Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

[Speakpigeon]

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

This does not even approach addressing the point.

If the prior events were without end how did the present event occur?

It is a clear contradiction.

If prior events are without end they cannot ever complete and allow a new event to occur.

Sorry, I assumed that by "end" you meant something like the beginning of time and the idea that there's a prior event to each event doesn't require any assumption about whether there a beginning or not to time.

If prior events are without end they cannot ever complete and allow a new event to occur.

Why would prior events be "without end"?

We assume that each event is caused by a prior event. We obviously know the current end of the series of prior events, i.e. the present moment. This is because the whole series is defined starting from the present moment and I'm sure you'd agree that we know the present moment exists. So, could you try to explain how the series of prior events could possibly not have the present moment as its current, momentary end?
EB

 

[untermensche]

The question is: Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

If so how?

Mindlessly repeating that all events have a prior event does not explain how you have a progression without a beginning to that progression.

If there is no beginning to a progression that is like saying the progression never existed. It does not explain how you have a progression without a beginning to the progression.

 

[Juma]

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

This does not even approach addressing the point.

If the prior events were without end how did the present event occur?

It is a clear contradiction.

If prior events are without end they cannot ever complete and allow a new event to occur.

There is no contradiction.
Each event is preceded by a prior one.
Do you even understand what ”a logical contradiction” means?

 

[Wiploc]

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

I'm not convinced it's possible to have really no idea on this.

That's your idea of an explanation? You make it easy for me to be convinced that I have no idea.

 

[untermensche]

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

This does not even approach addressing the point.

If the prior events were without end how did the present event occur?

It is a clear contradiction.

If prior events are without end they cannot ever complete and allow a new event to occur.

There is no contradiction.
Each event is preceded by a prior one.
Do you even understand what ”a logical contradiction” means?

Since any progression of events requires a first event there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events.

 

[Juma]

There is no contradiction.
Each event is preceded by a prior one.
Do you even understand what ”a logical contradiction” means?

Since any progression of events requires a first event there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events.

lets clear this statement up:
1) p1= ”any progression of events requires a first event”
2) p2=”there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events”
3) p1=>p2
which fails on the fact that you havent shown p1 to be true.

 

[Juma]

The question is: Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

If so how?

Mindlessly repeating that all events have a prior event does not explain how you have a progression without a beginning to that progression.

If there is no beginning to a progression that is like saying the progression never existed. It does not explain how you have a progression without a beginning to the progression.

no: the question is: is there a logical problem with the assumption that ”every event is preceded by another event.”

 

[untermensche]

There is no contradiction.
Each event is preceded by a prior one.
Do you even understand what ”a logical contradiction” means?

Since any progression of events requires a first event there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events.

lets clear this statement up:
1) p1= ”any progression of events requires a first event”
2) p2=”there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events”
3) p1=>p2
which fails on the fact that you havent shown p1 to be true.

How can you have a progression of events without a first event?

How would that happen?

Please be specific.

 

[Random Person]

There is no contradiction.
Each event is preceded by a prior one.
Do you even understand what ”a logical contradiction” means?

Since any progression of events requires a first event there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events.

lets clear this statement up:
1) p1= ”any progression of events requires a first event”
2) p2=”there is always one event that has no preceding event in any progression of events”
3) p1=>p2
which fails on the fact that you havent shown p1 to be true.

The benefit of constructing a logical argument is that it is very clear what is being asserted. If premise 1 isn't true then the conclusion doesn't follow, but p1 appears to be true unless you can tell us why.

 

[fast]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Well, the first chicken came from the first chicken egg.

Oh, then where did the first chicken egg come from?
Non chickens.

Two non chickens mated and before long, through a DNA oops, out comes the first chicken egg.

Not really sure I had a point. Carry on.

 

[untermensche]

This is not a chicken or egg situation.

You need a first event to have any progression of events.

Without a first event there can be no progression. There is no progression.

If there is not a first event there is not a second or third or ANY number of events.

 

[fromderinside]

I dunno. If I enter the sequence any time in the sequence not knowing if or when the first event took place I can identify progression of events in the sequence I examine.

 

[untermensche]

That is incoherent.

This is not about what some human can observe.

It is about logical necessities.

If I see some event then I know that in the past there was a first event then a second then a third....then a one millionth event.....then the witnessed event.

There is no other way.

You cannot have a progression without a beginning to that progression.

You cannot have any witnessed event unless there was a first event to begin the progression.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If there is no end to the prior events how did the observed event occur?

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

This does not even approach addressing the point.

If the prior events were without end how did the present event occur?

It is a clear contradiction.

If prior events are without end they cannot ever complete and allow a new event to occur.

Sorry, I assumed that by "end" you meant something like the beginning of time and the idea that there's a prior event to each event doesn't require any assumption about whether there a beginning or not to time.

If prior events are without end they cannot ever complete and allow a new event to occur.

Why would prior events be "without end"?

We assume that each event is caused by a prior event. We obviously know the current end of the series of prior events, i.e. the present moment. This is because the whole series is defined starting from the present moment and I'm sure you'd agree that we know the present moment exists. So, could you try to explain how the series of prior events could possibly not have the present moment as its current, momentary end?
EB

The question is: Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

Sorry but I have to be very confused as to what your argument might be. You started by arguing from your notion that "there is no end to the prior events" and now you are arguing from your notion that "If there is no beginning to a progression that is like saying the progression never existed"!!!

