Q&A: The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
Question
Hello. One of your explanations for why an infinite regress is unacceptable is that it does not constitute an explanation. But as I understand it, the argument is supposed to derive a conclusion from the premises without checking whether the conclusion explains anything. This is also the reason you rejected the argument against belief that says that God does not really explain the world to us.
Answer
There is no connection at all between the two. When people say that God does not explain the world (whatever that sentence is supposed to mean), that is not relevant to an argument that proves His existence. When there are footprints in the sand, that is proof that some creature passed by here, even if I do not know what it is. If there is a complex world, that proves that there is a God who created it, even if I know nothing about Him.
But regress offers an explanation (where the world came from), not a proof. And there is no explanation here.