Why an Infinite Regress Into the Past Isn't Possible

Yesterday on my Google+ page (follow me there if you don't already) I posted a link to an article from Reduction into Modernism explaining the first cause argument (Atheists: Infinite Regress is Impossible!). Said post was followed by the following conversation with an atheist on the possibility of an infinite regress that I thought it might be beneficial to share here.

Solamon Grundy

9:15 AM

I read it and discussed at length with the author. Why do you understand infinite regress to be impossible?

Nathan Barontini

9:28 AM

How many items are there in an infinite series?

Solamon Grundy

9:33 AM

A infinite.

Nathan Barontini

9:34 AM

And if I asked you to count each of those items when would you finish?

Solamon Grundy

9:40 AM

Personally never. For a being that can't die, a infinite amount of time.

Nathan Barontini

9:42 AM

Would even the being who couldn't die ever finish?

Solamon Grundy

9:50 AM

You're right, he'd never stop counting. He wouldn't finish.

Nathan Barontini

9:53 AM

If we met someone who had finished counting our series of items, what would we then know about the series of items?

Solamon Grundy

9:54 AM

We wouldn't meet that someone.

Nathan Barontini

9:56 AM

Or, if we did, we'd know the series wasn't infinite, right?

Solamon Grundy

10:01 AM

Right.

Nathan Barontini

10:07 AM

if instead of an infinite series of items to count we had an infinite number of causes leading up to event x, when would event x happen?

Solamon Grundy

10:09 AM

When ever on the timeline of infinite events it lies.

Nathan Barontini

10:11 AM

If I said I'd pay you a million dollars after an infinite series of events passed, would I ever pay you the million?

Solamon Grundy

10:11 AM

No, because the infinite series would never come to completion.

Nathan Barontini

10:12 AM

So it would never fall on the timeline? It would never happen?

Solamon Grundy

10:14 AM

Right, because the infinite series would never finish, which is what you are getting at right?

Nathan Barontini

10:15 AM

Right.

Solamon Grundy

10:16 AM

There is no point infinite. There is no point of completion.

Solamon Grundy

10:26 AM

Is there anymore to this?

Nathan Barontini

10:28 AM

Sure. If I'm sitting here writing you a check for a million what do we know about the series of events preceding it?

Solamon Grundy

10:34 AM

Yeah, I get that, but now isn't a completion infinity. Our universe isn't point infinite because that doesn't exist. Infinity is an abstract concept to describe something as without limit, so framing an event on a limitless series as the limit is nonsensical.

Nathan Barontini

10:41 AM

Sure, but the question here is whether a limitless series of events is even possible. As we saw I'd never have to write you a check if we were waiting for a limitless series of events to pass first. Is my writing you a check a unique circumstance or would the same hold true for any other event? Say I tell my wife I'll take her to the movies after I finish a limitless list of chores first or my boss tells me I can pick up my paycheck after I work a limitless number of hours would I ever go to the cinema or get paid?

Read more

Solamon Grundy

10:45 AM

Again, you're framing it as finishing.

Solamon Grundy

10:48 AM

Think of that guy who never dies, or that guy who you already accept as possible, the God that is eternal. Say God counts forever. Even he will never finish an infinite set, but there is no number on that infinite set that he won't reach, correct?

Nathan Barontini

10:57 AM

It's not just impossible to count to infinity (to complete a limitless series), it's equally impossible to count from negative infinity to one (to reach any number on the timeline from infinity). Let's leave aside the hypothetical examples. If an infinite number of events had to pass before you were born would you ever have been born?

Show less

Solamon Grundy

11:03 AM

How do you count from negative infinity? What do you start with, it's a concept, not a point.

Please consider the God question I just asked.

Solamon Grundy

11:04 AM

These are all hypothetical examples. You can't just throw away the one's that hurt your point.

Nathan Barontini

11:06 AM

You tell me, would even God reach one if He has to count an infinite series of numbers first? An infinite regress (ie an infinite series of past completed events) is what we are considering, not an infinite future.

Solamon Grundy

11:09 AM

Given an infinite dimension of duration, like time, which you are accepting if you believe anything is eternal or everlasting, it is just like an infinite future.

Nathan Barontini

11:24 AM

Is it? Let's say I have two challenges for you. First, is to count from one to five on a timeline that stretches from one to infinity. Could you do that? Second, is to count an infinite series of numbers to reach five on a timeline that ends at five. Are both equally possible tasks?

Thus the conversation ended, but I think the point was clear enough. If an infinite series of events, causes, numbers, etc have to pass before any event, that event can never in principal come to pass. If we know a certain event did come to pass, we then also know only a finite number of event, causes, etc proceeded that event. Thus, if something, anything, is caused today we know it could in principal only have been proceeded by a finite number of causes. Any finite number of things begins with a first in the series. Thus there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused (lest it not be the first cause). This first cause is what we theists call God.

