Infinite regress states that if the current premise exist, then there must be an original premise that does not depends on any cause. If you believe in that original premise, then you believe in the same God I do
No we don’t 😂 Even if I agree with you that infinite regress is not possible, if you believe in an eternal god that goes infinitely back, you run into the same problems than with infinite regress. Even if I granted you your special pleading and granted that there is an uncaused cause, that doesn’t get you to an intelligent, personal god. Even if I granted you the intelligent, personal god that doesn’t get you to an all good god. Even if I granted you an all good god as well, that doesn’t get you to the Christian god (assuming you are Christian, but it applies the same for any religion). And even if I granted you the Christian god, that doesn’t get you to the specific Christian god compatible with your denomination. So no, even agreeing with your premise that there must be an uncaused cause, I can still be an atheist or a theist in any other infinite number of possible religions.
@@smoadoist IF I believed the universe had a beginning, but I don’t, I believe the universe has always existed so, therefore there is no infinite regress and the universe is self sufficient. And just inc are you think about it, science also doesn’t say or think the universe had a beginning, science doesn’t know if it did or if it has always existed, we just can’t say scientifically speaking.
although they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this. They follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth. Surah 53 verse 28
If reality exists as a an infinite set of causal events, then it follows that it could have been a different infinite set. But if it could have been different, there’s nothing that would ultimately determine what causes it to be different since we can only work backwards from the present and not forwards from the lack of beginning. This means there’s no reason why this infinite set is actual rather than another. But if one were to say it’s a necessary set of causal events, this brings up the question, why is it necessary? For any event in the chain, it could have been different if the prior cause were different… so there is no causal event in the chain that is necessary, therefore there is no way to say the chain itself is necessary.
From a Scholastic and thus a Thomistic perspective, an infinite regress has causal implications however I think we need some measure of clarification regarding an infinite regress or simply the privation thereof as dispositive of existence . With respect to a powers view of causation within the context of an ordered causal series, and more particularly an ordered causal series per se, an infinite regress renders any causal explanation unintelligible. Why? First, Thomists hold the position that causality is a one-way dependence relation such that there is an asymmetry of dependency between cause and effect. (Kerr, 2012) Second, In an ordered causal series per se, as distinguished from an ordered causal series per accidens, the effect is not only dependent upon but real causal efficacy is wholly derived from the cause such that the cause has the power or otherwise being in actuality to produce the effect. Third, in an ordered causal series per se, a cause x, on which a given effect, y, depends is not only itself dependent on some antecedent cause, w, but cannot be understood to be a cause of y without the causal activity of w. Thus the following causal series is illustrated: (w → (x → y)). (ibid.) In the event w is removed from the causal series such as in the case of an infinite regress the series itself not only loses its causal efficacy but the effect y is rendered unintelligible. So I'd be curious as to your understanding of causation that would permit an infinite regress of an ordered causal series per se if in point of fact you are appealing to such a causal series in your example which from my perspective appears to be the case.
Good point. I knew that an infinite regress meant that the universe would have NEVER reached "today". But I forgot that it STILL doesn't explain "why".
Pleasure to watch you videos!! And i would be happy if you dont mind watching these videos too. They are sooo short and i think it might useful for you! Cheers 1. Something Matters! th-cam.com/video/j3HlJyR7qmg/w-d-xo.html 2. The Meaning Of Life th-cam.com/video/7d16CpWp-ok/w-d-xo.html 3. th-cam.com/video/TpEXRwFN5TY/w-d-xo.html
@You Didn't See Graphite, Because It's Not There There's a difference between grasping that there is a 'why' and grasping what that why is in itself, just as you can grasp the existence of an infinite from extrapolating from finite (for every x, there is an x+1). Ultimately, to say that something is beyond our comprehension is to know that thing's existence or reality in *some way*, since you know enough about it to know that it's beyond your comprehension.
if you have infinte number then you can never reach to number 1. but because you can reach to number one therefore, it is possible to have infinte regress and have today. nother axemple, you can devide a square infinite time, but sumary of infinte small square is finite square. it is possible to have infinte in finte.
An infinite regress is not circular. It's linear. Bringing yourself into existence is illogical because in order to bring something into existence, it has to first not exist, and if you yourself don't exist, you can't create yourself, because you can't create anyone or anything at all.
And this is the problem with most theists. They set up a false dilemma between metaphysical foundationalism and metaphysical infinitism, and ignore another option i.e. metaphysical coherentism.
