How about this one:

1. Assume an infinite regress of time ordered events
2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago *
3. These events must have been caused by prior events
4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -∞)
5. Contradiction; so an infinite regress of events is impossible

*If all events occurred finitely long ago, then it is not an infinite regress

2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago.

If all events occurred finitely long ago, then it is not an infinite regress. — Devans99

What? What does it mean for an event to have taken place infinitely long ago? And no, there's nothing about an infinite regress which necessitates that each event in the chain cannot have occurred a finite length of time ago. For example, there can be an infinite regress of events, each of which occurred a minute apart.

4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -∞) — Devans99

What? You need to explain that properly.

What does it mean for an event to have taken place infinitely long ago? — S

I don't know. Nonsense as far as I can tell but thats because infinity is nonsense. I'm trying to present an argument based on the rules of infinity and then to arrive at a contradiction. Problem is infinity is so shot through of contradictions that it's hard work to avoid them on the way...

And no, there's nothing about an infinite regress which necessitates that each event in the chain cannot have occurred a finite length of time ago. — S

If all of the of events occurred a finite time ago, there must a point in time before which no events occurred. That implies a first event; IE not an infinite regress.

"4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -∞)
— Devans99

What? You need to explain that properly. — S

Its a problem with infinity; events are time ordered but that ordering breaks down at -∞; all events at an infinite distance in time from us are co-incidental which is mad...

I don't know. Nonsense as far as I can tell but thats because infinity is nonsense. I'm trying to present an argument based on the rules of infinity and then to arrive at a contradiction. Problem is infinity is so shot through of contradictions that it's hard work to avoid them on the way... — Devans99

An argument with a nonsensical premise that you can't explain is not an argument which can succeed.

If all of the of events occurred a finite time ago, there must a point in time before which no events occurred. — Devans99

Why must there be? You never set out your reasoning fully, which leaves me guessing.

Its a problem with infinity; events are time ordered but that ordering breaks down at -∞; — Devans99

Why would it breakdown?

all events at an infinite distance in time from us are co-incidental which is mad... — Devans99

As in, happening at the same time? How did you reach this conclusion?

I'm trying to present an argument based on the rules of infinity and then to arrive at a contradiction. — Devans99

It would help if you actually understood the rules of infinity that mathematicians recognize, which are different from the rules of finite quantities; then perhaps you would finally realize that they are not contradictory at all.

"If all of the of events occurred a finite time ago, there must a point in time before which no events occurred.
— Devans99

Why must there be? You never set out your reasoning fully, which leaves me guessing. — S

If each event occurred a finite time ago, before each event, there must be an actually infinite number of other events. So there must be an event that occurred at t = -∞ (else it would not be an infinite regress). But that event cannot have a predecessor as there is nothing before -∞. So infinite regress requires actual infinity and that concept does not work with cause and effect.

So the argument in full again:

An infinite regress of events is not possible (if cause and effect apply):

1. Assume an infinite regress of time ordered events
2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago *
3. These events must have been caused by prior events
4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -∞)
5. Contradiction; an infinite regress of events is impossible

* If all events occurred finitely long ago then then before each such event is an actual infinity of past events (if it was a finite number of prior events, would not be an infinite regress). So there must be some events occurred at time/event number -∞. There is nothing prior to this to cause such events; so thats impossible by axiom of cause and effect.

So there must be an event that occurred at t = -∞ (else it would not be an infinite regress). But that event cannot have a predecessor as there is nothing before -∞. — Devans99

That conclusion does not logically follow from your premise, or make any sense whatsoever. It is impossible to reach negative infinity, or for any event to occur at negative infinity, and the concept of an infinite regress does not logically imply otherwise; or, if it does, you haven't demonstrated it.

There neither is, nor can be, any such event of which you speak. Negative infinity isn't a point in time or an event or a number, and there is always a before with a negative infinity sequence. For example, starting with zero, before that is minus one, and before that is minus two, and before that is minus three, and so on ad infinitum.

You seem to have misconceptions about the concept of infinity, and you seem incapable, in practice, of putting together a logically valid argument. With each opportunity, you just keep failing. Adding logical connectives like "so", "must", and "cannot", to the sentences which compose your argument won't achieve anything unless you actually put the work in to make sure that it all fits together validly, without any gaps.

