Infinite Regress

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Infinite Regress

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Logical fallacy? Don't think

Logical fallacy? Don't think so.

Pointless? Yep.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Logical

jcgadfly wrote:

Logical fallacy? Don't think so.

Pointless? Yep.

Why is it pointless?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Question:Is an

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What kind of question is

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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


netjaeger
netjaeger's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Question:Is an

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no? 

 

No.  "Infinite Regress" is the name of a racing Katz.

Good grief.

tq


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Question:Is an

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

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


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
I thought it was something

I thought it was something to do with hair loss.

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What kind of

Brian37 wrote:
What kind of question is this?

It's a simple question.

Brian37 wrote:
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?

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley

BMcD wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

I would say it would depend on the context. In most cases, I think it would be likely to be a grammatical fallacy.

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

Nope, it's a description of a proposition without adequate support.

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Wikipedia lists "infinite

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Will

Paisley wrote:

Will wrote:

Nope, it's a description of a proposition without adequate support.

If it doesn't have adequate support, then the belief is not logically justified.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Okay. Here's

Paisley wrote:

Okay. Here's one context: cosmology

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Wikipedia

Paisley wrote:

Wikipedia lists "infinite regress" on its "logical fallacy" page. See Wikipedia: Category: Logical Fallacies

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


netjaeger
netjaeger's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Good evening,I hope you are

Good evening,

I hope you are explanatory.

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

Nope, it's a description of a proposition without adequate support.

If it doesn't have adequate support, then the belief is not logically justified.

 

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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

I would say it would depend on the context. In most cases, I think it would be likely to be a grammatical fallacy.

Okay. Here's one context: cosmology

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
BMcD wrote:
I would say it would depend on the context. In most cases, I think it would be likely to be a grammatical fallacy.

Okay. Here's one context: cosmology

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?"

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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
BMcD wrote:
I would say it would depend on the context. In most cases, I think it would be likely to be a grammatical fallacy.

Okay. Here's one context: cosmology

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?"

Evidently, you do not understand the meaning of the term "cosmology."See post #13. "HisWillness" seems to have a basic grasp of the concept. 

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Actually, I do.

BMcD wrote:
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.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
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.

I just made my point. Thank you very much.

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


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
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.

I just made my point. Thank you very much.

I've clearly missed something. Can someone fill me in?

 

[/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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote:[/snark on] 

Kay Cat wrote:

[/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]

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


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Kay Cat

HisWillness wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

[/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]

Oh, I see you've just met Paisley. That's his stick-and-move technique.

 

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote:yeah, I

Kay Cat wrote:

yeah, I suppose so. I also suppose it's a comfortable position to be in; knowing how he's going to respond. 

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


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Kay Cat

HisWillness wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

yeah, I suppose so. I also suppose it's a comfortable position to be in; knowing how he's going to respond. 

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.

 

Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. No, really, I do. Smiling

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
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.

I just made my point. Thank you very much.

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote:HisWillness

Kay Cat wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

yeah, I suppose so. I also suppose it's a comfortable position to be in; knowing how he's going to respond. 

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.

 

Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. No, really, I do. Smiling

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.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Wikipedia

Paisley wrote:

Wikipedia lists "infinite regress" on its "logical fallacy" page. See Wikipedia: Category: Logical Fallacies

 

 

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


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Kay

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

yeah, I suppose so. I also suppose it's a comfortable position to be in; knowing how he's going to respond. 

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.

 

Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. No, really, I do. Smiling

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 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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
His/her/its MO seems to

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley

BMcD wrote:

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
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.

I just made my point. Thank you very much.

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...

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote:[/snark on] 

Kay Cat wrote:
[/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]

Then why are you bothering? 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I forgot about inventing

I forgot about inventing his/her/its own definitions for words.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Get real! Your

Paisley wrote:

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?"

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


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kay Cat

Paisley wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:
[/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]

Then why are you bothering? 

 

Why are you bothering?

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


Future Indefinite
Future Indefinite's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Does belief in gods...

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

Nope, it's a description of a proposition without adequate support.

If it doesn't have adequate support, then the belief is not logically justified.

 

 

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Anyway ...

HisWillness wrote:
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.

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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:HisWillness

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
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.

If it is a logical fallacy, then anyone who invokes it to support his/her argument is committing a logical fallacy.

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Wikipedia

Paisley wrote:

Wikipedia lists "infinite regress" on its "logical fallacy" page. See Wikipedia: Category: Logical Fallacies

 

 

...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.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Would saying infinite

Would saying infinite regress is a fallacy be a fallacy?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...And

Kevin R Brown wrote:
...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.

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. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Paisley, please provide evidence that the Earth was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago.

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Would

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Would saying infinite regress is a fallacy be a fallacy?

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Well... you're

BMcD wrote:
Well... you're the one who did that, now aren't you, Mr. Infinite Mind?

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


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Future Indefinite wrote:Does

Future Indefinite wrote:
Does belief in gods have adequate support as a proposition?

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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Well... you're the one who did that, now aren't you, Mr. Infinite Mind?

No, I used the fallacy of an infinite regress to argue that consciousness is simply a brute fact of existence.

So, let me see if I understand you.

You are claiming that when you said:

Paisley wrote:

Nordmann wrote:
How does the fact that one is aware of being aware (to whatever point of iteration you wish to bring it to) differ from simple self-awareness? At what point does it become a justification for the existence of god?

At the point when you realize it would entail an infinite regress.

In support of:

Paisley wrote:

What is the evidence for God's existence?

Answer: "Self-awareness"

Self-awareness is consciousness aware of itself. And what this means is that to be self-aware is to be consciously aware that I am aware that I am aware that I am aware and so forth ad infinitum. There you have it. Self-awareness is consciousness that is simultaneously one mind and many (i.e. infinite). Of course, the conventional term we acribe to infinite mind is "God." This is the proof that infinite mind (God) exists and it is self-evident.

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


netjaeger
netjaeger's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Good eve,Is this an idea you

Good eve,

Is this an idea you are willing to follow through on?

Just askin'.

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

No, "infinite regress" is not a logical fallacy.

In fact, it can be useful.

tq


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Question:Is an

Paisley wrote:

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

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


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I read the entire

Quote:
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.

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.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:HisWillness

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
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.

If it is a logical fallacy, then anyone who invokes it to support his/her argument is committing a logical fallacy.

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


Two_Sandals
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Infinite regress is not a

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