Q&A: A Question for the Rabbi
A Question for the Rabbi
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I saw here on the site that someone asked why you reject infinite regress as an atheist answer to the cosmological argument. After all, assuming the existence of an entity that stops the regress and is its own cause is not necessarily preferable to assuming the existence of that same regress. Both are a kind of intellectual failure. More precisely: neither comes from our experience. So why is one preferable to the other?
You answered that "you elaborated on this in the notebook."
Could you please point me to it?
Or briefly explain your point here?
I read God Plays Dice and learned a great deal from it. But there you simply wrote on this topic that assuming the existence of an infinite regress is a fallacy.
Thank you.
Answer
The problem with infinite regress is not that our experience rules it out, 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 assuming the existence of an entity that stops regressions. I also tried there to explain the nature of the fallacy (a concrete infinity, not a potential one). I explained all this in the second notebook, and it is very easy to find.
Discussion on Answer
Look under "Miscellaneous" on my site, Notebooks, Second Notebook.
See here:
Thank you.
What is "the second notebook"? How do I find it?