How could there be a finite infinity? The only explanation (so-far) for causation is an infinitely changing infinity. Magical beings explain nothing, because they, (and their thoughts and actions), would also be contingent. If something can't come from nothing, no-thing could make something from nothing. The only guess we can make, is that something had to always have existed. If there can be no first cause, then the nature of existence must be constant change.
Since there is no such thing as an actual infinite who is relying on magic here? " If something can't come from nothing, no-thing could make something from nothing. " This statement sounds like a Dawkinism. It works by using a not standard definition of the term "Nothing." The definition of nothing in a philosophic sense "Out of nothing, nothing comes," (Just about the oldest philosophical maxim 2500 years+) is: HAVING NO ATTRIBUTES. Your statement is guilty of equivocation. It attempts to use nonsense to falsify one of the foundational axioms in philosophy. Any basic intro to logic will help you gain an understanding of your mistake. Blessings.
@@ubergenie6041 What do you think about the argument from change? Contemporary science also points to the beginning of the universe; if there's a first cause then it has to be by definition beginningless and since its effect ( universe ) is not permanent as the cause itself - the cause made some kind of "choice" to start the chain of cause and effect. Hence, making it the first mover.
God is the only possible explanation, and seeing as God by definition is not part of the physical universe so doesn’t have to conform to any of its rules, automatically that makes him necessary and nothing about him contingent
@@momenkhan8838 If there must be something non-contingent, it doesn't need to think. it merely needs to be an eternal force. And since thinking is contingent upon an apparatus for thinking, by definition, any thinking agent must be contingent. Otherwise you are using language improperly. Making up a world that doesn't conform to logic, is just make-believe. And you can say anything, and therefore no fantasy is any more valid than any other. But in fact, since none of that is needed to explain anything, it is entirely pointless and irrelevant.
Then what about the actions of God? Since God always could create (and not obtained this attribute) one thing after another, then this premise requires that an infinite regress is at the very least possibble isnt it?
you would just say the universe is a set of inter-contingent parts. their existence continges on the existence of each other with nothing necessary there. The universe would in fact not be 1 thing but a set of inter-contingent things whose existence is simultaneous. The only thing necessary is the fact they exist and the fact they are inter-contingent. but these are necessary facts not necessary things (objects, minds, etc.)
Also, a god wouldnt have to be omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Only sufficiently potent to create this particular universe we live in in its particular form, only omniscient enough to know particular things but not know enough that he knows there are things he doesnt know, and only good enough to not be a liar to be able to reveal things that he believes is true to us.
From my perspective God would have to be all powerful as if he wasn't that would therefore render him unable to preform miracles, Jesu's death and resurrection etc. etc.
@@mothernature1755 well we can't be quite sure that he can only preform some miracles because it dosen't make much sense for him to be bound by only some laws of physics especially when the miracles he performs violates almost all laws of physics. I see where your coming form but im not quite convinced.
I've been never known anyone to use an infinite regress of any kind as an explanation of existence; existence can't HAVE an explanation, at least not if you're talking about existence as a whole, since by definition everything in reality is subsumed into that set, including any explanations you might want to put forth. If it is indeed possible that nothing could have existed (yes, I know that's really awkward wording), then as far as I can tell, the fact that something exists rather than nothing can only be a brute fact; the ultimate brute fact, in fact.
Well, if 'nothing' is simply an impossible 'state' (again, I realize that this is extremely sloppy wording, but I simply don't know how else to describe it), then that would be all the explanation that would be needed: something exists rather than nothing, because 'nothing' simply cannot exist, and thus 'something' must. Now granted, that still begs the obvious question of why, out of the potentially infinite number of conceivable ways reality could have been (all possible, internally consistent books in the proverbial Library of Babel, so to speak), it is THIS reality that is THE reality? And as for that question, I personally don't think there can be any satisfactory answer to it. That, too, would appear to be almost by necessity a brute fact. Assuming that Modal Realism isn't the case, which for all we know it may be, in which case the entire discussion is simply misguided.