Therefore, we either have nothing ever being caused (which is absurd) and atheism being true or we have things being caused (which is self evidently true) and God.

Solamon Grundy, before breaking off the conversation, touched on a separate issue - the relation between God and time. He seemed to be suggesting that an eternal being, God, would have lived through an infinite past number of days. Such, of course, isn't what theists believe at all about the relationship between God and time. No one presents this quite as elegantly as Frank Sheed in Theology and Sanity,

What then is time?... Time... is the duration of that which changes; time... is the measurement of the changes of the universe.... Where nothing changes, there is nothing for time to measure. Where nothing changes, time has no possible meaning. Thus time and the universe started together. God is infinite and therefore changeless.... The universe He created is a changing universe. And because change belongs to it and not to God, time belongs to it and not to God.... time is the ticking of the universe. 

Thus the phrase "before the universe was created" has no meaning at all. Before is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe. To say "before the universe" means when there wasn't any "when"; which is to say that it doesn't mean anything at all. ...

Apply all this to the consideration of one further absurdity that tends to shadow the back of our minds, even when in the front of our minds we are by way of knowing better. It is the vague feeling we have that eternity had been going on for some time before God decided to create the universe. In light of what we have said, this is seen to be sheerly meaningless, for it brings time into eternity. We must not think of God creating the universe after a certain amount of eternity had rolled by, because there are no parts in eternity, and it does not roll by. This mental monstrosity is perhaps related to the picture of God as an old man. But God is not only not an old man, He is not even an old God. He is not old at all. For "old" simply means that one has lived through a long time; and there is no time to God. (pp. 66-68)

God, then, hasn't lived through an infinite number of "past days" or for a limitless time. Rather He lives in one present, changeless "now," an eternal instant which has no beginning, middle, or end - that doesn't have any time to it at all, but that stands apart from and outside of all time (which has no meaning where nothing changes). God then isn't an exception to the impossibility of an infinite regress rule (which would itself be impossible), but stands in a qualitatively different relationship to time altogether (one which doesn't require the passing of time at all).

The whole article at Reduction into Modernism is worth checking out.

Society is a Marriage Construct

Saw this over at Catholic Memes and thought it perfect. As we look through history, we see societies growing out of families - families built on marriage. In many respects, society exists to promote and protect the family.

Unfortunately, influenced by the "social contract" thinking of men like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau,  our society fails to recognize this basic truth. Hobbes, in his seminal (if deeply flawed work) Leviathan ascribes the rise of government to the horrors of the extreme individualism that must have existed before the rise of governments,

...it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such warre, as is of every man against every man.... the life of man (was) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (XIII)

It is against this bleak backdrop that Hobbes posits the rise of government. Of course, such a individualistic hell never actually existed on Earth, as even Hobbes admits,

It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world (ibid)

Hobbes then goes on to point to the Native peoples of America as an example of people living a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish" life. Whether or not the natives (or historians today) would agree with this assessment is another matter (they don't). However, Hobbes admits that even the savage (to him) people in America had "the government of small Families" (ibid). And it is here, in the heart of the greatest work of the forefather of modern political theory, and one of the biggest proponents of the all powerful State, that we see the same admission that our meme makes - society doesn't create families, families create societies.

The same tacit admission is at the heart of another father of our modern political worldview - Niccolo Machiavelli, who, using the founding of Venice as an example, wrote

Venice... owed its origin to the fact that several tribes (tribes being extended family units) had taken refuge on the little islands situated at the head of the Adriatic Sea, to escape from war... Those refugees themselves, and without any prince (i.e. State) to govern them, began to live under such laws as seemed to them best... (The Discourses, Chapter 1)

What we see in a remarkably clear fashion in the case of Venice, holds true for the founding of all cities. They were, according to Machiavelli, first formed for "greater conveniences and greater facility of defense." (ibid)

Not to be left out is the most influential "social contract" political thinker, John Locke. Locke's arguments, especially in his Second Treatise of Government, were especially influential with America's "Founding Fathers." Locke, like Hobbes and Machiavelli, saw the State as something people joined voluntarily to limit the disadvantages of living a solitary, brutish, life. Even Locke, however, saw through the nonsense that societies create marriages (and families),

The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children... (Second Treatise of Government, chapter 7).

It is from this "first society" that larger societies and governments grow - and it is to protect this first society (marriage for the sake of procreation) that governments can be justified.

