Question to the rabbi
Hello.
I saw someone here on the site asking why you reject infinite regression as an atheistic answer to the cosmological argument. After all, assuming the existence of an object that stops regression and is its own cause is not necessarily better than assuming the existence of that regression. Both constitute a type of thinking failure. To be precise: neither is from our experience. And why is one better than the other?
You replied that “you expanded on this in the notebook.”
Could you please direct me there?
Or would you briefly explain what you’re saying here?
I read God Plays Dice and I was very wise. But there you simply wrote on the subject that the assumption of the existence of infinite regression is a fallacy.
thanks.
The problem with infinite regression is not that our experience denies it, but that it is something devoid of content. It is not an explanation but an escape from explanation (as in the story of “Turtles All the Way Down”). Therefore, it is not similar to the assumption of the existence of an object that stops regressions. I also tried there to explain the essence of the fallacy (concrete, not potential infinity). I explained all of this in the second notebook and it is very easy to find it.
Thanks.
What is the “second notebook”? How do I find it?
See under “Miscellaneous” on my website, notebooks, second notebook.
See here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%9E% D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%AA-2-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9 9%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%AA/
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