***** Well, sure, in the sense that if a certain member of a set of existent objects, call it 'X', cannot not exist (which would itself require some kind of explanation for that fact), and X somehow populated the set with all other members of that set, then in that sense one could say that X is the explanation for all other existing things in that set. Of course, this assumes that it's even possible for an object to possess the 'property', for lack of a better word, of being incapable of not existing or of having not existed, which I personally don't think is possible, at least not when it comes to concrete things. In my opinion, 'necessary existence' applies entirely and solely to the realm of abstract objects, laws of logic, etc. Because concrete entities invariably possess at least some properties which one could easily and coherently imagine as having been different. And I simply don't think it's meaningful or even coherent to say that an object/entity as a whole is 'necessary' even though all or at least some of its parts or properties are logically contingent. Since the identity of a thing can ultimately be defined as being the sum of its properties or predicates that can be said about it; of course, this simply isn't possible in practice, but in principle, that always struck me as the best way of thinking about it. That's why to me, the existence of brute facts, at least at some fundamental level of reality, seems all but unavoidable. And I appreciate the compliments, but you're giving me a bit too much credit. I'm basically just a layman who enjoys reading about and debating matters of philosophy as a matter of personal interest to me. I'm not an actual philosopher or anything, though I do regret, now, not having taken any philosophy courses when I was in college and university. I've basically learned all I know about philosophy 'autodidact' style.
Likewise, I'm glad that there are people like you who are interested in having productive discourses about subjects like this, even with people who ultimately may disagree with your conclusions. I confess, the overwhelming majority of people I talk to in Facebook groups and the like who disagree with me couldn't care less about having productive conversations, which gets rather discouraging. It's refreshing to talk with someone like you who does. As for your article, yeah I might take a look at it, though I can't promise it will be very soon, as unfortunately I'm really busy lately. For the purposes of disclosure, I do typically identify as an atheist (at least of the 'weak' variety as far as generic forms of theism/deism are concerned) and tentative naturalist.
I just clicked on the link, but for some reason the video isn't coming up. I'm assuming that probably means you're still working on it. But as for the actual issue you brought up, even though I haven't heard your actual take on it yet, I think I would likely respond by simply asking "well, why would we expect otherwise?" I certainly don't see any reason to think that the assumption of the ultimate nature of reality simply being a brute fact leads to the possibility of things just randomly winking out of existence or undergoing spontaneous changes in fundamental nature. After all, if a part of that ultimate brute fact includes whatever most fundamental laws 'govern' reality, why should we expect them to change? I mean sure, it's possible in the sense that I don't see why it would be logically impossible. But it certainly doesn't by any stretch of the imagination seem inevitable or even probable. Though admittedly, I'm not entirely sure how one would meaningfully estimate probabilities in such circumstances. Granted, I've yet to see your video because I can't get it to open, but those are my generic thoughts on this issue, assuming I'm not entirely misunderstanding what it is you're actually talking about. If that's the case, I apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting what you're discussing.
I think you misunderstand the idea of why the universe can be perceived that way. 1st you assume that time is a line, but the theory of relativity makes clear that it can be dilated, which means that time itself had behaved very differently at the beginning of the universe, almost as if there has been an infinty at the start because of all the mass that was so close together. Which means that the starting point of the universe cannot be a single point.
If you need to read a book, but you need to wait for an infinite number of people in front of you or behind you to read it first, will you ever end up reading the book? No. For the same reason, the universe would not exist if such a concept were true. Unfortunately, atheism will you lead you down one of those two impossible realities. Infinite regression or universe from nothing.
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas Ok, so you don't need an English lesson. You're just butthurt about something you don't understand. I'd start with learning about infinite regression.
Funny how atheist say that our belief in God is based of blind faith with no evidence, when in reality it takes more blind faith to believe there is no God, then to believe there is a God.
Do you think the universe is as infinite microscopically as it is macrocosmically? If we had a super microscope with no limit on magnification, would it ever find a stop point? I believe not, as you can have 0.000000000000001mm and so on. If this is the case, where do we, as humans, stand?
@@agarztheyounger infinite is a relative concept, like parallel plate capacitor are consisted to be infinitly long but they're infinite as compared to distance between them. So it's relative i guess.
Existence is not explained by anything. It is just brute. Explanations, however, can be foundational or circular. This video is seriously flawed. Clearly, it assumes the possibility of other parts popping into being out of nothing, it also assumes personal identity and assumes what you are made of, began to exist. Existence has to do with metaphysics, whereas, explanations has to do with epistemology. A circular explanation can be coherent. For eg. If we consider Munchaussen's Trilemma which has metaphysical applications. Either a, b or c. A - Foundationalism, B - Coherentism, C - Infinitism. To accept one requires one to make a presupposition. No Presupposition is inherently wrong, it just begs the question against the other options.