Thus we see even the forefathers of our political theories would agree on the absurdity of suggesting that marriage is merely a "social construct," one which societies (having created) may change to suit the whims of the times. Rather, societies are created by families, which in turn are best served by healthy marriages. With such a realization, we might ask, is our society still helping to protect and serve the family? If not, maybe we ought to focus less on allowing society to change the family and more on transforming society. After all, society is but a "marriage construct."

Interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall on His Novel "Sword and Serpent"

I'm excited to announce the great honor I have here at AdoroErgoSum to be the first person to interview Dr. Taylor Marshall about his fine new page-turner Sword and Serpent. I recently reviewed this great novel (you really ought to do yourself a favor and get a copy Sword and Serpent on Amazon. I'm sure you'll find it next to impossible to put down. If you haven't had a chance to read my review, please do so here: Sword and Serpent: Book Review and please enjoy the following interview!

1. The main character of your book, Sword and Serpent, is Saint George. You also have dedicated your Catholic father/son outdoors apostolate, the Troops of Saint George, under the patronage of Saint George. Do you have a particular devotion to St. George and if so what is its genesis?

I wrote this novel during my first year as a Catholic, which was a very depressing year for me. I had been an Episcopalian clergyman and then I was a Catholic layman who felt lost in a giant church. I imposed much of my own personal battle into the story of Saint George. Those were dark days for me. Like George in the novel, I was wandering around wondering what to do with my life. 

I had to fight my own dragon. The legend of Saint George reminds me that total self-sacrifice (in the face of self-insecurity) is the path to Christian joy.

Years later, when forming the Troops of Saint George, I remained convinced that men and young men must discover this same "Saint George pattern" of virtue, fortitude, and facing unknown evils. Who better than Saint George?

2. Your novel, Sword and Serpent, shows us a sacramental world. One not quite magical, but one where physical objects are very powerful transmitters of God’s grace. As a convert to Catholicism, was the Church’s sacramental theology a stumbling block or a draw into communion? 

The sacramental worldview is the romance of creation and I think everyone is attracted to it whether they know it or not. Even as a Protestant I was drawn to the "magical" world of Catholicism. Later, I learned that what I perceived as "magical" is the "sacramental" genius of incarnational theology.

In Sword and the Serpent I wanted to show that this sacramental worldview is much more powerful than any practitioner of Wicca or magic might imagine. Relics, miracles, and bilocation are more real...and more fun.

3. The character arc Sabra goes through in the novel is quite powerful. Did you fear she might “steal the show” from Jurian? If so, were you tempted to scale her role in the book back?

When I originally pitched the novel to agents and publishers, Sabra was a minor character who only showed up at the end of the story. In the original, you hear about her, but you don't see here till George gets to North Africa. Agents loved the book, but said that it needed a stronger female character toward the beginning, especially if I wanted the book to capture a young adult audience. One agent in particular recommended having George and Sabra's story go back and forth. That's what you see in this final published version.

Honestly, I felt very uncomfortable trying to realistically depict the inner world of a young woman like Sabra since I've never been a young woman! Even more, I did not want female readers to feel in any way that Sabra was just a "token female character." So I teamed up with Dr. Shannon Valenzuela and Jennifer Leigh Bralick - both female authors with a strong Catholic sense - to extend Sabra's plot into the opening chapters. We brainstromed on the details and the final story is even more powerful with Sabra's journey. Sabra is already getting lots of fans. Does she outshine George/Jurian? I don't think so. I like to think of the literary triangle of George/Sabra/Dragon as parallel to the theological triangle of Adam/Eve/Serpent. Each has a pivotal place in the narrative.

4. I think one of the things readers will most enjoy about the novel are the “guest appearances” of several major Catholic saints. What process did you go through in selecting the other saints that appear in the story? 

This novel began as bed time stories. They were knight stories for my son Gabriel that incorporated Saint George. The first stories began around Christmas time. So Saint Nicholas was an obvious choice. He lived at the same time as George. Then George needed a companion. Saint Christopher or Menas, who also lived at this time, then joined the story. As the stories became a book, I began to insert more saints into the plot. I tried to make them not so obvious. There are still some in there that readers have not yet discovered!

5. I’m sure anyone reading the book will anxiously await the next chapter in the saga you’ve begun with Sword and Serpent. When can we expect the sequel?

Book 2 is already in the works. I won't say too much about it, except that it will probably be even more amazing than the first book. You can expect to see more of the young Constantinius (the historical Constantine the Great) who already has a couple cameo appearances in Sword and Serpent.

