Argument from Limits - the first cause must be unlimited

Is the first cause unlimited? In this video, I give a brief introduction to the argument from limits!

0:00-0:55: Intro
0:56-2:50: What is a deductive argument
2:51-4:16: Brief overview of argument
4:17-4:39: The argument
4:40-09:44: Defense of premises
09:45-12:46: Objection
12:47-13:36: End

#Philosophy #God #Arbitrary limits #Contingency argument #christian apologetics

[ExploringReality]

Enjoy a nice and easy filler video before the resurrection series!

[rob]

Just subscribed. Mostly because you seem to be a fan of Joshua Rasmussen like me 👍. I’ve only read his small book, “The Bridge of Reason”, but I am looking forward to more. Any recommendations?

[Alkis]

Commentary number:
1)The conclusion don't follow from the premises.
The conclusion only follows if it is necessary for the totality of all limited things to have an explanation.
No premise asserts that the totality of limited things is a limited thing itself, so you can't use premise 2 to say that it needs an explanation.

2) But if you include a premise like:
"The totality of limited things is a limited thing"
You have a set that contain itself, and we all know where that leads. If you agree that was what you meant, then I would like to know how do you garantee that you are not falling in paradoxal cases of self referencing sets. It seems that, even if the totality of limited things is somewhat limited, it is a different kind of thing and you can't extrapolate it's properties solely from it's parts.

4) I would argue that there is an ambiguity in the meaning of "limited things". The opposite of "something limited in every way", is "something limited in some way". Only if you mean "something limited in someway", that the opposite is not limited in any way (purely unlimited). But then, you have things that are not completely limited. I think you should make clear which one you mean.


5) Considering the last point, the conclusion might not follow in another way. Through out the argument, you used the phrasing "something limited". But in the conclusion reads "something purely unlimited" when it should read "something unlimited". Those are not necessarily equivalent.

6) I get the impression that, although you don't say it explicitly, you talk like the conclusion is making reference to one and only one unlimited thing when infact it could only follow that one or multiple things could be unlimited. Sure, I see how one could argue that there could be only one purely unlimited thing, but you would have to make the argument. I'm not giving you that for free. =P (Specially with possible ambiguity problems).

Anyway, I have no academic training in philosophy, except a bit of logic and mathematics. So be gentle ^^

[ceREALrEaL-ihev]

I came from TikTok and I have really been enjoying your content

[SimeonDenk]

(9:33) It is not incumbent on the objector to "deny the second premise." The burden of proof is on the presenter of the argument. The objector need only point out that premise 2 has not been established.