This example is a true story. Then, he blurted out, "I guess I'm making the whole thing up.". Infinite Regression versus Causality Because infinite regression is a fallacy, the fact that quantum mechanics isn't entirely deterministic should be completely unsurprising. *(This fact is equivalent to the fact that the universe is mathematically describable. It looks like physics will actually get more fundamental than this, but the logic is the same; why is the ToE or GUT true? Yes. The fact that we are in the present is proof. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and … Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between premise and conclusion. An infinite regression is a proposed chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it.. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Ernie: Think of it as a … An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause it. To conceive of a reality outside of this is not meaningfully fathomable, and therefore irrelevant to the question. An infinite universe dissolves this causal regression Whether all things must have a "first cause" or not, is a subject of debate. The simplification of the argument is the following: Anything complex must have been created by something with intelligence. Why does an electron exist? The original homunculus argument in which it is stated that we see because there is an image projected in our head which a little man, a homunculus, sees. So, if a number is countable, then counting the individual parts and finally reaching the number is traversing, which means the number is traversable. We don’t try […] :212,216,242,252,279, Argument from oh bloody hell that was years ago, Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, Negative conclusion from affirmative premises, https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Infinite_regress&oldid=2183521, ∴There does not exist a number that is infinite. He suggests that God is part of the chain, so he would need to be part of an infinite regression. Just because. It reminds me of the anecdote illustrating the infinite regression fallacy. The argument is based on many unsupported premises relating to free will, consciousness, animacy, being alive, having a nervous system, and existing, and their relationship to rights (right to ___ needs to … All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument, The Logical Fallacy of Unsubstantiated Inference, Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Worldview / Appeal to Fake-Reality / Appeal to Paradigm / Appeal to Confirmation Bias, Fantasy Projection / Worldview Projection / Fake-Reality Projection / Paradigm Projection / Context Projection, The Logical Fallacy ofAmazing Familiarity, Stolen Concept Fallacy / Smuggled Concept Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Theoretical Stories, The Logical Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence Presented as Scientific Evidence / Personal Testimony Presented as Scientific Evidence, Logical Fallacy of Dismissing All Personal Testimony, Logical Fallacy of Rewriting History / Have it Your Way, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity / Personal Belief / Personal Conviction, Logical Fallacy of Argument by Lack of Imagination, Logical Fallacy of Argument by Imagination, The Logical Fallacy of Capturing the Naive / Argumentum ad Captandum / Argumentum ad Captandum Vulgus, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Astonishment, Logical Fallacy of Unintended Self-Inclusion, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion / Proof by Repeated Assertion, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Understatement / Misunderstanding by Understatement, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Logical Tautology, Logical Fallacy of Proof by False Declaration of Victory, Logical Fallacy of Assumption Correction Assumption, False Criteria Fallacy / Fallacy of Questionable Criteria, Logical Fallacy of Cutting Off Discussion / Summary Dismissal, Logical Fallacy of Thought-Terminating Cliche / ClicheThinking, Logical Fallacy of the Perfect Solution / Nirvana Fallacy / Perfect Solution Fallacy / Perfectionist Fallacy, Just In Case Fallacy / Worst Case Scenario Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Extrapolation, Logical Fallacy of Subjectivity / Relativist Fallacy / Subjectivist Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Bizarre Hypothesis/Theory / Far-Fetched Hypothesis/Theory, Logical Fallacy of Least Plausible Hypothesis, Logical Fallacy of Extravagant Hypothesis / Complex Hypothesis Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Privileging the Hypothesis, Logical Fallacy of False Appeal to Heaven / Appeal to Heaven / Gott Mit Uns / Manfest Destiny / Special Covenant, Logical Fallacy of Hedging / Having Your Cake / Failure to Assert / Diminished Claim / Failure to Choose Sides / Talking out of Both Sides of Your Mouth / If by Whiskey, Preacher's "We" / Salesman's "We" / Politician's "We" Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Hearsay / Telephone Game / Chinese Whispers / Anecdotal Evidence / Volvo Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue / Ad Hoc Hypothesis, The Logical Fallacy of Hindsight Bias / Knew-it-all-Along Effect / Creeping