Is it "no beginning" or "no end" your problem?! What is your argument exactly? Could you try to offer a coherent argument?!

So, according to you now, the question would be: Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

Sorry, no, the question in the OP is very clear: "let's assume each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this?"

See?

So, give me the reason you have for thinking there's a logical problem with this idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

And please note that there isn't even an assumption that there's no beginning to the series of events.

Can you have a progression without a beginning to the progression?

If so how?

Mindlessly repeating that all events have a prior event does not explain how you have a progression without a beginning to that progression.

If there is no beginning to a progression that is like saying the progression never existed. It does not explain how you have a progression without a beginning to the progression.

The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

So, you may want to start you own thread with this scientific question. See what happens then. Me, I asked a logical question, not a scientific one. Hey, I might even have an answer! Try me!

So please try to address the OP's question and only the OP's question.

And personally, I fail to see why we couldn't have a series of event without a beginning to the series. The OP's question doesn't even assume there's no beginning. Have one if that makes you happy.

So if you think yourself that we couldn't have a progression without a beginning to the progression, then you should give the logical reason you have for thinking so. For now, I haven't seen you give any and by now, after thousands of your posts on the subject of an infinite past, I would hope that if you had one good reason, we would know.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Easy, each event is caused by a prior event.

I'm not convinced it's possible to have really no idea on this.

That's your idea of an explanation? You make it easy for me to be convinced that I have no idea.

I'm not worried about the logicality of this idea of an infinite regress of events. I was asking people to give any reason they might have that this idea would be somehow illogical. You've said you don't have any. Excellent.

However, maybe you could have voted for the first option. You didn't, which suggests either a conflicting view or no view at all. Either way, it can only be your problem. I wouldn't want to intrude. And from my point of view, the main point is that you don't know of any good reason to believe the idea to be somehow illogical. Nor do I.
EB

 

[untermensche]

To dispute my arguments requires YOU actually making an argument and not some rambling incoherency.

If I say a progression of events needs a first event you cannnot dispute this by saying you don't understand it.

It is as clear and concise a statement as is possible.

To arrive anywhere in a progression requires there being a progression.

For there to be a progression it must begin.

How is there a progression that never begins?

Please be specific.

 

[untermensche]

This is the ultimate question here.

How is there a progression that never begins?

Can anyone actually try to answer this?

 

[fast]

This is the ultimate question here.

How is there a progression that never begins?

Can anyone actually try to answer this?

That might be answered in the ultimate question thread--in the section on progression.

Maybe an uncaused event isn't an actual event--if an event must have a cause. For instance, what you might call a second event is actually a first event, since that event has a cause. Thus, what you might call a second event is instead a first event since events must have a cause.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody is talking about uncaused events.

This is about the need for a first event for there to be any number of events.

How a first event arrives is not important.

What is important is knowing one is necessary.

 

[Speakpigeon]

To dispute my arguments requires YOU actually making an argument and not some rambling incoherency.

Your argument is just claiming a progression isn't possible without a beginning. Prove this to me.

If we assume now you're not claiming this then where would be the problem with the idea of

If I say a progression of events needs a first event you cannnot dispute this by saying you don't understand it.

I didn't say I didn't understand that. You'd need to start by having your facts right.

So let me repeat what I actually said: The question of how there could be a progression without a beginning may be interesting but the fact that we wouldn't know the answer to that has no relevance to the logic of the idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

The fact is, we don't know whether progressions would need a beginning. We just don't know. You claim a progression needs a beginning but you claim this from ignorance. You obviously weren't there at the beginning of time to check. So, it's just a vacuous claim. If you want to discuss this, you'd need to start your own thread on this.

I can also repeat what I already said that you don't seem to understand: So if you think yourself that we couldn't have a progression without a beginning to the progression, then you should give the logical reason you have for thinking so. For now, I haven't seen you give any and by now, after thousands of your posts on the subject of an infinite past, I would hope that if you had one good reason, we would know.

It is as clear and concise a statement as is possible.

To arrive anywhere in a progression requires there being a progression.

For there to be a progression it must begin.

How is there a progression that never begins?

Please be specific.

You're just assuming without saying it that there is first no progression and then there is one so there must be a transition from one situation to the other and therefore a beginning to the progression. But that's not necessary if we assume there has always been a progression, which is indeed what the OP is assuming.

Right, I think we're done. You're just repeating yourself over and over again. You are also incoherent in your argument, once talking about "no end" and then about "no beginning". And you clearly don't understand logic the way most people do. So, I don't see what would be the use of this conversation. I have already said this, and this is only confirming the situation. First, get your facts right. Get your argument logical. And then I'll see what we can do. Meanwhile, please don't go on repeating yourself over and over again. What you need is not repeating, but getting your logic and your English right so that people understand what you say to begin with.

The question is very simple: What would be the logical problem of assuming that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event?

It's an infinite regress. there's no beginning assumed. Maybe there is one, who knows. What's obvious is that there is no need for a beginning. This is obvious. This is the idea of an infinite regress: No beginning necessary. So, go on, what would be the logical problem with that?

Well, we're done. You have no answer to that. All you have are your preconception that time must have a beginning and for some pathetic reason you can't get yourself to have a critical look at this. You prefer to claim it's true. But how would you know? You don't.
EB