Question

The basic cosmological argument assumes that an infinite regress of cause and effect is unsatisfactory because it does not explain why something exists instead of nothing. True or false

Answer 1

• False.

infinite regress, at least from the assumption that there is at least one event. If there is an event, \(E_1\), then it is preceded by its cause. That cause cannot be \(E_1\), as nothing precedes itself and causes precede what they cause. So the cause of \(E_1\) must be a new event, \(E_2\). This event is preceded by its cause. This cannot be \(E_2\) for the same reasons as before, and it cannot be \(E_1\) because then each of \(E_1\) and \(E_2\) would precede the other in violation of asymmetry. So the cause of \(E_2\) must be a new event, \(E_3\). \(E_3\) is preceded by its cause. It cannot be \(E_3\) or \(E_2\) for reasons similar to before. And it cannot be \(E_1\), for then \(E_1\) would precede \(E_3\), but since \(E_3\) precedes \(E_2\) which precedes \(E_1\), transitivity entails that \(E_3\) precedes \(E_1\), and so \(E_1\) cannot precede \(E_3\) due to asymmetry. So the cause of \(E_3\) must be a new event, \(E_4\). And so on …