So what IS the actual argument against infinite regress? Is there any? It seems like the idea of a prime mover is even more absurd, and only given preference because of Christianity.
>>1251336
Infinite regress breaks logic, and we generally try to make our arguments logical
>>1251358
You are confusing "Makes sense" with "illogical". There is nothing illogical about an infinite chain. The Unmoved mover argument on the other hand is illogical because it postulates that nothing can exist without being created, and then postulates something that has no creator. Logically speaking the unmoved mover cannot exist, and thus the universe cannot exist.
An infinite regress does not "Make sense" but the alternative is a logical absurdity.
>>1251358
It doesn't breaks logic more than prime cause or say logical circle. What you prefer is completely arbitrary choice to be honest.
>>1251336
I actually agree with it being most logical option. In practice we always was able to find a new causes, reasons and such behind everything. Would it be a such madness to think that we will always be able to do that? I don't think so. Christian solution is far worse for example. It uses God who simply by his nature is even more complicated than infinite chain of logic. Like you could try to understand God from the infinity eternities and it wouldn't be enough. So even infinite regress is preferable to an absolute at this point.
There's nothing wrong with it. It just upsets human hangups because we're finite beings and trying to grasp infinity makes us uncomfortable. But the "problem" of it is indeed just a human hangup.