Obviously an infinite regression cannot be as an infinity would have to pass before we existed and I do exist. The problem of a first cause is also insurmountable as in the whole god thing. god had to have a thought and for god to have a thought, god must exist. Where did god come from? Without again falling back to infinite regression, god must have had a beginning. How did nothing beget a god? The only reasonable explanation is that everything, all possibilities exist. Past, present, future with no beginning or end, It all just is, including nothing. In answer to the blah blah blah. How do you even know that I exist? You see in your dreams with no input to the closed eyes. You obviously then, do not need eyes to see, so what makes you think you have eyes? Or even a brain? Think that is bizarre? Maybe you are a god and are only aware of this life you have now (including memories) for an instant (though memories create the illusion of time) and the next instant you are aware of a completely different life (no memories of the previous) and on and on ... ad infinitum. No time passes. No infinite regression. No future. You are just aware of everything right now. Everything exists, right now.
Alright, covering all options sounds wise. It didn't seem that way in the presentation. To me, it sounded like the presentation was addressing a "popular" explanation. Cheers.
I have taken a look at a few other of your videos. I admire your enthusiasm in this field. I would like to say in my opinion, the infinite regress model works only if everything is a sort of steady state model one without Aristotelian motion. Although entirely possible and likely to be the correct nature of reality, the human mind has been molded to see through a persistent filter of motion. This is what makes the first cause argument better to focus on and likely work by exclusion.
Thanks! Yes, I have other videos where I address whether an infinite regress would take away the *need* for an explanation. This video is just on the option that it would provide an explanation of existence.
@Ibn Adam Existence is eternal. Either we do actually exist but then reality becomes an infinite regress. Or there is no infinite regress but then we would ex nihilo and so we simply wouldn't be real because if there is in fact a smallest thing in the universe that thing would be nothing, because if that smallest thing is something it has to also be made up of something.
@Ibn Adam end of past? When has time ended then? Nothing in time has ever ended or begun and there is no reason why to assume otherwise. Why is infinite regress such a leap yet a somehow uncaused causer (God) not so??
@@noniiii3 Your life began the day you were conceived or the day you were born (whichever way you view it). What do you mean nothing has ever began or ended? I will end this comment now
@@kitt7531 is life a real phenomenon or is it just a construct, matter cannot be created or destroyed, life is just a reaction of many different molecules and chemicals, none of which could ever be created or destroyed
@@kitt7531 a consciousness began and from there an ego you GIVE a name to. Intuition makes us feel like we're a new thing but we're an old thing with old genes to prove it and of course it does because it whips the genetic vessels we are.
نور الإلحاد If logic can’t prove the existence of anything than nothing can what you just said is a ridiculous statement the only way to prove something by your standard is through material evidence
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
Infinite regress states that if the current premise exist, then there must be an original premise that does not depends on any cause. If you believe in that original premise, then you believe in the same God I do
No we don’t 😂
Even if I agree with you that infinite regress is not possible, if you believe in an eternal god that goes infinitely back, you run into the same problems than with infinite regress.
Even if I granted you your special pleading and granted that there is an uncaused cause, that doesn’t get you to an intelligent, personal god.
Even if I granted you the intelligent, personal god that doesn’t get you to an all good god.
Even if I granted you an all good god as well, that doesn’t get you to the Christian god (assuming you are Christian, but it applies the same for any religion).
And even if I granted you the Christian god, that doesn’t get you to the specific Christian god compatible with your denomination.
So no, even agreeing with your premise that there must be an uncaused cause, I can still be an atheist or a theist in any other infinite number of possible religions.
@@alejandrovallejo4330 No because God is self sufficient.
@@smoadoist and the universe is self sufficient as well so no need for god.
@@alejandrovallejo4330 infinite regress literally explains why the universe is not self sufficient.
@@smoadoist IF I believed the universe had a beginning, but I don’t, I believe the universe has always existed so, therefore there is no infinite regress and the universe is self sufficient.
And just inc are you think about it, science also doesn’t say or think the universe had a beginning, science doesn’t know if it did or if it has always existed, we just can’t say scientifically speaking.
although they have no knowledge ˹in support˺ of this. They follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth. Surah 53 verse 28
whats the point of this?
