Question

When it comes to the cosmological argument, proponents point out that a first cause is needed to stop an infinite regress of causes. In epistemology, foundationalism is used to break the infinite regress of justification. If every belief needs another to be justified, the process would go on forever, and hence some beliefs don’t need to be justified by others "stopping" the regress. My question is about how these things are supposed to "stop" the regress and what it actually means. For example, how does a first cause "stop" the regress? If this first cause was always there, isn’t this still creating a regress since there is no "first" moment in time where it existed? So in essence, what does it mean to "stop" this chain and how does one know that these propositions actually stop them?

Answer 1

To 'stop' the regress means to provide a foundational element that doesn't require further explanation or cause. In cosmology, this refers to a first 'uncaused cause', while in epistemology, it pertains to foundational beliefs that are self-justified. The cosmological argument suggests a First Cause to halt infinite regress, but this is debated and not universally accepted as definitive proof.

Step-by-step explanation:

To "stop" the regress in both cosmology and epistemology means to provide a base or a grounding that does not require further explanation or cause. In the cosmological argument, proponents argue for the necessity of a first uncaused cause to halt the infinite regress of causes. This First Cause, which is typically referred to as God in classical theistic beliefs, is postulated to be necessary, uncaused, and atemporal, meaning it exists independently of time and therefore does not have a 'first' moment. The very nature of the First Cause is to exist without a prior cause.

Some have criticized this argument, suggesting that it is similarly difficult to conceive an infinite being as it is to conceive an infinite regress of causes. Relatedly, if a First Cause can be seen as uncaused and necessary, why couldn't the universe itself be seen as eternal and uncaused, thus negating the need for a First Cause? This parallels the foundationalist approach in epistemology, wherein some beliefs, termed foundational beliefs, are considered justified in themselves without inference from other beliefs, thus providing a stopping point for the regress of justification.

The cosmological argument, while aiming to prove the necessity of a First Cause, is not definitive. It leaves open questions about the nature of causality and the possibility of an eternal universe, as well as the problem of conceiving the existence of a necessary being that is infinite. Such debates remain central to the discussion in philosophical cosmology and metaphysics.