My argument supporting the impossibility of an infinite regress is as follows: an infinite regress proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained. An argument for god's existence doubts about the principle of sufficient reason and about the impossibility of an infinite causal regress have often been linked. Philosophy - the cosmological argument • the cosmological argument as proposed by aquinas with particular reference to: its basis in observation the rejection of infinite regress god as the first. (ii) explain why this does not entail infinite regress (5) 3 the early modern period: has the argument from the orderliness of nature (design) something new to add to the approach of the cosmological argument, by focussing on natural religion.
To begin, just a word about my topic i intend this purely as a descriptive assessment of where we are at this point in the discussion of the cosmological argument. A crucial premise of the argument a priori is that an infinite regress is impossible, because it violates the principle of sufficient reason however, cleanthes takes contention with this claim however, cleanthes takes contention with this claim. 5 cosmological arguments the rejection of berkeley's form of theism entails that if a god is to be introduced at all, it must be as a supplement to the material world, not as a substitute for it. Disallowing an infinite regress of causes is, technically speaking, an assertion required for the argument to work however, a form of pleading can be made that while an infinite regress of temporal causes may be allowable, an infinite regress of non-temporal causes may not.
Cosmological argument for the existence of god the cosmological argument is actually a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos. The thomistic argument does not rule out the possibility of an infinite past, but uses a variety of methods to argue against the hypothesis that there is an infinite regress of causes with no first cause. • this analogy demonstrates the principle of dependency in the cosmological argument and the rejection of infinite regress a contingent being, is something that, logically, could not have been for example it is logically possible that my parents may not have met when they did, and so i would not now exist. Just to be clear, the negation of an infinite regress is one of the key premises of the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, and the cosmological argument - considered by christian theologians to be among the best arguments for god's existence.
The impossibility of an infinite regress allowing that contingent things stand in need of explanation by means of something external to themselves and that the universe is a collection of contingent things, a skeptic might be tempted to appeal to the eternality of the universe. 4 is an infinite chain of temporal causes impossible 5 is an infinite chain of non-temporal causes impossible we've seen one argument for the existence of god which begins from the possibility of certain kinds of thoughts -- the ontological argument -- and another which begins from particular. June 2010 1) explain the cosmological argument with particular reference to: i) the rejection of infinite regress ii) god as the necessary being (30 marks a01) 21 answers should focus on the actual areas listed in the question and how they relate to the cosmological argument rather than on a general presentation of the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument is a family of arguments which seek to demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos the roll of the defenders of this argument reads like a who's who of western philosophy: plato, aristotle, ibn sina, al-ghazali, maimonides, anselm, aquinas, scotus, descartes, spinoza. And think we have thus created the famous (or infamous) 'argument of infinite regress' which aristotle sought to disprove (he argued against it on a number of grounds including the possibility of it becoming self-defeatingly circular - which, in fact, is one of the big flaws in some of hawking's arguments. The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type it uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as god.
John mackie's response to the cosmological argument 29 march 2006 it continually surprises me that the kalam cosmological argument (which, i believe, may be the single best proof for god's existence that natural theology can offer) is rebutted with such brevity that one would conclude that the argument must be a particularly miserable one. The greek philosopher, aristotle (384 bc - 322 bc), contrasts the idea of an 'ultimate cause of all things' with a 'continuous chain of causes' to arrive at the conclusion that 'infinite regress' is absurd and the cause of the universe is, in fact, a 'prime mover. The standard history of the kalam cosmological argument (kca) for god's existence is contained in william lane craig's the cosmological argument from plato to leibniz, and i will sketch it here but first, it will be useful to explain what a cosmological argument is. Cosmological argument: ‑ an a posteriori (empirical, dependent on experience) argument which attempts to prove existence of god by claiming the god is a (transcendent) theoretical postulate necessary to explain some observable feature of the world.