Sorry that last argument I tried was not right.

An event is defined by all events that caused it (so if A->B and B->C then A,B->C). So with an infinite regress, no events are fully defined (its always ...,A,B->C which is not a complete definition). Events must be fully defined to be part of reality.

The past actually happened so all of those past events must form a concrete set of events. But if there is an infinite regress of events then the set must be actually infinite in size. An infinite concrete set... how is that possible?

The Prime Mover argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regress in time. If there was infinite time to travel how did we ever get here?

The Big Bang theory seems to "support" the prime mover argument as in there was a beginning.

I haven't read much but there's also the heat death paradox to consider. The current understanding of entropy (if I'm not mistaken) means that if there was an infinite time available to us then the universe should be in thermal equilibrium. It is not. So...a beginning.

You seem to think the universe is some kind of oscillating process. Big Bang - Big Crunch and repeat.

There seems to be no evidence of a Big Crunch happening within the current scientific paradigms. Google it. So, your argument doesn't work unless there's something we don't know. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and showing no signs of slowing down which should be the case if a Big Crunch is possible.

What do you think?

Attempting to be maximally charitable, I understand @Devans99 to be arguing that there are only three possibilities:

• Our existing universe is eternal (infinite regress)
• Our existing universe is created (unmoved mover)
• Our existing universe is cyclical (Big Bang/Crunch)

All three explanations are consistent with the axiom that every effect has a cause. Adopting the additional axiom that there cannot be an actually infinite series of causes and effects rules out the first option. Adopting the additional axiom that everything is an effect rules out the second option. That leaves only the third option.

Proponents of unmoved mover arguments obviously disagree with the axiom that everything is an effect, holding instead that there must be one cause that is not itself an effect brought about by some other cause. Perhaps their additional axiom, which rules out the third option, is that the existence of something rather than nothing demands an explanation; it should not merely be accepted as a brute fact. More specifically, the existence of contingent being requires the reality of necessary being.

All I was pointing out was there's no evidence to suggest a Big Crunch. Not that this is an unalterable truth. There's always the possibility that we have a knowledge lacuna. So, we need a fourth or fifth option of sorts. What could they be?

Sorry that last argument I tried was not right. — Devans99

None of them have been.

An event is defined by all events that caused it (so if A->B and B->C then A,B->C). So with an infinite regress, no events are fully defined (its always ...,A,B->C which is not a complete definition). Events must be fully defined to be part of reality. — Devans99

You're just making up your own rules, it seems. I don't see any reason to accept your made up rules.

The past actually happened so all of those past events must form a concrete set of events. But if there is an infinite regress of events then the set must be actually infinite in size. An infinite concrete set... how is that possible? — Devans99

How is it not? The burden is on you to demonstrate a contradiction.

Understood, and I share your suspicion that a cyclical universe is not the only alternative to an infinite regress or an unmoved mover.

The Prime Mover argument is based on the impossibility of an infinite regress in time. If there was infinite time to travel how did we ever get here? — TheMadFool

That's seeking an explanation for an infinite progression, not an infinite regress.

We know that we're here. How we got here can be explained through prior causes. There would always be a prior cause, so there would always be an answer.

Here is what I find most interesting about these types of arguments. The cosmological argument's conclusion of a necessary being is currently the argument that is supported best by existing scientific theory. Ever since the acceptance of the Big Bang, and a finite universe by science made the single best argument against the CA outside existing science. There have been hordes of science followers who happily abandon science and propose all kinds of pseudoscience things to avoid or find an alternative for a necessary being.

I find this paradox interesting.

You're just making up your own rules, it seems. I don't see any reason to accept your made up rules. — S

Put it this way, would you exist if you were not born? Time is a series: A->B->C. For the whole series to be real, it has to have a first member. So an infinite regression cannot be real; it has no first member ( ...->B->C ) so none of the series is defined. Another analogy is pool: The player hits the cue ball, the cue ball hits the black and the black goes into the pocket. With an infinite regress, the black goes in the pocket without the player hitting the cue ball.

