## All cosmological arguments make use of two specific logical tools. If you dive further into philosophy and logic- youll eventually encounter argument ad absurdum and infinite regress. These are b 1

All cosmological arguments make use of two specific logical tools. If you dive further into philosophy and logic, you’ll eventually encounter “argument ad absurdum” and “infinite regress”. These are being used together here, but I really want to focus on the latter part.Aquinas says that infinite regresses are impossible, so without an Unmoved Mover, certain progressive systems (like motion, causation, dependency, and values) couldn’t exist. Therefore, because the infinite regress leads to absurdity in those situations, there must be some magnificent foundation to support these things. Whatever that thing is, it is not the result of those systems, but the beginning. So to Aquinas, God is the beginning of motion, the beginning of causation, the beginning of dependency, and the beginning of value.All of this relies on the fact that Aquinas thinks infinite regresses are illogical. But are they? Can a line of dominoes be falling without a Pusher? Or are infinite regresses perfectly fine?If you think that infinite regresses are logically fine, please provide an example of something that goes backward forever. If infinite regresses are not logically fine, please give a unique example. Please write one original post and comment on two classmates’ posts.Finally, note that we’re not debating God’s existence, exactly. We’re going to debate infinite regresses, and if they’re illogical, then that makes a major impact concerning our understanding of some god-like thing.

## All cosmological arguments make use of two specific logical tools. If you dive further into philosophy and logic- youll eventually encounter argument ad absurdum and infinite regress. These are b 1

All cosmological arguments make use of two specific logical tools. If you dive further into philosophy and logic, you’ll eventually encounter “argument ad absurdum” and “infinite regress”. These are being used together here, but I really want to focus on the latter part.Aquinas says that infinite regresses are impossible, so without an Unmoved Mover, certain progressive systems (like motion, causation, dependency, and values) couldn’t exist. Therefore, because the infinite regress leads to absurdity in those situations, there must be some magnificent foundation to support these things. Whatever that thing is, it is not the result of those systems, but the beginning. So to Aquinas, God is the beginning of motion, the beginning of causation, the beginning of dependency, and the beginning of value.All of this relies on the fact that Aquinas thinks infinite regresses are illogical. But are they? Can a line of dominoes be falling without a Pusher? Or are infinite regresses perfectly fine?If you think that infinite regresses are logically fine, please provide an example of something that goes backward forever. If infinite regresses are not logically fine, please give a unique example. Please write one original post and comment on two classmates’ posts.Finally, note that we’re not debating God’s existence, exactly. We’re going to debate infinite regresses, and if they’re illogical, then that makes a major impact concerning our understanding of some god-like thing.