Infinite Regress
Posted on: August 1, 2008 - 4:13pm
Offline
Infinite Regress
Question:
Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
Logical fallacy? Don't think so.
Pointless? Yep.
Why is it pointless?
Nope, it's a description of a proposition without adequate support.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What kind of question is this?
If I make the naked assertion that my purple snarfwidget makes kegs of beer for me under my bed every Sunday WITHOUT any explination as to how or why it can, I could be a coward and cop out to "complexity" and simply say "it just does and we don't understand"
Infinite regress is A PROBLEM for those who claim complexity because if something is complex then what it came from must be more complex and what that came from must be more complex.
It never occurs the "complexity" fans that complexity is not a result of cognition but a gradual slow and random buildup from something more simple.
People like to sight the human eye as an example of "complexity" but an eagle has much better eyesight and even some jellyfish species have light sensors. Jellyfish are much older a species than humans.
Which makes more sense? That biological life brewed over a long period of time, or that a magical puppiteer pulled us out of a rib magically fully developed?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No. "Infinite Regress" is the name of a racing Katz.
Good grief.
tq
I would say it would depend on the context. In most cases, I think it would be likely to be a grammatical fallacy.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I thought it was something to do with hair loss.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
It's a simple question.
I suggest you reread the question posed in the OP and then try again.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Okay. Here's one context: cosmology
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
If it doesn't have adequate support, then the belief is not logically justified.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Wikipedia lists "infinite regress" on its "logical fallacy" page. See Wikipedia: Category: Logical Fallacies
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Slow down there, champ. I said "proposition". The context was logic, and in the context of logic, infinite regress happens when you have a proposition that depends upon another proposition to support it, and that proposition also requires support of another, and so on ad infinitum.
There was nothing about belief or justification in my response.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Ah. The infinite regress of the prime mover? Is that what you mean? As in "what created the creator?"
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Huh. Go figure. I didn't think that it was officially a logical fallacy, but I guess I was wrong.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Good evening,
I hope you are explanatory.
Wha? Rather Wuahahahahaaa?
What Belief? And serious I can note that any Belief is Justified within Religion.
So what are you yakking about? Serious, I am trying to understand 'here' and you appear to be dedicated to making that endeavor quite difficult.
Serious, infinite regress seems to be descriptive of a difficulty set, and you seem to be intent on making it part of your apartment complex.
Plz Help, smile.
tq
One word is not "context". Context in this case would be how you use the term in a sentence. It's like asking "Is 'blue' a logical fallacy in agriculture?"
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Evidently, you do not understand the meaning of the term "cosmology."See post #13. "HisWillness" seems to have a basic grasp of the concept.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Actually, I do. Unlike Will, I was not willing to let you use my words and claim 'That's what I was saying'. If you wish to present a point, present it, do not make a broad statement and wait for one of us to provide you something to claim as your own.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I just made my point. Thank you very much.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I've clearly missed something. Can someone fill me in?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
[/snark on] why bother? Paisley will take the words right out of our mouths, claim them, and then give them new definitions to support Paisley's assertions. [/snark off]
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Oh, I see you've just met Paisley. That's his stick-and-move technique.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
yeah, I suppose so. I also suppose it's a comfortable position to be in; knowing how he's going to respond.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Paisley can find some very creative ways to misunderstand me, which I find entertaining. He seems to have gotten on your last nerve, though, so I thought I should tell you that's his MO.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. No, really, I do.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
No, you said a word. Then Will provided a context that lined up with that word in order to try to figure out what point you were trying to make. Then you claimed that context as your own, and claimed 'that's what I meant', and now are claiming that not only was that your point, but that you made it, Mongo. Here, lemme get out the crayons for you again...
If Mongo not one who said stuff, Mongo no make point. Mongo just nodding stupidly at point other person make. Then Mongo lie and say Mongo make point. That all. Mongo lied. Just like every other time Mongo open mouth.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Paisley has been around for awhile and was responsible for one of the longest threads of pure BS ever. You can find it here
A few minutes perusing his comments will show you his intent and direction. He is entertaining in the way he misrepresents and twists words and definitions. His whole effort is to put forth his personal experiences as evidence there is a pantheistic god or parentheistic. I'm not sure he is a classic troll but he may be a computer program.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
And it is the sole basis of nearly every argument you present. What should that tell you?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think maybe you have a point with the computer program bit. he/she/it doesn't seem to be able to respond to external stimuli such as our comments on a consistent basis. then again, there's a noticeable amount of time between spates of posting, so it could also be possible Paisley is usually medicated and only gets to post when the medicine wears down. I'm not saying that is the case; just saying.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
His/her/its MO seems to be
1. Post unsubstantiated claim
2. Refuse to answer criticisms of claim - simply reiterate it or answer with another unsubstantiated claim
3. When people get fed up enough with stupidity only answer the insults by complaining about them
4. Repeat until everyone gets sick of it, thread goes to trollville or until there are too many demands to actually answer.