How is it not? The burden is on you to demonstrate a contradiction. — S

What is the cardinality of an infinite set? It must be some number X bigger than all possible finite quantities. But that's impossible, because there is no largest number (X+1>X). So an infinite set cannot exist. So an infinite regression (in the past) is impossible.

Returning to the original conversation about the first mover, I would say that the purpose of this train of thought from Aristotle's Metaphysics is not to PROVE God exists, but to create a mental framework founded on the "first principle" or essentiallly a primary substance whose essence constitutes necessity itself for all other beings.

So the main question here is what precisely is the purpose of the "uncaused cause" argument? I don't think that it can prove the existence of a deity through logical necessity because we have no certainty that logical necessity can be trusted (as someone mentioned above the rejection of causation).

Any thoughts?

Put it this way, would you exist if you were not born? — Devans99

No, but that question controversially assumes or suggests that the birth analogy is a true analogy, and that has yet to be demonstrated. I would exist and have been born under both scenarios: an infinite regress and a first cause. The universe would exist under both scenarios, although it obviously wouldn't have been "born" in the sense of a first cause in an infinite regress scenario: that's impossible as it implies a contradiction. (And note that the Big Bang is not a first cause in the philosophical sense).

Time is a series: A->B->C. — Devans99

Yes.

For the whole series to be real, it has to have a first member. — Devans99

That's the unsupported assertion you've been repeating ad nauseum.

So an infinite regression cannot be real; it has no first member ( ...->B->C ) so none of the series is defined. — Devans99

Even assuming that that follows, anything that follows from an unsupported assertion is trivial.

Another analogy is pool: The player hits the cue ball, the cue ball hits the black and the black goes into the pocket. — Devans99

Yes, that's an analogy for a first cause if we interpret the initial action as such, but of course it wouldn't actually be the first cause, so these examples aren't doing you any favours.

With an infinite regress, the black goes in the pocket without the player hitting the cue ball. — Devans99

No, that is a non sequitur. With an infinite regress, the actions which lead to the black ball going in the pocket can be traced backwards infinitely, and they would include the player hitting the ball.

What is the cardinality of an infinite set? — Devans99

I don't know, because I don't know enough about that topic within mathematics. I don't know much about mathematics at all beyond a layman's understanding. So I would have to look further into it.

It must be some number X bigger than all possible finite quantities. But that's impossible, because there is no largest number (X+1>X). So an infinite set cannot exist. So an infinite regression (in the past) is impossible. — Devans99

Well, thanks for providing your reasoning, but I don't know enough about the content at this stage to properly assess it.

Here is what I find most interesting about these types of arguments. The cosmological argument's conclusion of a necessary being is currently the argument that is supported best by existing scientific theory. Ever since the acceptance of the Big Bang, and a finite universe by science made the single best argument against the CA outside existing science. There have been hordes of science followers who happily abandon science and propose all kinds of pseudoscience things to avoid or find an alternative for a necessary being.

I find this paradox interesting. — Rank Amateur

It seems to be a common misconception that the Big Bang supports, or contributes toward supporting, the cosmological argument. You would need to get past the singularity.

Actually I think there is a cleaner way to demonstrate an infinite regress is impossible:

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)

Also, I think I'd like to change my original axiom at this point to 'events are caused by events'.

The revised axiom rules out an uncaused cause. The argument above rules out an infinite regress. That leaves circular time.

The revised axiom rules out an uncaused cause. The argument above rules out an infinite regress. That leaves circular time. — Devans99

What's funny about this is that you can't rule out an infinite regress without ruling out your "circular time" model. Under your proposed model, there would always be a prior event, which necessitates an infinite regress.

But I think that this argument of yours against an infinite regress is better than your previous attempts. If it's unsound, it's less obviously so to me than your previous attempts. And I'm still thinking it over.

There are a finite number of total events on a circle of time: say a circle with 4 events A,B,C,D. Event A you could say 'occurs again', but it's the same event A as before. In the 4D spacetime view, events don't really occur, they just exist perpetually in spacetime at a particular co-ordinate.

It seems to be a common misconception that the Big Bang supports, or contributes toward supporting, the cosmological argument. You would need to get past the singularity — S

Is singularity any more a proven scientific theory than God ??

