Does Aquinas believe in infinite regress?
Thomas Aquinas often wielded the idea of an infinite regress in his theological and philosophical treatises. In the famous Five Ways, the notion of the impossibility of a regress of events or operations plays a key role in each of the first three proofs for God’s existence.
Why is an infinite regress impossible Aquinas?
Aquinas taught: It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes. To take away the cause is to take away the effect. If there be no first cause then there will be no others. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).
What is the infinite regress problem?
An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member, where each element leads to or generates the next in some sense. An infinite regress argument is an argument that makes appeal to an infinite regress.
What is infinite regress in the cosmological argument?
An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor. An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.
Is an infinite regress possible?
The mere existence of an infinite regress by itself is not a proof for anything. So in addition to connecting the theory to a recursive principle paired with a triggering condition, the argument has to show in which way the resulting regress is vicious.
Who argued for infinite regress?
Aristotle
Source: Aristotle refers to the impossibility of an infinite regress in his proof of the unmoving mover (Physics, 8.1). Prior to that Zeno of Elia used the notion that an infinite regress is an absurdity in the development of his famous paradoxes.
What is infinite regress example?
For example, the statement “S is true” entails the infinite regress, (1) S is true; (2) (S is true) is true; (3) «S is true) is true) is true, etc. For it is impos- sible for (1) to be true and (2) to be false; it is impossible for (2) to be true and Page 14 216 Claude Gratton (3) to be false, etc.
What is the argument of contingency?
The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend.
What type of argument is the cosmological argument?
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.
What is the cosmological argument simple?
The cosmological argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God by the fact that things exist. It assumes that things must have a cause, and that the chain of causes can only end by a supernatural event.
Why is the cosmological argument weak?
Weakness: Inconsistent notion of necessary being. The Cosmological argument states that everything must have a cause yet explain this with the idea of an un-caused being who was the first the first cause. This is inconsistent with the idea of an uncaused cause since the solution itself is an uncaused cause.
What are the flaws of the cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument is a fallacy of composition because it assumes that just because each part of the universe is caused it does not mean that the universe as a whole was caused.
What are the cons of the cosmological argument?
Disadvantages
- No proof of God’s existence.
- Lots of Inductive Leaps (Hume)
- No imperial evidence (Hume)
- Assumptions between cause and effect.
- The world may be infinite and doesn’t need to have a cause (Russell and Oscillating Universe Theory)
- Contradicting statements – Everything needs a cause, but God doesn’t need a cause.