An objection to ruling out an infinite regress of changes

 I tried ruling out an infinite regress of changes today by proposing that there must be some fundamental being in reality, which is an unchanged changer (see Aristotle and Aquinas First Way to the existence of God to see how this works). An objection that came up to my ruling out an infinite regress of changes is proposed by saying that there is a single universe which after its life is terminated will repeatedly come into existence again ad infinitum. It is demonstrated by a ring which is split in half, and the ring would be analogous to the universe's existence. It is after the ring terminates in its existence does it flip itself around and so and then after that existence terminates it will flip itself around again, ad infinitum, analogously to the universe. 

I say this is a problematic objection for many reasons. Firstly, a potential being actualized is precisely how "change" is defined in Thomism. With that said, I pointed out that this is still a series of changes even if it is one universe undergoing this existence and termination pattern. I asked to imagine an infinitely large piece of paper with an infinite amount of circles drawn on it, which is analogous to the universe. Now, individual circles will terminate and the following circles will come in line to be in existence. I understand that this is change. To put it in example form, imagine we are considering one circle C1 and another circle C2: after C1's termination, C2 comes into existence. But that means C1's potential for termination was actualized when it was time for it. And C2's potential for existence was actualized when it C1 was terminated.

Another way to attack this objection is to say that it doesn't matter if the ring was split in half and/or was flipped around. In fact, the ring being flipped around is actually a disanalogy to the universe objection above. Ring R1 being flipped right side up, let's say, is different from the ring R2 being flipped upside down: Making the same ring in the two scenarios different from each other: one is right side up and the other is upside down. But the precise universe objection entails that the universe has to be the same throughout its start and end, ad infinitum. Thus, it is wrong to use the ring analogy for the universe's existence and non-existence sequence.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more