Prior to the big bang, the common argument against the CA was " who created the creator" or said another way, an infinite regression. Post big bang this argument became outside scientific consensus.

A finite universe supports CA - happy to agree is does not support CA to the exclusion of all other arguments - but it most clearly supports CA

Also, I think I'd like to change my original axiom at this point to 'events are caused by events'. — Devans99

You have really been operating with this axiom all along, as the necessary conclusion from your two previous premises, "every effect has a cause" and "everything is an effect." Obviously no proponent of unmoved mover arguments would agree with your revised axiom, and neither would anyone who affirms agent causation rather than causal determinism. What is the warrant for presupposing that all events are caused by other events?

Cause and effect I think is a sound axiom from the standpoint of everyday experience. Yes that is induction but its 100% accurate so far that I have observed no event that was not caused by another event.

This I would argue extends into the world of science where cause and effect is a widely used axiom. I believe it holds (and I'm sure someone will argue the opposite) even in the quantum world.

as someone mentioned above the rejection of causation — SapereAude

I think once we let go of causation, we enter the world of magic, inhabited by other ghostly concepts like infinity and eternity. I very much believe in materialism.

Cause and effect I think is a sound axiom from the standpoint of everyday experience. — Devans99

Sure, but we are discussing the nature and origin of the entire existing universe, not everyday experience. Moreover, many philosophers (and people in general) reject causal determinism, instead affirming agent causation as part of our everyday experience. For example, I am the cause of this particular post; it was not completely dictated by prior events. I could have chosen to say something different, or not to say anything at all. I could have submitted it earlier or later than I actually did.

If the universe is cyclical and governed entirely by causal determination, then the exact same series of events transpires over and over again. Even if you allow for some random fluctuations with each iteration, this is not a rational explanation of anything; it ultimately treats everything that exists and every event that occurs as a meaningless brute fact.

instead affirming agent causation as part of our everyday experience — aletheist

I think we are just computers. We have inputs and outputs. All of our outputs are eventually but fully determined by our inputs. It's just our incredible complexity that gives the illusion of free will.

If the universe is cyclical and governed entirely by causal determination, then the exact same series of events transpires over and over again. Even if you allow for some random fluctuations with each iteration, this is not a rational explanation of anything; it ultimately treats everything that exists and every event that occurs as a meaningless brute fact. — aletheist

I think there might be follow on arguments that re-enforce the view that there is a God. An eternal circle is the Occam's Razor design for eternal life. If I were God, it's the one I'd go for. It's actually achievable (unlike Heaven and Hell). So if time is circular, it suggests God did it somehow (a timeless being therefore beyond cause and effect, creates another timeless entity, the universe). But above I've diverted from the 'events are caused by events' axiom. So please regard it as speculative.

So I acknowledge in advance that two of my favourite ideas (Circular time and God) are hard to square together...

I think there might be follow on arguments that re-enforce the view that there is a God ... So if time is circular, it suggests God did it somehow (a timeless being therefore beyond cause and effect, creates another timeless entity, the universe). — Devans99

If the universe is an eternally repeating cycle, perhaps with some random variations here and there, then no timeless being is required to create it; again, existence is simply a meaningless brute fact that does not call for a rational explanation. The reality of God is much more compatible with unmoved mover arguments.

An eternal circle is the Occam's Razor design for eternal life. If I were God, it's the one I'd go for. It's actually achievable (unlike Heaven and Hell). — Devans99

Why do you think that heaven and hell are not achievable?

So I acknowledge in advance that two of my favourite ideas (Circular time and God) are hard to square together... — Devans99

Sort of like a square circle? :grin:

If the universe is an eternally repeating cycle, perhaps with some random variations — aletheist

No random variation in my view. No stochastic processes. Its all cause and effect. So I view it like Laplace:

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

— Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

Old fashioned I admit. As far as quantum mechanics goes, there are interpretations that are deterministic, eg:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Why do you think that heaven and hell are not achievable? — aletheist

How exactly do you implement transmigration of the soul? Even in a simulated world; the complexity of mapping the nervous system in this 'reality' to a new nervous system in the reality of heaven or hell seems beyond the capability of all possible Gods.