonic functions of gratness (since they are monotonic, they are also bijective, thus the variable can be flipped by an inverse function). These functions are not neceserally linearly dependet yet they all aproach infinity(God), and thus infinity(God) may be defined trough any one of them

[Anonymous No.13803643]

>>13803633
>Power and mercy are not predicative atributes, rather they may be represented as monotonic functions of gratness (since they are monotonic, they are also bijective, thus the variable can be flipped by an inverse function). These functions are not neceserally linearly dependet yet they all aproach infinity(God), and thus infinity(God) may be defined trough any one of them

None of that is supported by scripture or tradition or actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13803646]

>>13803613
Infinite regress is standard in math. Infinite regressing causality is not (thats why you can only by induction "forwards" not "bakcwards"). Also have a nice time using most of math, you intuitionist cuck.

[Anonymous No.13803653]

>>13803394
>The unmoved mover or pure act must be singular because if there were two, the only way to tell the difference is if one lacked something the other didn't. Pure act can't lack anything.
A bit of of a subtle objection, but this assumes that all attributes are in a sense causal or actualizable. We don't grasp the full extent of God's attributes. What prevents two divinity to be causally undistinguishable but metaphysically nonequivalent?

[Anonymous No.13803664]

>>13803399
>Because there are objects outside it, the first actual has, by necessity, a personality.
Not necessarily. The creation of objects outside of it might very well be a necessary mecanistic consequence of the unmoved mover's attribute. We don't actually understand what's an unmoved mover ultimately, which is one of the reason Aquinas' argument is dubious. Infinite regress is fishy, but so is an unmoved mover we can't really grasp except to forcibly extract a few desired attributes from.

[Anonymous No.13803671]

>>13803643
>I haven't encountered this idea in this exact form before, therefore it is not valid
Also most classic theology uses the concept of "infinity" to speak about God, and so I say nothing more than just extending it to modern formal understanding. In mathematics "infinity" is not defined formaly, and if you try to treat it as number you get all sorts paradoxes, yet everyone (even constructionists) use it and apply diferent formalisms if required.

[Anonymous No.13803687]

>>13803484
>If you're not able to address each point without that crutch of quoting and responding to individual sentences then you're not worth talking to.
That's literally to make the answer more readable to you however. So that you know how each counterpoint point relates to each point and don't have to guess, ad more importantly so that everyone can judge whether you misrepresented the opponent's point in the argument. Aquinas did the same in his Summa Theologica. Your opposition to this simple and age-old practice for no other reason than "I don' tlike it" is rather baffling.What's next, complaining about people arguing in English instead of Latin?

[Anonymous No.13803708]

>>13803646
There is no reason to distinct those two. In some argument you can modify some problem of infinite regress and make infinite regress causality problem.

[Anonymous No.13803730]

>>13803708
Yes there is. I can say "For every whole number N , N-1 is also a whole number" - that is infinite regress. I cannot say: "For every statement P(n), P(n-1) implies P(n); therefore P(n)" - that would be causal regress

[Anonymous No.13803820]

>>13803730
What even is this? What is P(n) suppose to mean? Why you bring function on this as if it will change some philosophical implication? With simple modification people can define number as a function.
If you are using Russell's notion that function as a propositional function, then It makes more confusing; Russell would definitely say that is not even an actual infinity problem. He gave a solution of many problem of infinite with Transcendental induction as well.

[Anonymous No.13803838]

>>13801209
>they don't imply the existence of a sentient, monotheistic God.
No shit, Thomas said the same thing. The belief in God, as it is intended in the Bible, is an article of faith, rather than reason. Chances are that you just assumed that he was an idiot and that those arguments were trying to prove the existence of Bearded Skydaddy. Try again, maybe this time you'll understand them

[Anonymous No.13803852]

Suppose that there is no smallest quantum of matter. It would then be impossible for two separate masses in space to transmit energy from one to the other in order to create change. Because each infinitesimally small particle would not be able to traverse the infinitely recessive space.

For if particles subdivide infinitely, space also subdivides infinitely. There must be a corresponding unit of space for each particle. It would be impossible to traverse infinite space to transmit energy between particles. Therefore there must be a smallest unit of space. (The Planck length as it is posited in quantum mechanics.)

[Anonymous No.13803864]

>>13803852
I should add if there is a smallest unit of space there must also be a minimal quantum of energy (the smallest possible object).Because nothing can fit between the smallest unit of space.

[Anonymous No.13803875]

>>13803852
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunk_(mereology)
Bruh
this very idea is from Aristotle btw

[Anonymous No.13803885]

>>13803852
You're assuming that they're is no smallest quantum of matter but still presuposing all transmission of matter is done through quanta of matter.

And you assumption doesn't prevent bigger masses to be transmitted. There's nothing that say space has to be crossed on a quanta-by-quanta basis.

>It would be impossible to traverse infinite space
Not if there are infinite velocities. If you mass can become arbitrarily small you speed can become arbitrarily high without resulting in infinite quantity of movement.
Also remember than by virtue of being non-infinitesimal, any non-infinitesimal piece of matter already spans an infinity of infinitesimal units of matter.

[Anonymous No.13803902]

>>13803875
Interesting concept but
>that disgusting terminology
>those retarded mock-modal logical arguments of metaphysical possibility
I really want to take analytic philosophy seriously but its practitioners aren' thelping.

[Anonymous No.13803942]

>>13803448
>t. Jay Dyer
What's up I like your content but you're a real sperg on Twitter

[Anonymous No.13803957]

>>13803600
No my opinion would be that you're retarded, a fact would be that you cannot traverse an infinite past to come to the present. If the past regresses infinitely it is by definition impossible to reach the present.

[Anonymous No.13803983]

>>13803838
>Look at me, I will prove the existence of God using nothing but pure logic, athiests BTFO
But you didn't prove the existence of a God as imagined by Abrahamic tradition
>Well it's all a matter of faith anyway, maybe one day you'll understand, athiests BTFO

[Anonymous No.13804031]

>>13803983
The point is that they're not proofs for the existence of God, and Aquinas is quite explicit about it. People believe they are because Christian Wolff, who was a shit medievalist, wrote so in his manuals, Kant and Hegel then dealt with that misinterpretation and ta-daaa, 200 years later retards like you are still spouting that nonsense instead of actually trying to read what St. Thomas wrote.
You're attacking the strawman of a strawman, my friend.