The Book “the Kalam Cosmological Argument” by William Lane Craig offers several philosophical arguments that show there cannot be an actually infinite regress. It’s worth checking out
There are lots of really good, more complex arguments, the Kalam Cosmological being one. I'm not trying to give anything approximating final answers in these videos, just trying to introduce the most basic concepts. Thanks for commenting!
This video totally misses the point of the Aquinas arguments. The series of ''movers'' and ''causes'' is ordered ''essentially'' or ''per se''. Which means that the series is dependent on ''actors'' here and now and not some time in the past, this is why Aquinas uses the analogy of ''stick moves the stone'' and not ''Jacob beget Isac''. Essentially ordered series must have a first mover, which has no potency and is pure act (Actus purus). An infinite chain of movers ordered essentially without the first mover would mean that infinite series of box carts could pull themselves without the locomotive, or infinitely many power chords plugged into each other and expecting them to generate electricity. Now with ''Actus purus'' you can deduce its God like properties.
HI Floyd. Thanks for your comments. I think your initial response is a bit uncharitable in that I am not attempting, in these absurdly short videos, to give the "right" or "correct" or even a complete analysis of the arguments they contain (if such a thing is even possible). The purpose of the videos on this channel is to provide the most basic introduction to some (and only some) of the big questions of Philosophy. The audience I am producing them for would be the same as the undergraduate students in my classroom everyday, but who don't necessarily have the means or access to take a Philosophy 101 class. You are obviously more advanced in your reading and understanding of Philosophy, and I take it you have read Caleb Cohoe's excellent essay, "There Must Be A First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series," from the "British Journal for the History of Philosophy" (2013) from which the interpretation you've summarized is derived. That's great! I applaud your love of Philosophy and hope to instill in those who are only just getting started the same kind of zeal. But again, these are not videos for advanced students like yourself, and I'm sorry if you are disappointed in the content. All the best.
Hey, I am sorry if i came out rude or anything like that - but this is a a mistake almost everyone makes with the Aquinas arguments, and its unfair because it is literary the most important point of the argument - and what bothered me in this video is, that you have said the argument is ''unsuccessful'' when not presenting it properly. I havent read the affore mentioned essay, but i have read an excellent book by Prof. Edward Feser, called ''5 proofs for the existence of God''. Some of the arguments in the book are are basically modern takes on the ''Unmoved mover'' from Aristotle and ''Ipsum esse subsistens'' from Aquinas among others. The others being ''Principle of sufficient reason'' by Leibnitz, ''Argument from eternal truths'' by Augustine and ''The One'' from Plotinus. Its an excellent contemporary book on arguments for Classical theism, and written in a way even layman like me can understand it. And i am not an ''advanced student'', im just some dude on the internet who has somewhat of an interest in this stuff :)
Hey Floyd! Don't sell yourself short; if you're reading the secondary literature, you're a more advanced student! You can find the article here (philarchive.org/rec/COHTMB) and I'd highly recommend it. I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions, but it is a lovely essay. No offense taken from your comments. I often get comments from folks that have a position or view they think is "right" and I try to avoid engaging in that type of language since Philosophy is an ongoing conversation. I guess I would stand by my remark that the argument(s) doesn't work, in the sense that, while there are lots of efforts to interpret it in a way to get around the many objections, there is no consensus that they are successful. Even if we grant something like Cohoe's interpretation of Thomas' view of causation, we still don't get a single or unitary first mover/cause let alone 'God' (as defined in Theism) as the conclusion (which he admits at the end of the paper). But, there are many people still diligently working in Philosophy of Religion, and perhaps the consensus view will change in time. Keep reading and keep thinking!
@Floyd Thomas I was gonna comment on this issue if you haven't. A number line is completely arbitrary when pertaining to the argument of motion and you can essentially get that concept out of your mind. A great way to conceptualize this concept of motion is to think of a turning gear. This gear is essentially being turned by another gear before it. That same gear is being turned by the gear prior to that one. Each of these gears require something to turn itself, and it could not be an infinite chain of gears, because this couldn't be sustainable to exist. It's essentially saying that a golf ball can travel by itself. It needed a force at some point to put it into motion. This argument of sustainability in particular relates to the Actus Purus, in which every potential thing needs a purely actual thing. Another thing, I think you (the guy who made this video) have a misconception of the argument of an infinite regress, so I'll try and explain it the best I can. if the set of gears are hypothetically sustained by an infinite chain of gears, then it would be impossible for the first gear to be set into motion. Think of it this way. Why is (x) divided by zero undefinied? Well because, if you were to divide let's say 0 from 4, you would have to cross out the 4 into a three, and come up with the number 39. So then you try to divide 39 by 0, well cross it out and then add another 9. Eventually, you'll come up with 3.99999-. But the equation would never complete. It would just get closer and closer to infinity. Apply this idea to motion. If you assumed no beginning, you would also be assuming that the infinite amount of motion before the first gear had already occurred. Just as if you assumed 4 divided by 0 equals infinity, you would've already assumed that this infinite equation had finally been solved. The equation can't be complete without this infinite amount of crossing out, just as the first gear couldn't have been turned without the infinite amounts of gears that turned it before it. It's just not possible. I'm not sure aquinas believes that an infinite regression is impossible, but I'm just trying to give you an idea (person who made this video).
