Cosmological argument

== Cosmological argument and infinite regress ==
Depending on its formulation, the cosmological argument is an example of a ''positive [[infinite regress argument]]''. An ''infinite regress'' is an infinite series of entities governed by a [[recursive]] principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor.<ref name="Cameron">{{cite web |last1=Cameron |first1=Ross |title=Infinite Regress Arguments |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |date=2018}}</ref> An ''infinite regress argument'' is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.<ref name="Cameron"/><ref name="Maurin">{{cite book |last1=Maurin |first1=Anna-Sofia |title=Hommage À Wlodek |date=2007 |publisher=Department of Philosophy, Lund University |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/MAUIR |chapter=Infinite Regress - Virtue or Vice?}}</ref> A ''positive infinite regress argument'' employs the regress in question to argue in support of a theory by showing that its alternative involves a vicious regress.<ref name="Day">{{cite journal |last1=Day |first1=Timothy Joseph |title=Infinite Regress Arguments |journal=Philosophical Papers |date=1987 |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=155–164 |doi=10.1080/05568648709506273 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/TIMIRA}}</ref> The regress relevant for the cosmological argument is the ''regress of causes'': an event occurred because it was caused by another event that occurred before it, which was itself caused by a previous event, and so on.<ref name="Cameron"/><ref name="Huemer"/> For an infinite regress argument to be successful, it has to demonstrate not just that the theory in question entails an infinite regress but also that this regress is [[Infinite regress#Viciousness|vicious]].<ref name="Cameron"/><ref name="Huemer">{{cite book |last1=Huemer |first1=Michael |title=Approaching Infinity |date=2016 |publisher=New York: Palgrave Macmillan |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEAI-2 |chapter=13. Assessing Infinite Regress Arguments}}</ref> Once the viciousness of the regress of causes is established, the cosmological argument can proceed to its positive conclusion by holding that it is necessary to posit a [[first cause]] in order to avoid it.<ref name="Reichenbach"/>

A regress can be vicious due to ''metaphysical impossibility'', ''implausibility'' or ''explanatory failure''.<ref name="Huemer"/><ref name="Wieland">{{cite journal |last1=Wieland |first1=Jan Willem |title=Infinite Regress Arguments |journal=Acta Analytica |date=2013 |volume=28 |issue=1 |pages=95–109 |doi=10.1007/s12136-012-0165-1 |s2cid=170181468 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WIEIRA}}</ref> It is sometimes held that the ''regress of causes'' is vicious because it is ''metaphysically impossible'', i.e. that it involves an outright [[contradiction]]. But it is difficult to see where this contradiction lies unless an additional assumption is accepted: that [[actual infinity]] is impossible.<ref name="Reichenbach">{{cite web |last1=Reichenbach |first1=Bruce |title=Cosmological Argument |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=11 March 2021 |date=2021}}</ref><ref name="Maurin"/><ref name="Huemer"/> But this position is opposed to infinity in general, not just specifically to the ''regress of causes''.<ref name="Cameron"/> A more promising view is that the ''regress of causes'' is to be rejected because it is ''implausible''.<ref name="Reichenbach"/> Such an argument can be based on empirical observation, e.g. that, to the best of our knowledge, our universe had a beginning in the form of the [[Big Bang]]<ref name="Reichenbach"/> (albeit the possibility that it existed for eternity before the Big Bang is also not strictly excluded on physics grounds alone<ref>{{cite arXiv | eprint=2310.02338 | last1=Veklych | first1=Bogdan | title=Is a Quantum Gravity Era Necessary? | date=2023 | class=gr-qc }}</ref>). But it can also be based on more abstract principles, like [[Ockham's razor]] (parsimony), which posits that we should avoid ontological extravagance by not multiplying entities without necessity.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Schaffer | first1 = Jonathan | year = 2015 | title = What Not to Multiply Without Necessity | url = http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/laser.pdf | journal = Australasian Journal of Philosophy | volume = 93 | issue = 4| pages = 644–664 | doi = 10.1080/00048402.2014.992447 | s2cid = 16923735 }}</ref><ref name="Huemer"/> A third option is to see the ''regress of causes'' as vicious due to ''explanatory failure'', i.e. that it does not solve the problem it was formulated to solve or that it assumes already in disguised form what it was supposed to explain.<ref name="Huemer"/><ref name="Wieland"/><ref name="Clark">{{cite journal |last1=Clark |first1=Romane |title=Vicious Infinite Regress Arguments |journal=Philosophical Perspectives |date=1988 |volume=2 |pages=369–380 |doi=10.2307/2214081 |jstor=2214081 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/CLAVIR}}</ref> According to this position, we seek to explain one event in the present by citing an earlier event that caused it. But this explanation is incomplete unless we can come to understand why this earlier event occurred, which is itself explained by its own cause and so on.<ref name="Huemer"/> At each step, the occurrence of an event has to be assumed. So it fails to explain why anything at all occurs, why there is a chain of causes to begin with.<ref name="Cameron"/><ref name="Huemer"/>