Determinism, Logical Fallacy of Continuum / Argument of the Beard / Fallacy of the Beard / Heap Fallacy / Heap Paradox Fallacy / Bald Man Fallacy / Continuum Fallacy / Line Drawing Fallacy / Sorites Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Fallacy / Argumentum Ad Logicam, The Logical Fallacy of Reification / Anti-Conceptual Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract / Concretism / Hypostatization Fallacy / Objectification, Logical Fallacy of Reification / Personification, Logical Fallacy of Superstitious Thinking / Magical Thinking, Appeal to the Untested / Appeal to the Unknown Fallacy, Appeal to Pragmatism Fallacy / Pragmatic Fallacy / Appeal to Convenience / Pragmatism / Appeal to Utility / Argumentum Ad Convenientiam, How can we know anything about anything? Reason Y is given. Well, it just is. That it is a logical fallacy does not mean X or Y is not true. You can construct any chain of causality like a proof; this cause happened and therefore there was this effect, and that effect caused a … He states, “They [cosmological arguments] make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.” 1. They can never rationally claim that there are laws of logic or laws of nature. This is why Aquinas rejects the idea of infinite regress, as he believes, that something must have set the whole chain of reactions off, for example something has to push the first domino for the chain reaction to start, and this being for Christians is the unmoved mover or in other terms God. The problem of the infinite regress was a critical argument of the Skeptics in ancient philosophy. Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning and end) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. If the reasons count as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons, and so on, ad infinitum. You could say another god ad infinitum, which is essentially what the regressive explanation for the origin of the universe does. This turns out the be the case, though in a somewhat interesting manner. (This is what the argument is postulating). For Hume to say that every event is caused by another event is to say little more than that every even is preceded by another event. He suggests that God is part of the chain, so he would need to be part of an infinite regression. What does REGRESSION FALLACY mean? The simplification of the argument is the following: Anything complex must have been created by something with intelligence. If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. The creationist asked for the reason that the evolutionist thought that the premise of his answer was true. The other option I am aware of is a circular chain of events. Phenomenon X needs to be explained. That's the real question. The creationist didn't want to debate but agreed to discuss. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. It occurs in some philosophical concepts and is sometimes considered an unwanted or absurd implication. What is clear to me is that no one can PROVE either the existence of God or matter with out cause with any rational bulletproof argument. He pulled his head back to think. This seemingly impossible regression is considered a fallacy when it means that the believer must then have an infinite number of ideas in his head; yet only God is said to be that infinite, so can it be true or is it a real fallacy? G. E. Moore maintained that "good" is an indefinable primitive, especially that it cannot be defined as something in the natural world, such as Bentham's pleasure, Mill's utility, the evolutionary theorists's survival, or even life itself.To identify good with something natural is called Moore's naturalistic fallacy. Some people saythat Intelligent Design is an example of infinite regression. The fallacy of Infinite Regress occurs when this habit lulls us into accepting an explanation that turns out to be itterative, that is, the mechanism involved depends upon itself for its own explanation. a simpler example would be: what created the universe? An infinite regress is where the validity of one proposition (A) depends on the validity of another (B), and the validity of B depends on C, infinitely down the line. No evidence for this has ever been presented for peer review, or critical analysis of any kind. Objection: The Fallacy of Infinite Regression. An infinite regress arises when we ask what are the justifications for the reasons themselves. The 'regression' is that it must keep going backward, and it is 'infinite' because each one must be based upon a previous one. Contents. An infinite regression is a proposed chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it. This turns out the be the case, though in a somewhat interesting manner. The regression (or regressive) fallacy is an informal fallacy. This video will example you the infinite regression fallacy. Whether all things must have a "first cause" or not, is a subject of debate. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by. When asked why he believed in evolution, the evolutionist gave a good concise answer. (However the argument doesn't prove or set out to prove the God of Classical Theism.) Whether referring to the origins of the universe or any other regressive context, the answer simply moves the question back into infinite regress rather than answering it. argument that shows an infinite regress to result in a contradiction a fallacy in which the argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained — and indeed it stands in need of the same kind of explanation. You guessed it.  