A Miscellany 367
Infinite Regression Is The Only Justification For The Cosmological Argument
Your thoughts on this article are welcome. Please use the contact page to provide your comments for publication.
In the cosmological argument the concept involved is explained by another thing, from nothing, or from itself. The Principle of Sufficient Reasoning is the background rule. This is what sets the structural logic of, basically, the entire argument.
Abbreviated as PSR it states:
- Things and events must have explanation
- Positive facts need explanation
Explained in short, Aquinas and Clark say that things are dependent on other things, a link. This fits nicely with PSR(a) and is explained from nothing (there is nothing before PSR(a) so that’s okay). Moving on to PSR(b), they both explain the positivity of the link through what theistically is the only explanation possible: the self- dependant, self- existent God.
However, if we would continue on past the shallow two- stepper PSR, we could find immediate contradiction. God is a positive fact. In addition, saying that he is self- explanatory technically does not explain anything logically and ultimately cushions itself with the pillow of faith. Also, in order for PSR to stand, there must be an explanation for itself as well. But many probably claim that PSR must stand with or without something before it because if there isn’t PSR there could be no rationalism. Of course, we could say that infinite regress is the only way to prove PSR to itself and not be hypocritically coming from nothing. For we all know that an attacker of my stance could say that the infinite regress would need explanation for itself. But that’s impossible; it’s infinite. There can’t be something before or after this meta- chain.
On behalf of humanism, the reason why infinite regress can come down to self- explanation while still recognizing the relativity of PSR is of phenomenology. With our collective consciousness and the definition of infinity, we can look at it as an “other-than-self” even though we are a part of its regressive link. For instance, in your mind take yourself out of infinity and observe its meaning. Infinity by definition is “everything”. And if it’s everything, every being, it can look onto itself as something else. Thus, infinity is explained by something else.
Just by the fact that each proponent’s (my) claims are positive means that they must be infinitely explained, one after another after another if they are to be with PSR.
God cannot be “un” self- explained looking at itself as another because theists have thoroughly made absolute that nothing can be compared to God. Hence, God has nothing to be as something other than itself in order to look at itself. One may say God has “faithhood” but one cannot say God has a truism outside even the most logical forms of faith.