I'd like to heartily thank Dr. Taylor Marshall for taking the time to speak with us here today. It is truly an honor to have a chance to interview him. Readers of the blog know my passion for the forma extraordinaria (the Traditional Latin Mass) began after Dr. Marshall issued a four week Latin Mass challenge on his blog. If you haven't been to a Latin Mass, check out his post here - My Initial Doubts about the Latin Mass. His New Saint Thomas Institute is also worth a look (I was a member for awhile myself, you'll learn a lot) and you can always follow his blog and podcast both of which are worth checking out.  And get yourself a copy of Sword and Serpent (and another for a young Catholic adult in your life for Christmas!) You won't regret it!

What Should Christians Do With Online Trolls? The Biblical Answer.

I was recently asked by an atheist on my Google+ page whether or not "a Christian should answer a fool." I thought it was an interesting question, especially as this particular atheist seemed to be suggesting that he was a fool and that I perhaps should not bother answering his questions. As the question specifically asked whether or not a Christian should answer a fool, I thought the best answer would be one drawn from the Wisdom literature of the Bible, thus I answered him,

"Should a Christian answer a fool?" It depends on the fool and the circumstances. 

The Bible actually provides an answer to this question (which is a fair resource to use, as you specifically asked what Christians are to do and Christians accept the authority of Scripture. Had you asked in general I wouldn't appeal directly to Scripture). 

We read in the Book of Proverbs the answer to your question,

Answer not a fool according to his folly,    lest you be like him yourself.Answer a fool according to his folly,    lest he be wise in his own eyes. (26:4-5) 

So it really depends on how the Christian judges the likely result of his taking the time to answer to the fool. If it will only lead the Christian to become foolish himself, then no. If it will show the fool that he is a fool (preventing him from being "wise in his own eyes") then yes.

 The atheist gave no response. Thinking more on the question, I realized it is a standard atheist "gotcha" question. I was supposed to say either "yes, Christians are supposed to try to convert everyone" or "no, Christians shouldn't bother with fools." He was then to pull out the very verses of Proverbs 26 that I answered the question with to show me a "contradiction in the Bible." I then was to loose all faith and become another atheist drone lurking in the shadowlands of the internet or something like that.

It is ironic enough that the atheist was supposed to be leading me to my destruction with the very verses that answered his own question had he had enough sense to read them for understanding rather than jumping on them as a contradiction (as if no one in the history of Judaism or Christianity had ever noticed an immediate contradiction like this is supposed to be) but such is the fate of those married to the unreasonable hermeneutic of suspicion. They can't see the clear answers in front of their faces for they are too busy "debunking" that which they don't even begin to understand.

Yes, it is ironic enough, but indeed the greater irony is that my atheist friend actually was asking a good question, one which is very relevant to Catholic bloggers, readers of Catholic blogs, and (increasingly) regular Catholics everywhere in society, ought we bother answering "fools?" The Biblical answer is clear enough, as demonstrated above - yes, if it will help them realize their error and thus bring them closer to the Truth. No, if it will merely waste our time, making us even more foolish than the fool we are answering. Thus, Proverbs 26:4-5 is almost tailored for those of us dealing with online atheists. If they are militant trolls, refer to verse four and don't waste your energy. They won't care what you say, how well you say it, or how tight a logical argument you present. Truth doesn't matter to these "fools" (the Bible's word, not mine), they are only here to disrupt and annoy those who seek and those who have found the Truth. These trolls are best ignored or even banned outright. They are beyond reason. But if they are truth seekers, then take all the time you need to help them find Truth for there are few (if any) greater acts of charity possible than to bring someone from the depths of irreligion to the face of God. I, once mired in those hopeless depths myself, can personally attest to this.

So what kind of "fool" was my atheist questioner? Well, as I said, I have trouble discerning that. I usually lean on the side of answering every "fool" who finds me (and enough certainly seem to find me). But after months of answering objection after objection (to only be presented with another half-baked objection) I have to think I might just have been making myself a fool all along after all. Then again, maybe I managed to scatter just enough seeds that one day someone else might reap a harvest with him. Such would be glorious, although I'd never know of it, for all of heaven rejoices more over one lost soul returned to his God than ninety-nine sinless souls who've never left (Lk 15:7). Thus, I think, my policy and perhaps I may be bold enough to recommend this to you as well, is to lump the vulgar, the irrational, and the angry atheists into the first group of "fools" while assuming the good will of the rest. Perhaps I'll be made a fool myself once or twice, but such is the fate of those who follow He who is Love.

Note: there is an interesting case that can be made for Proverbs being perfectly suited to the situation of encountering atheist trolls online. Here we see advice on dealing with "fools." Elsewhere (Pslam 14:1) we read, "the fool says in his heart there is no God" tying the two verses and atheism together nicely.

What say you? How do you deal with atheist "fools" online?