Hi Jushua, how does our current cosmological understanding effect premise 1( ie time began with the big bang) would this mean infinite can only be in a forward direction, as we would "run out of time" going backwards in time. We would always get to a point with no prior point. And also just thinking here forward infinite will end too with heat death. As time seems to be our experience entropy.
Thanks Josh! I’m wondering about Objection 1 - How is it consistent with your argument? Doesn’t it reject premise 1 that the total of dependents has a cause?
Thanks. Premise 1 implies that an infinite chain C of dependent things *must* have a cause, while the Objection implies that C *cannot* have a cause. These premises together imply that C is impossible, not that premise 1 isn't true.
In other words, the objection and the premise together entail this: *if* C exists, then it both *must* and *cannot* have a cause. This contradicts the possibility of C's existence, not the truth of (1).
Thank you for the response. I believe I’m still struggling to grasp what you’re saying. If infinite chain C cannot have a cause then surely it is false that infinite chain C depends on a prior cause.
That doesn't quite follow because there is this option: C would *both* depend and NOT depend on a prior cause. This contradiction reveals that C is impossible.
Another way to put it is that (1) is implicitly a conditional: *if* there is a chain C, it depends on a prior case. If it ALSO doesn't depend on a prior cause, then it simply follows that the antecedent is false -- i.e., there is no such chain as C.
Hi Jushua, how does our current cosmological understanding effect premise 1( ie time began with the big bang) would this mean infinite can only be in a forward direction, as we would "run out of time" going backwards in time. We would always get to a point with no prior point. And also just thinking here forward infinite will end too with heat death. As time seems to be our experience entropy.
Thanks Josh! I’m wondering about Objection 1 - How is it consistent with your argument? Doesn’t it reject premise 1 that the total of dependents has a cause?
Thanks. Premise 1 implies that an infinite chain C of dependent things *must* have a cause, while the Objection implies that C *cannot* have a cause. These premises together imply that C is impossible, not that premise 1 isn't true.
In other words, the objection and the premise together entail this: *if* C exists, then it both *must* and *cannot* have a cause. This contradicts the possibility of C's existence, not the truth of (1).
Thank you for the response. I believe I’m still struggling to grasp what you’re saying. If infinite chain C cannot have a cause then surely it is false that infinite chain C depends on a prior cause.
That doesn't quite follow because there is this option: C would *both* depend and NOT depend on a prior cause. This contradiction reveals that C is impossible.
Another way to put it is that (1) is implicitly a conditional: *if* there is a chain C, it depends on a prior case. If it ALSO doesn't depend on a prior cause, then it simply follows that the antecedent is false -- i.e., there is no such chain as C.
Thank you so much Josh!