It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause. Infinite regress is impossible because infinity is an irrational term when appled to a finite universe. Humans are notoriously lazy when it comes to thinking about infinity, so most people think, âEven with an infinite regress, at some point, my conclusions are justified.â When, in reality, the opposite is the case. In philosophy, the infinite regression phenomenon frequently â¦ to wit, if god made the universe, then who made god, then who made the maker of â¦ Infinity simply doesnât exist for a finite universe. Only a potentially infinite number existsâ¦. To argue for an infinite regress of events, you are by definition arguing for an an actually infinite number of a finite amount. and since finite amounts cannot possibly add up to a point that can be defined as actually infinite it is meaningless to speak of an infinite regress because the addition of numbers only ever allows a potential infinite; never an actual infinite. You are just proving that infinity cannot be reached which this is different from that infinity does not exist. I'm hoping this version of the question will be more clear and easier to respond to. Only if the series were finite would it be impossible for there to be something if there were no first cause or uncaused cause. I've been faithfully using your podcasts, debates, books and articles for about 4 years now. Is an infinite regress impossible, as Aquinas says? There is no exact amount that can define a point were you actually have an infinite number of something and so the idea is meaningless.Thus if there were an infinite regress, this would be a contradiction because you would have an actually infinite number in the past; and so itâs impossible. There is not an amount, quantity, or number of things, that can add up to an infinite because an infinite is quantitatively indefinable. But if the series were literally infinite, there ... 4 The infinite regress argument will not, however, work for Humean causes. However brief, this summarization provides one of the first contexts for the cosmological argument and its use of infinite regress. If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. Is it possible to reach from 1 to zero? It's simple: no proposition is ever justified which relies on an infinite amount of premises. For Plato, infinite regress is an impossibility. When St Thomas dismissed an infinite regress of causes, he did so, not because he thought there could never be an actual infinity of âthingsâ or âeventsâ (he was much smarter than that); he dismissed it on account of the fact that an infinite series of things, events, causes, or whatever, cannot explain something existing currently. A Production of Word on Fire, "Come now, let us reason together." Are Metaphysical First Principles Universally True? Apologetics. If everything has a cause then there'a an infinite regress of causes 3. The idea that you can have a potentially infinite series of halves is not the same thing as arguing for an actually infinite regress of events. Can someone please explain to me why an infinite regress of causes is impossible? If yes then 1/x is an actual infinity. The whole article at Reduction into Modernism is worth checking out. The Flatlander’s Argument Against Miracles. For official apologetics resources please visit. This we call "God". I argue that Aquinas has good reason to hold this claim given his conception of causation. He made the point that the big bang theory is the simpler explanation for the origin of the universe and that refutes God's existence. A+A+A+Aâ¦