If reality exists as a an infinite set of causal events, then it follows that it could have been a different infinite set. But if it could have been different, there’s nothing that would ultimately determine what causes it to be different since we can only work backwards from the present and not forwards from the lack of beginning. This means there’s no reason why this infinite set is actual rather than another. But if one were to say it’s a necessary set of causal events, this brings up the question, why is it necessary? For any event in the chain, it could have been different if the prior cause were different… so there is no causal event in the chain that is necessary, therefore there is no way to say the chain itself is necessary.
This guy likes his circles doesn't he.
From a Scholastic and thus a Thomistic perspective, an infinite regress has causal implications however I think we need some measure of clarification regarding an infinite regress or simply the privation thereof as dispositive of existence . With respect to a powers view of causation within the context of an ordered causal series, and more particularly an ordered causal series per se, an infinite regress renders any causal explanation unintelligible. Why? First, Thomists hold the position that causality is a one-way dependence relation such that there is an asymmetry of dependency between cause and effect. (Kerr, 2012) Second, In an ordered causal series per se, as distinguished from an ordered causal series per accidens, the effect is not only dependent upon but real causal efficacy is wholly derived from the cause such that the cause has the power or otherwise being in actuality to produce the effect. Third, in an ordered causal series per se, a cause x, on which a given effect, y, depends is not only itself dependent on some antecedent cause, w, but cannot be understood to be a cause of y without the causal activity of w. Thus the following causal series is illustrated: (w → (x → y)). (ibid.) In the event w is removed from the causal series such as in the case of an infinite regress the series itself not only loses its causal efficacy but the effect y is rendered unintelligible. So I'd be curious as to your understanding of causation that would permit an infinite regress of an ordered causal series per se if in point of fact you are appealing to such a causal series in your example which from my perspective appears to be the case.
Good point. I knew that an infinite regress meant that the universe would have NEVER reached "today". But I forgot that it STILL doesn't explain "why".
Pleasure to watch you videos!! And i would be happy if you dont mind watching these videos too. They are sooo short and i think it might useful for you! Cheers
1. Something Matters! th-cam.com/video/j3HlJyR7qmg/w-d-xo.html
2. The Meaning Of Life th-cam.com/video/7d16CpWp-ok/w-d-xo.html
3. th-cam.com/video/TpEXRwFN5TY/w-d-xo.html
@You Didn't See Graphite, Because It's Not There There's a difference between grasping that there is a 'why' and grasping what that why is in itself, just as you can grasp the existence of an infinite from extrapolating from finite (for every x, there is an x+1). Ultimately, to say that something is beyond our comprehension is to know that thing's existence or reality in *some way*, since you know enough about it to know that it's beyond your comprehension.
if you have infinte number then you can never reach to number 1. but because you can reach to number one therefore, it is possible to have infinte regress and have today.
nother axemple, you can devide a square infinite time, but sumary of infinte small square is finite square.
it is possible to have infinte in finte.
Y anwser by the creator not assumptions of human mind.
well to be precise if you have an eternalistic universe never reaching today wouldnt matter
An infinite regress is not circular. It's linear. Bringing yourself into existence is illogical because in order to bring something into existence, it has to first not exist, and if you yourself don't exist, you can't create yourself, because you can't create anyone or anything at all.
False equivalency
And this is the problem with most theists. They set up a false dilemma between metaphysical foundationalism and metaphysical infinitism, and ignore another option i.e. metaphysical coherentism.
Nothing can not beget something but something exists therefore something must have always existed without a cause otherwise nothing would exist
Infinite existence, over time, evolves.
What do you mean?
Doesn’t matter, it’s still a fallacy from the get go
@@momenkhan8838 How so?
How could there be a finite infinity? The only explanation (so-far) for causation is an infinitely changing infinity. Magical beings explain nothing, because they, (and their thoughts and actions), would also be contingent. If something can't come from nothing, no-thing could make something from nothing.
The only guess we can make, is that something had to always have existed. If there can be no first cause, then the nature of existence must be constant change.
Since there is no such thing as an actual infinite who is relying on magic here?
" If something can't come from nothing, no-thing could make something from nothing. "
This statement sounds like a Dawkinism. It works by using a not standard definition of the term "Nothing."
The definition of nothing in a philosophic sense "Out of nothing, nothing comes," (Just about the oldest philosophical maxim 2500 years+) is:
HAVING NO ATTRIBUTES.
Your statement is guilty of equivocation. It attempts to use nonsense to falsify one of the foundational axioms in philosophy. Any basic intro to logic will help you gain an understanding of your mistake. Blessings.
Uber Genie it is not axiom you fucking moron, how can it be axiom when its not accepted?
@@ubergenie6041 What do you think about the argument from change? Contemporary science also points to the beginning of the universe; if there's a first cause then it has to be by definition beginningless and since its effect ( universe ) is not permanent as the cause itself - the cause made some kind of "choice" to start the chain of cause and effect. Hence, making it the first mover.
God is the only possible explanation, and seeing as God by definition is not part of the physical universe so doesn’t have to conform to any of its rules, automatically that makes him necessary and nothing about him contingent
@@momenkhan8838 If there must be something non-contingent, it doesn't need to think. it merely needs to be an eternal force. And since thinking is contingent upon an apparatus for thinking, by definition, any thinking agent must be contingent. Otherwise you are using language improperly. Making up a world that doesn't conform to logic, is just make-believe. And you can say anything, and therefore no fantasy is any more valid than any other. But in fact, since none of that is needed to explain anything, it is entirely pointless and irrelevant.
Then what about the actions of God? Since God always could create (and not obtained this attribute) one thing after another, then this premise requires that an infinite regress is at the very least possibble isnt it?
you would just say the universe is a set of inter-contingent parts. their existence continges on the existence of each other with nothing necessary there. The universe would in fact not be 1 thing but a set of inter-contingent things whose existence is simultaneous. The only thing necessary is the fact they exist and the fact they are inter-contingent. but these are necessary facts not necessary things (objects, minds, etc.)
Also, a god wouldnt have to be omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Only sufficiently potent to create this particular universe we live in in its particular form, only omniscient enough to know particular things but not know enough that he knows there are things he doesnt know, and only good enough to not be a liar to be able to reveal things that he believes is true to us.
From my perspective God would have to be all powerful as if he wasn't that would therefore render him unable to preform miracles, Jesu's death and resurrection etc. etc.
@@agarztheyounger it would just render him unable to perform some miracles, not all
@@mothernature1755 well we can't be quite sure that he can only preform some miracles because it dosen't make much sense for him to be bound by only some laws of physics especially when the miracles he performs violates almost all laws of physics. I see where your coming form but im not quite convinced.
@@agarztheyounger law of physics are gods creation
@@_eLf45 then we agree that He must be all powerful
I've been never known anyone to use an infinite regress of any kind as an explanation of existence; existence can't HAVE an explanation, at least not if you're talking about existence as a whole, since by definition everything in reality is subsumed into that set, including any explanations you might want to put forth. If it is indeed possible that nothing could have existed (yes, I know that's really awkward wording), then as far as I can tell, the fact that something exists rather than nothing can only be a brute fact; the ultimate brute fact, in fact.
Well, if 'nothing' is simply an impossible 'state' (again, I realize that this is extremely sloppy wording, but I simply don't know how else to describe it), then that would be all the explanation that would be needed: something exists rather than nothing, because 'nothing' simply cannot exist, and thus 'something' must. Now granted, that still begs the obvious question of why, out of the potentially infinite number of conceivable ways reality could have been (all possible, internally consistent books in the proverbial Library of Babel, so to speak), it is THIS reality that is THE reality?
And as for that question, I personally don't think there can be any satisfactory answer to it. That, too, would appear to be almost by necessity a brute fact. Assuming that Modal Realism isn't the case, which for all we know it may be, in which case the entire discussion is simply misguided.
***** Well, sure, in the sense that if a certain member of a set of existent objects, call it 'X', cannot not exist (which would itself require some kind of explanation for that fact), and X somehow populated the set with all other members of that set, then in that sense one could say that X is the explanation for all other existing things in that set. Of course, this assumes that it's even possible for an object to possess the 'property', for lack of a better word, of being incapable of not existing or of having not existed, which I personally don't think is possible, at least not when it comes to concrete things. In my opinion, 'necessary existence' applies entirely and solely to the realm of abstract objects, laws of logic, etc. Because concrete entities invariably possess at least some properties which one could easily and coherently imagine as having been different.
And I simply don't think it's meaningful or even coherent to say that an object/entity as a whole is 'necessary' even though all or at least some of its parts or properties are logically contingent. Since the identity of a thing can ultimately be defined as being the sum of its properties or predicates that can be said about it; of course, this simply isn't possible in practice, but in principle, that always struck me as the best way of thinking about it. That's why to me, the existence of brute facts, at least at some fundamental level of reality, seems all but unavoidable.
And I appreciate the compliments, but you're giving me a bit too much credit. I'm basically just a layman who enjoys reading about and debating matters of philosophy as a matter of personal interest to me. I'm not an actual philosopher or anything, though I do regret, now, not having taken any philosophy courses when I was in college and university. I've basically learned all I know about philosophy 'autodidact' style.
Likewise, I'm glad that there are people like you who are interested in having productive discourses about subjects like this, even with people who ultimately may disagree with your conclusions. I confess, the overwhelming majority of people I talk to in Facebook groups and the like who disagree with me couldn't care less about having productive conversations, which gets rather discouraging. It's refreshing to talk with someone like you who does. As for your article, yeah I might take a look at it, though I can't promise it will be very soon, as unfortunately I'm really busy lately. For the purposes of disclosure, I do typically identify as an atheist (at least of the 'weak' variety as far as generic forms of theism/deism are concerned) and tentative naturalist.
Thanks. I'll check it out when I have the chance. 😊
I just clicked on the link, but for some reason the video isn't coming up. I'm assuming that probably means you're still working on it. But as for the actual issue you brought up, even though I haven't heard your actual take on it yet, I think I would likely respond by simply asking "well, why would we expect otherwise?" I certainly don't see any reason to think that the assumption of the ultimate nature of reality simply being a brute fact leads to the possibility of things just randomly winking out of existence or undergoing spontaneous changes in fundamental nature.
After all, if a part of that ultimate brute fact includes whatever most fundamental laws 'govern' reality, why should we expect them to change? I mean sure, it's possible in the sense that I don't see why it would be logically impossible. But it certainly doesn't by any stretch of the imagination seem inevitable or even probable. Though admittedly, I'm not entirely sure how one would meaningfully estimate probabilities in such circumstances. Granted, I've yet to see your video because I can't get it to open, but those are my generic thoughts on this issue, assuming I'm not entirely misunderstanding what it is you're actually talking about. If that's the case, I apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting what you're discussing.
I think you misunderstand the idea of why the universe can be perceived that way. 1st you assume that time is a line, but the theory of relativity makes clear that it can be dilated, which means that time itself had behaved very differently at the beginning of the universe, almost as if there has been an infinty at the start because of all the mass that was so close together. Which means that the starting point of the universe cannot be a single point.
Lol, wut. It's not a universal dilation, rather local observations relative to the constant speed of light.
Interesting
If you need to read a book, but you need to wait for an infinite number of people in front of you or behind you to read it first, will you ever end up reading the book? No. For the same reason, the universe would not exist if such a concept were true.
Unfortunately, atheism will you lead you down one of those two impossible realities. Infinite regression or universe from nothing.
But the book will always be being read?
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas Read again. It's contingent. Note the conditional clause 'if'.
@@tahabennett7388 i read it again, still sounds like you take a running jump of the cliff of logic into the sea of bs
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas Ok, so you don't need an English lesson. You're just butthurt about something you don't understand. I'd start with learning about infinite regression.
Funny how atheist say that our belief in God is based of blind faith with no evidence, when in reality it takes more blind faith to believe there is no God, then to believe there is a God.
Do you think the universe is as infinite microscopically as it is macrocosmically? If we had a super microscope with no limit on magnification, would it ever find a stop point?
I believe not, as you can have 0.000000000000001mm and so on. If this is the case, where do we, as humans, stand?
Look at SEM videos to visualize what I mean, it's a hard concept to truly grasp but the microscopic world appears just as detailed as ours.
@@alexwood7678 yes but it isn't infinite,
@@agarztheyounger relatively for us, it is right?
@@Sanjay-ub7eq Infinity is a concept but does not exist in reality, it only expresses potential but nothing in reality is truly infinite.
@@agarztheyounger infinite is a relative concept, like parallel plate capacitor are consisted to be infinitly long but they're infinite as compared to distance between them. So it's relative i guess.
It’s not trying to explain anything.
All to do about nothing
GOB IS THE MEANING OF EXISTENCE, AND GOD EXPLAINS NOTHING. GREATEST CON OF ALL TIME !!!!!!!!!!