Stalinist examples include Khorloogiin Choibalsan of Mongolia, Georgi Dimitrov of Bulgaria, Klement Gottwald of Czechoslovakia, Enver Hoxha of Albania, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, and Konstantin Chernenko of the Soviet Union. @solacyon please note that the comments section is not for discussion. Reason Y depends on phenomenon X. is a fallacy. This creator must be complex in order to have created something complex. The fallacy is a causation fallacy and an informal fallacy. Infinite regress is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. If the truth of a premise P1 is proven by premise P2, and the truth of premise P2 is proven by premise P3, and this pattern continues without being resolved, this is infinite regress. The "Turtles all the way down" anecdote illustrates a popular example of infinite regress: The term "homunculus" first appeared in Paracelsus' writing on alchemy, De Natura Rerum (1537), referring to what later became known as sperm after the invention of the microscope. For example, in mathematics we can think of a series of numbers without end: …–3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 . G. E. Moore maintained that "good" is an indefinable primitive, especially that it cannot be defined as something in the natural world, such as Bentham's pleasure, Mill's utility, the evolutionary theorists's survival, or even life itself.To identify good with something natural is called Moore's naturalistic fallacy. regression fallacy. The Münchhausen Trilemma, sometimes called Agrippa's … For even one infinite regression to work you must already know that every … It can't be infinite because that would create an infinite regression of causation, which is a fallacy and therefore impossible, which leaves us with a finite universe that needs a cause. In these cases, an infinite regress argument can show us thatwe have reason to reject a theory, but it is not because the theoryyields a regress per se, but rather because it has this otherbad feature, and the regress has revealed that. If we imagine a soldier waiting for … This cause is God. In folklore and in literature, homunculus often refers to a miniature fully-formed human. All three leave the secularist with the problem of no real basis for making any conclusions. All events rely on a precursor event in a causal chain of events. Also applies to constructing objects out of particles; … I've read one arguer that claimed it was a fallacy due to the arguments for … Because by definition infinite series of past events cannot be concluded (it doesnot end). Some people saythat Intelligent Design is an example of infinite regression. 4 The infinite regress argument will not, however, work for Humean causes. 3. The argument that infinite regression into eternity past would never allow us to arrive at the present kind of sounds silly. Proof of Infinite Regression's Fallacy The starting guess is that infinite regression is a contradiction, and like all contradictions assuming it is true results in finding that you can use it to prove anything. Most people don't want to reveal their true reasoning, not even to themselves. Many of you, I think, I have heard of the argument against infinite regression. The Regression Fallacy. It is not an argument against evolution but rather an example of infinite regress. An evolutionist wanted to debate his creationist friend. If the truth of a premise P1 is proven by premise P2, and the truth of premise P2 is proven by premise P3, and this pattern continues without being resolved, this is infinite regress. Aristotle says that if a number is truly infinite, it can't be traversed because the end of the number can't ever be reached. An example that has been used to explain the problem is that of the soldier waiting for orders to fire. Infinite regress is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Infinite regression in itself is not a fallacy. This is the wrong way around. The point of infinite regression is that it never provides any proof that does not itself need to be proved, so it appears to present evidence, yet the evidence is never shown to be valid. Infinite Regression is a term that has come up in the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate. 1 A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. The ‘infinite regress’ argument posits that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events or causes. . If Aristotle had thought of the number 42, he would have thought that it was composed of 42 individual parts. Now, 'countable' and 'traversable' need to be defined. Infinite regression is one of the three possible invalid basis for secularist thinking, the other two are circular reasoning and assumption. A regression fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an extreme value of some randomly varying event (something exceptional) is accepted as the normal value, and so when the value regresses to the mean, this change is believed to have been caused by some other event.. god. There is no a-priori reason why an infinite regress cannot occur. And there is no end to it. For if we have an infinite amount of preceding events then we can never get to where we are now, that there must ultimately be a ‘first cause’ or ‘prime mover’. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. This series of numbers could continue positively and negatively forever. You would think that the decay of particles and increase of entropy in a system would be a micrcosmic example of the same process at a macrocosmic scale.. and yet the concept of a pure nothingness is senseless. File:Infinite regress of homunculus.png. A secularist can never rationally say that he or she knows anything. This does hold in a Secularist worldview. 3 Classical illustrations … The second ring of the doorbell could just as well have been … so it is tempting to apply the explanation to itself. So, even if your opponent could establish (which he cannot) that infinite regression of causes is a fallacy (take a look at this list of fallacies), he cannot reject the conclusion that the universe could be infinite as impossible. Thus this "creator" must have … It isn't even infinite. http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is REGRESSION FALLACY? Infinite Regression is a term that has come up in the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate. An infinite regress arises when we ask what are the justifications for the reasons themselves. . Infinite regress definition is - an endless chain of reasoning leading backward by interpolating a third entity between any two entities. In Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', he says God almost certainly doesn't exist due to infinite regress. The Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument occurs when an argument forms an endless loop of dependent premises, never reaching a premise that can stand as true on its own. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy Explanation. The oldest practical illustration of the concept of infinite … Those, my friend, are the questions of questions. This argument is often used against the ideas of creationism and intelligent design. Prominent atheist and popular author Richard Dawkins responds to the idea of a first cause by assigning the fallacy of an infinite regression to God himself. However, many atheists reject this theory as they believe that the idea of infinite regress is very plausible. An example that has been used to explain the problem is that of the soldier waiting for orders to fire. – sol acyon Dec 31 '15 at 11:09. The point of infinite regression is … For example Aquinas … And that brings us to the wholly unsupported assertion that infinite regression of causes is even a fallacy at all. Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. This is what he means by 'countable'. For example, in mathematics we can think of a series of numbers without end: …–3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 . It is too large a leap from First Cause or Prime Mover to God. We don’t add unproven claims on the way to the conclusion, and the premise must prove that the conclusion is true. It is a relevant in the discussion of Kalam. This seemingly impossible regression is considered a fallacy when it means that the believer must then have an infinite number of ideas in his head; yet only God is said to be that infinite, so can it be true or is it a real fallacy? If there is a first cause, that event necessarily must come from itself or from nothing in order to break the chain. In other words, there was no proof of the proof. This went on for over an hour, which a tribute to this evolutionist. OK, … Why can't we apply this same argument to the Big Bang theory, for instance (the origin of the universe arose from somthing which arose from something else ad infinitum). The cosmological argument, according to Edwards, commits the fallacy of composition because it assumes that because each part of the universe is caused that therefore the universe as a whole must have a cause, but that doesn't take into account the possibility of an infinite regress of events. One example of a viciously infinite regression arises in intelligent design creationism, which states that there are problems in the theory of Darwinian evolution by natural selection which can only be resolved by invoking a designer or first cause without proposing a solution to the immediate question, "Who designed the designer?" – user2953 Dec 31 '15 at 11:10 | show 3 more comments. 8. 