I'm a theist. I follow Aristotle in thinking the problem of infinite regress establishes foundationalism and necessarily proves a supreme being exists.
Can you convince me non foundationalism is tenable? Genuinely interested.
I'm a theist.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
That is retarded because you just arbitrarily do not apply the logic you used to arrive to a creator to the creator itself for no fucking reason.
Not him, but when facing a dichotomy and one option is incoherent, you're actually justified in choosing the other one. It's called an elimination method.
Not at all, the first mover is not a creature himself
According to who? You? There’s no concrete reason theists can come up with for exactly why the logic they use to arrive at god does not apply to god other than “I said so.”
Logical necessity
Is this a new concept to you?
Lol @ how Christians pretend that god could have always existed without a creator and can’t fathom that whatever constitutes the universe couldn’t have existed forever
> i don’t understand it so god exists!
You do know the contingency argument works for an eternal universe as well... right? Aquinas explicitly points this out.
If you can reconcile an eternal universe with ever-increasing entropy, be my guest. No published paper so far manages to quite get there.
> I don’t understand it so god
Lol nobody 1000 years ago could understand why natural disasters happened so they defaulted to “god is angry.” Doing that in 2022 is shockingly intellectually deficient when countless things we didn’t understand that were once attributed to god have been explained.
>Unscientific but at least not theistic
Sure won this one lol
> I can’t comprehend this and nobody else has figured it out so it must be god
Congratulations, you have the thinking skills of someone from 4000BC
Yep. That's why I propose things that are legitimately incoherent with scientific findings and dodge it every time it's brought up. Oh wait... thats you
>Logical necessity
Ah, so circular reasoning
According to the argument. You seem to not be very aware of what it says and concludes... are you sure you want to keep discussing it?
Did Aristotle ever address the Supreme Being's weakness against iron chariots?
No, but Biblical scholars have addressed this cope millenia ago. Points for trying though.
If their response is as good as their harmonization of the different accounts of Judas' death, I think I'll pass. Biblical scholars are experts in ad hoc mental gymnastics, I don't expect much of them.
>Infinite regression is fallacious
>therefore, I opted for this other fallacy instead.
An attribute not being universal isn't fallacious.
>I'm special needs
Got you covered, homie.
Thanks! An attribute not being universal still isn't fallacious lmao I have no idea why you think that barely related template answer was gonna work.
nta, I'll go with axiomatic grounding
Infinite regress is not a problem at all, a recursion is perfectly logically possible.
Infinite regress is a problem when you're trying to explain something. Try to think of the last time you've heard it as an explanation.
When would you ever hear an uncaused cause as an explanation other than God? You never do, because it's illogical, a recursion on the other hand objectively isn't.
You very regularly hear "this attribute doesn't apply to all entities" as an explanation. There is nothing illogical about it. Causality is an attribute, not logic itself.
Infinite regress on the other hand, regardless of scope or application, is never used. Unless you have an example.
Okay so then an atheist can just define the universe as having the attribute "uncaused" and by this logic therefore do not need to justify it. This line of argument fails immediately.
>Infinite regress on the other hand, regardless of scope or application, is never used. Unless you have an example.
An infinite regress is slightly different from a recursion and recursions are everywhere. Personally I think God is caused recursively, and the cause of God, or the cause of whatever being caused God lies in the future.
The first mover is the big bang.
Your move.
>I follow Aristotle in thinking the problem of infinite regress establishes foundationalism and necessarily proves a supreme being exists
Okay, cool. So you don't understand Aristotle nor have you ever read Aristotle. Good to know.
universe exists, therefore it started sometime, therefore the only explanation for the universe is a story some bronze age cultists copied from older stories and changed some details and names in order to gain more influence is suddenly true?
what about all the other religions, hmm?
>universe exists, therefore it started sometime
This actually doesn't logically follow and is a mental bias of our perception of the world around us operating in closed causal sequences.
I'm just repeated his batshit logic
Infinite regress isn’t a problem. Causality isn’t real, time is an illusion. Special relativity proves there is no such thing as a universal present, so time isn’t a flowing thing. There is no need to ask why anything exists because “why” itself is unfounded. Causality itself is undefined, it is just pattern recognition in evolved monkeys. It is perfectly conceivable that we live in a multiverse of multiverses, or that a universe can have an infinitely long time dimension (there is no past, present, or future, that is illusion within experience).
God if proven by the impossibility of the contrary, yes.
>Can you convince me
don't you do preslurping?
how can I convince you of anything
first cause isn't enough to prove god, it needs to be supplemented with some teleological argument or another argument to "prove" god.
wlc's kalam, aquinas five ways and various others all do this
All arguments against infinite regress boil down to “At some point I want to stop thinking”. Why do we need some step of logic that has no justification, even though all previous steps have one? That makes all reasoning arbitrary.