5. Abandon thread
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Get real! Your answer to the question (is an infinite regress a logical fallacy?) posed in the OP was basically "it depends on the context." To which I replied..."okay. cosmology" which obvioulsy meant "Is an infinite regress a logical fallacy in the context of cosmology?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Then why are you bothering?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I forgot about inventing his/her/its own definitions for words.
Anyway ... what about the question? Were you going anywhere with that? Apparently it's a logical fallacy. In fact, I think it qualifies as an example of a vicious infinite regress. Hmm ... I think.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Why are you bothering?
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Does belief in gods have adequate support as a proposition?
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
If it is a logical fallacy, then anyone who invokes it to support his/her argument is committing a logical fallacy.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Well... you're the one who did that, now aren't you, Mr. Infinite Mind?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
...And if you actually bothered to do any work, Paisley, you'd have read this part of the article (which has citation to back it up):
'Distinction is made between infinite regresses that are "vicious" and those that are not. One definition given is that a vicious regress is "an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved. Not all regresses, however, are vicious." [1] '
In otherwords, no; infinite regress is not always a logical fallacy.
Paisley, please provide evidence that the Earth was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Would saying infinite regress is a fallacy be a fallacy?
I read the entire article. The so-called "vicious infinite regress" is the one I'm mainly concerned with because this is the one that shows up in debates.
The theology that I subscribe to is compatible with evolution.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It wasn't a trick question.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, I used the fallacy of an infinite regress to argue that consciousness is simply a brute fact of existence.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Please, don't attempt to hijack this thread.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
So, let me see if I understand you.
You are claiming that when you said:
In support of:
You were arguing that "consciousness is simply a brute fact of existence"? Because you know, it looks like you were using the idea (and not presenting it as a fallacy) of infinite regression to claim that self-awareness proves the existence of God, by claiming that we should "realize [self-awareness] would entail an infinite regress."
Once again, Paisley: Think before you respond. Is this a situation where you've already lost that argument, and so have nothing to lose by admitting a mistake?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Good eve,
Is this an idea you are willing to follow through on?
Just askin'.
No, "infinite regress" is not a logical fallacy.
In fact, it can be useful.
tq
Hi Paisley,
I just noticed you asked me this earlier in your other thread so I'll give you the answer in both contexts.
Infinite regress refers to a fallacy if it refers to someone invoking an explanation which has only a course into infinite regress. To use an inductive method to demonstrate an infinity of some concept as you did in the other thread then, wasn't a fallacy.
So that leaves your question as to why I suggested redressing the P(0) step. It wasn't anything to do with infinite regress being or not being a fallacy, the reason was that the step lead logically to the infinity. An infinity of awarenesses neither gives us anything rational or conceivable to work with in terms of understanding consciousness nor seems to clearly reflect what we know as consciousness. Thus it makes sense to question what we are defining as awareness, even if this leads to nowhere that's no worse a problem than an inconceivable infinity - that is why I presented it as a reasonable alternative.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Have you ever been shown this particular webpage, Paisley? I assure you, it makes no mention of infinite regress as a logical fallacy or a problem for atheism.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well it's certainly a misstep to make a statement that results in a case of infinite regress. It undermines the validity of the resulting logic, yes.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Infinite regress is not a logical fallacy as it is a device used to expose fallacious reasoning.
Infinite regress is a concept that causes it to be unnecessary for the assumption of a deity. It occurs when the assumption is made that everything thing must have a creator, because if that were the case each creator would then have to have something preceding it which created it, therefore for anything to exist there must be an original uncreated "thing" (for lack of a better term). We know the universe exists, and seeing there isn't any evidence for diety, it is more reasonable to assume that the universe is this original thing than that there is a preceding deity.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens