The proof of the falsity of infinite regression:
according to the rule of self-procreation that has no beginning. This presumption necessitates infinite regression, and all sane people know instinctively that infinite regression is impossible,
according to the rule of self-procreation that has no beginning. This presumption necessitates infinite regression, and all sane people know instinctively that infinite regression is impossible,
and thus the impossibility of the hypothesis that led to it is also made clear.
The meaning of infinite regression is the presumption that all created beings are endlessly reproduced from one another, such that each one of them is caused by what came before it
The meaning of infinite regression is the presumption that all created beings are endlessly reproduced from one another, such that each one of them is caused by what came before it
and is the cause of what comes after it without this chain eventually originating from a cause that exists by necessity which grants the effect of reproduction to all the other links in the chain.
This presumption is false. The intellect necessarily deems it impossible, as the chain of possible created beings, however long it may be, its ongoing length cannot escape the fact that its existence is only possible, and possible things,
in order form to be preferred to exist or not exist, must have someone who makes that preference, as we have said. This long chain, which you say stretches back into a deep cave that never ends,
is comprised of links each of which would not exist were it not for the link before it giving it life and existence, and it itself gives life as well.
Therefore, all the links of the chain, none of them have any intrinsic influence, however long the chain may be, and therefore, in order to affirm that it exists
we must wait for the emergence of an external influencer who provided with the chain this life that has been transferred from one link to the next.
If not, then we have to decisively affirm one of two matters: either this entire chain does not exist, as the existence of whoever initially gave it life is not established, or it exists but it eventually originates from an essence that exists by necessity and it influences it
it and is not influenced by it at all.
As for the first matter, it is patently false, because perception and observation deny it. The world exists and the reproduction of causes is something seen and witnessed. The second matter remains, and it is that you are certain that there
As for the first matter, it is patently false, because perception and observation deny it. The world exists and the reproduction of causes is something seen and witnessed. The second matter remains, and it is that you are certain that there
must be an essential source that gave it life and the ability to develop and reproduce.
Let us give some examples of this issue that are smaller than the vastness of the world so that that the matter can be clearer and more self-evident:
1. If were to stand in front of you claiming that I know a scientific fact for certain, and when you asked me about the evidence I mentioned to you some proof which itself is a unknown proof that depends on a proof,
nd when you asked me for the proof of this proof, I brought you a proof just like it that depended on another proof...and so on with no end, i.e. without all these proofs eventually ending up at a necessary reality that is known intuitively,
you would deny my claim to certainty regarding this fact. Indeed, you would deny that it exists at all, as there is no proof established for it yet and all the continuous proofs that we had assumed to be endless are nothing but shadows waiting for their original source.
If that source does not exist then these shadows themselves
do not exist, and thus this claimed fact also does not; exist.
do not exist, and thus this claimed fact also does not; exist.
Example 2:
You see in your friendās house a place that has beautiful flowers and a pure fragrance. When you ask him where these beautiful flowers come from, he says that they are a branch that he took from a root by his neighbourās house.
You see in your friendās house a place that has beautiful flowers and a pure fragrance. When you ask him where these beautiful flowers come from, he says that they are a branch that he took from a root by his neighbourās house.
When you ask the neighbour, he in turn answers you by saying that what he has is just a part that he took from a friendās house.
Then the third person gives you the same answer the second person gave you, and you get the same answer from the fourth, fifth and sixth. Each one of them answers you by saying that what they have is just a part from someone else
and in vain you follow this sequence looking for the source of this plant and its progenitor that gave it appearance and structure and enabled it to branch out for the very beginning.
If it were said to you that the sequence of this branching out and splitting up continues endlessly, what would your intellect conclude with the least amount of thinking?
There is no doubt that you would conclude that this speech is a lie, because branching out, regardless of how much it reproduces and increases, can only be the result of the existence of a source that is established in and of itself and which gives those branches existence orlife
If it were said that there is no source for it and we assume the speaker to be truthful, that would mean that it still has not been born, and therefore these claimed branches also have no existence whatsoever.
As for if you were to see the plantsā branches with your own eyes that would mean that there is an essential source that gave all these branches existence, regardless of how remote this source and regardless of whether you have thought about it or inquired about it.
Shaykh Al-Buti, The Greatest Universal Sureties, KubrÄ Al-YaqÄ«nÄ«yyÄt Al-KawnÄ«yyah
Loading suggestions...