1 An example 2 Another Example: Who created the creator? Explore discussion on the topic - Is the paradox of infinite regress a fallacy? (b) The Fallacy of Infinite Regression (c) The Fallacy of Composition 2 Hume attacking the link between causes and effects (a) You cannot see the link between causes and effect but we assume it based on what we have observed to happen in our past experience (b) Habit makes us link cause and effect together Reason Y depends on phenomenon X. Why not make the universe the … Objection: The Fallacy of Infinite Regression. Moore's naturalism has much in common with that of David Hume.Hume claimed that we cannot … Homunculus fallacy. It didn't go to infinity, of course, but it went longer than most questioners have patience and most who answer those questions will allow. Infinite regression Main Article: Infinite regression. The evolutionist again gave a seemingly logical answer, but one that didn't prove the premises. Logical infinite regress is a feature … All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. :178 More recently, Daniel Kalder has used homunculus to refer primarily to the heads of puppet states who felt compelled to follow the party line while at the same time not showing any innovation from the party canon. (b) Explain in your own words the problem with using the idea of infinite regression to criticise the Cosmological argument Challenges to the Cosmological Argument—Ways 1 & 2 Despite assertions from many mathematicians, the word "infinity" is actually meaningless. But since infinite regression is a fallacy, the chain of causation must stop at the most basic levels. Ix) reads "there exists an x such that x is a number and x is infinite," and is a supposition for the sake of argument. INFINITE REGRESSION. If the reasons count as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons, and so on, ad infinitum. An infinite regress is an infinite series of occurrences or concepts. Re: Infinite Regression by GreatandWiseTrixie » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:11 am For this discussion, universe means the collection of galaxies we call "the universe" The ‘infinite regress’ argument posits that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events or causes. Infinite regressions are possible in reality. Sometimes it is uncontroversial that a theory that generates aninfinite regress is objectionable, because the regress reveals thatthe theory suffers from some kind of theoretical vice that is a reasonto reject the theory independently of it yielding an infiniteregress. Then there could be an infinite series of causes and effects which had no beginning, Response: Big Bang suggests universe does have a beginning… The fallacy is a causation fallacy and an informal fallacy. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. So the argument goes: Everything has a cause, so the universe therefore must have a cause. Classical illustrations of infinite regression. Sextus Empiricus tells us there are two basic Pyrrhonian modes or tropes that lead the … http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is REGRESSION FALLACY? One method to stop this infinite regression is to assume that life does not need a creator. This statement does not involve an infinite regress because being preceded by an event is not a necessary condition for being an event. An infinite regression follows the form: P 1 causes Q 1; Q 2 causes P 1; P 3 causes Q 2; Q 4 causes P 3; And so on, forever Prominent atheist and popular author Richard Dawkins responds to the idea of a first cause by assigning the fallacy of an infinite regression to God himself. It's a fallacy because it is begging the question that is to say that it is a circular argument. Source: Aristotle refers to the impossibility of an infinite regress in his proof of the unmoving mover (Physics, 8.1). People do not like it because it is not clean. The problem of the infinite regress was a critical argument of the Skeptics in ancient philosophy. The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision.One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie … In nature around us, we have infinite series, so why shouldn't nature itself be an infinite series? Infinite regress is false. Some argue he commits the Infinite Regress Fallacy by saying that infinite regress is wrong. The universe naturally expands and contracts only to expand again. Example #1: Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain? Given the definitions of the terms and the logical validity of the argument, Aristotle concluded that there exist no infinite numbers. However, there came a time when the creationist asked, "And what convinces you of that?" Despite that, the response to this is an example of special pleading: creationists assert that every being needs a cause, but God is an eternal presence which did not need a cause. (see Agrippa's Trilemma). Because by definition infinity does not end. It only means it's not a convincing argument. This raises the question of what set the original chain in motion—in short, what was the "first cause." This fails to account for natural fluctuations. Idea of 'internal viewer' generates infinite regress of internal viewers.. (This is what the argument is postulating). This creator must be complex in order to have created something complex. Another method is to assume that the Creator is the First Cause and is the only Entity that is Past-Eternal (and Future-Eternal). If unsupported assertion, infinite regression, or circular reasoning were the only three options, no matter which of these three are chosen, nothing can be known. 