First of all, Prof Bonevac, thanks very much for this video and for the whole History of Christian Thought Spring 2020 playlist. I’m working my way through the playlist during lockdown and enjoying it so far. I do have a query about the material in this video and it relates to Premise 3 Finiteness. I agree that having causes stretching back ad infinitum in a linear fashion seems intuitively implausible (the ‘turtles all the way down’ illustration shows this very clearly). You do point out that intuitions in this case might be unreliable. But I wonder if this premise isn’t also vulnerable in a way that is much more intuitively plausible. Surely circular causation shouldn’t be ruled out. And a natural circle going on and on forever that encompasses everything that exists doesn’t seem all that intuitively implausible as a possibility to me. After all, there are many examples of circular causation in nature, of which the water cycle is just one. Or am I missing something?
There is another problem. Once you get outside the domain "D" into another domain, say "G", there is no reason to start changing assumptions. Why make a different set of assumptions for G than we did for D. Thus domain G will also require something from another domain to start it's causal chain. The infinite regression of the causal chain will thus continue but now with an infinite number of domains. Why not apply all the assumptions to G that we did to D? or simplify things by applying G's assumptions to D?
I've learned a great deal from all your videos. Thanks for making them and sharing your knowledge.
First of all, Prof Bonevac, thanks very much for this video and for the whole History of Christian Thought Spring 2020 playlist. I’m working my way through the playlist during lockdown and enjoying it so far.
I do have a query about the material in this video and it relates to Premise 3 Finiteness. I agree that having causes stretching back ad infinitum in a linear fashion seems intuitively implausible (the ‘turtles all the way down’ illustration shows this very clearly). You do point out that intuitions in this case might be unreliable.
But I wonder if this premise isn’t also vulnerable in a way that is much more intuitively plausible. Surely circular causation shouldn’t be ruled out. And a natural circle going on and on forever that encompasses everything that exists doesn’t seem all that intuitively implausible as a possibility to me. After all, there are many examples of circular causation in nature, of which the water cycle is just one.
Or am I missing something?
There is another problem. Once you get outside the domain "D" into another domain, say "G", there is no reason to start changing assumptions. Why make a different set of assumptions for G than we did for D. Thus domain G will also require something from another domain to start it's causal chain. The infinite regression of the causal chain will thus continue but now with an infinite number of domains.
Why not apply all the assumptions to G that we did to D? or simplify things by applying G's assumptions to D?