Existence is not explained by anything. It is just brute. Explanations, however, can be foundational or circular. This video is seriously flawed. Clearly, it assumes the possibility of other parts popping into being out of nothing, it also assumes personal identity and assumes what you are made of, began to exist. Existence has to do with metaphysics, whereas, explanations has to do with epistemology. A circular explanation can be coherent. For eg. If we consider Munchaussen's Trilemma which has metaphysical applications. Either a, b or c. A - Foundationalism, B - Coherentism, C - Infinitism. To accept one requires one to make a presupposition. No Presupposition is inherently wrong, it just begs the question against the other options.
This is why you only have 6k subscribers even after 7 years
Obviously an infinite regression cannot be as an infinity would have to pass before we existed and I do exist. The problem of a first cause is also insurmountable as in the whole god thing. god had to have a thought and for god to have a thought, god must exist. Where did god come from? Without again falling back to infinite regression, god must have had a beginning. How did nothing beget a god? The only reasonable explanation is that everything, all possibilities exist. Past, present, future with no beginning or end, It all just is, including nothing.
In answer to the blah blah blah. How do you even know that I exist? You see in your dreams with no input to the closed eyes. You obviously then, do not need eyes to see, so what makes you think you have eyes? Or even a brain?
Think that is bizarre? Maybe you are a god and are only aware of this life you have now (including memories) for an instant (though memories create the illusion of time) and the next instant you are aware of a completely different life (no memories of the previous) and on and on ... ad infinitum. No time passes. No infinite regression. No future. You are just aware of everything right now. Everything exists, right now.
Why are you repeating the infinite regress fallacy? First cause is uncause that's the most logical answer, it is what it is.
Is this video a joke of some sorts? I haven't heard of infinite regress ever being used as an explanation of existence...it's usually the opposite.
Alright, covering all options sounds wise. It didn't seem that way in the presentation. To me, it sounded like the presentation was addressing a "popular" explanation. Cheers.
I have taken a look at a few other of your videos. I admire your enthusiasm in this field.
I would like to say in my opinion, the infinite regress model works only if everything is a sort of steady state model one without Aristotelian motion. Although entirely possible and likely to be the correct nature of reality, the human mind has been molded to see through a persistent filter of motion. This is what makes the first cause argument better to focus on and likely work by exclusion.
Thanks! Yes, I have other videos where I address whether an infinite regress would take away the *need* for an explanation. This video is just on the option that it would provide an explanation of existence.
Lol existence is eternal.
@Ibn Adam Existence is eternal. Either we do actually exist but then reality becomes an infinite regress. Or there is no infinite regress but then we would ex nihilo and so we simply wouldn't be real because if there is in fact a smallest thing in the universe that thing would be nothing, because if that smallest thing is something it has to also be made up of something.
@Ibn Adam end of past? When has time ended then? Nothing in time has ever ended or begun and there is no reason why to assume otherwise. Why is infinite regress such a leap yet a somehow uncaused causer (God) not so??
@@noniiii3 Your life began the day you were conceived or the day you were born (whichever way you view it). What do you mean nothing has ever began or ended? I will end this comment now
@@kitt7531 is life a real phenomenon or is it just a construct, matter cannot be created or destroyed, life is just a reaction of many different molecules and chemicals, none of which could ever be created or destroyed
@@kitt7531 a consciousness began and from there an ego you GIVE a name to. Intuition makes us feel like we're a new thing but we're an old thing with old genes to prove it and of course it does because it whips the genetic vessels we are.
This guy doesnt understand the problem of infinite regress very well
Hume was right. There is no problem with infinite regress. You just want to problematise it to find a place for your sky daddy.
You failed to understand the video
@@uzairnaseer5059 I understood it correctly. I see it for what it is, religious apologetics in philosophical parlance.
نور الإلحاد this has nothing to do with religion ,it’s literally just using the rules of logic. Without logic we literally can say anything
@@uzairnaseer5059 Logic in of itself cannot prove the existence of anything. Let alone proving ''necessary existence.''
نور الإلحاد If logic can’t prove the existence of anything than nothing can what you just said is a ridiculous statement the only way to prove something by your standard is through material evidence
The theory of infinite regression is not supposed to explain existence, it's supposed to explain why ALLAH must be eternal.
GOB IS THE MEANING OF EXISTENCE, AND GOD EXPLAINS NOTHING. GREATEST CON OF ALL TIME !!!!!!!!!!