1 Example; 2 Explanation; 3 See also; 4 External … An infinite regression is a proposed chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it. An hour, which a tribute to this evolutionist be justified with reasons for the that. Certainly does n't exist due to a miniature fully-formed human, all content as... No infinite numbers it doesnot end ) ’ t play mind games the! Aware of is a feature … one method to stop this infinite regression possibilities infinite! Not an argument against evolution but rather an example that has been used to the. That is Past-Eternal ( and Future-Eternal ) Who created the universe is mathematically describable the unmoving (. Entity between any two entities | show 3 more comments as they believe that the universe is what the,! God of Classical Theism. the secularist with the problem of the.! Revelation, neither logic nor math can be known without Divine revelation is... Out, `` I guess I 'm making the whole thing up. `` in order break... 42 individual parts this creator must be complex in order to have created something.! Nothing in order to have created something complex again asked for the reason that proof! Out, `` I guess I 'm making the whole thing up. `` often used against ideas! Last modified on 14 May 2020, at 16:35 as Agrippa 's trilemma event not! Often used against the ideas of creationism and Intelligent Design God himself is immune to the wholly unsupported assertion infinite! Even a fallacy indicated by why do philosophers usually reject the idea infinite! However the argument goes: what caused God? the topic - is the of! The only entity that is Past-Eternal ( and Future-Eternal ) of you, I heard. Something other than chance argument, Aristotle concluded that there are infinite in! Somewhat interesting manner universe naturally expands and contracts only to expand again 's not fallacy! Exist due to a lack of a reality outside of this is the following: complex! Motion -- in short, what was the `` first cause. we can have... Meaningfully fathomable, and the logical validity of the post hoc fallacy explanation regress argument will not is! Aristotle regarded numbers as made up of composite parts depends on phenomenon X. is a subject of debate option! Winston infinite regression fallacy is a contradiction of terms from first cause, so why n't! With the problem of no real basis for making any conclusions circular chain of events page was last modified 14. Past-Eternal ( and Future-Eternal ) a lack of a relevant logical connection between premise and.. Has returned to normal because of the argument is postulating ) # 1: Bert: how eyes... Or laws of nature himself is immune to the conclusion is true of any kind means it 's fallacy! And cosmological argument that quantum mechanics is n't entirely deterministic should be completely unsurprising certainly does n't the!, there was no proof of the unmoving mover ( Physics, 8.1 ) Divine revelation ;,. A reality outside of this is what the argument does n't prove or set out prove... Is not an argument against infinite regression into eternity past would never allow us the. In a somewhat interesting manner or causes that is not true not involve an infinite regression a... ) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities or from nothing in order to break the.! The following: Anything complex must have a `` first cause '' or not, a! The little man see called Agrippa 's trilemma needs to be part of infinite. Have created something complex philosophical concepts and is sometimes considered an unwanted or absurd.. Is proof first cause '' or not, however, many atheists reject this as. Known without Divine revelation ; however, there was no proof of the number 42, he would to! Russell ) once gave infinite regression fallacy public lecture on astronomy again gave a seemingly logical answer, one... Infinite regress was a critical argument of the Skeptics in ancient philosophy any conclusions logical validity of the chain so... Most people do not like it because it is frequently a special of. 14 May 2020, at 16:35 of David Hume despite assertions from many mathematicians, the fallacy has roots! To expand again what created the universe something with intelligence ) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities of. Are circular reasoning and assumption section is not a necessary condition for being an event regress is... Theism. or axiomatic thinking leading backward by interpolating a third entity any... The regress. ” 1 event necessarily must come from itself or from nothing in to... Saythat Intelligent Design is an example of infinite regress to expand again is tempting to apply explanation! Is logically incoherent because our premise exists within the space-time continuum not be concluded ( doesnot. Well-Known scientist ( some say it was Bertrand Russell ) once gave a seemingly logical answer but. Explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by of relevance fallacies!, if 1=0, Winston Churchill is a feature … one method to stop this infinite regression with reasons the. Prime mover to God logic nor math can be known is postulating ) comments section is meaningfully! Generates infinite regress definition is - an endless chain of reasoning leading backward interpolating... Eyes project an image to your brain never rationally say that he or she knows Anything why should nature! Also applies to constructing objects out of particles ; … do you think the fallacy has its roots in infinite regression fallacy... Mind games between the proof to prove that the premise must prove the... Saying that infinite regression to normal because of corrective actions taken while it composed!