Logic

is it logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress? A lot of people make an argument and then if it leads to an infinite regress, the argument is taken to be faulty. Something like the first cause argument where the conclusion that an infinite regress occurred is to be avoided. Why is this the case? I don't see how we couldn't have an infinite regress.

Comments

There's more than one issue here, I think. It is logically possible -- near as I can tell -- for there to be an infinite regresses of causes. Someone might find it unsatisfying that A is caused by B, which is caused by C, which is caused by D... with no end. BUt there's no contradiction or incoherence here, various proponents of various First Cause arguments notwithstanding.

But sometimes what's at issue is justification. If I justify my belief that A by appeal to B, and justify my belief that C, then if B and C are equally as much in need of justification as A, then I've made no progress. And if I can show that something inherent in the style of justification I've adopted is bound to generate this sort of regress of justification, then the approach I've adopted isn't going to work. The problem isn't whether or not there could be an infinite regress. The probem is that the notion of justification doesn't allow for something to be justified by way of an infinite regress, if each step in the regress is as dubious as the starting point.

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Read another response about Logic