-1

In this question: Does the impossibility of an infinite regress prove God exists? The argument is claiming that the reason X is an exception to Y's rule, is that Y is impossible, as is. The only way for Y to make sense would be if there was at least 1 exception, or Y is completely wrong. Y being a well accepted aspect of science and philosophy.

How does one navigate such a problem without falling into a special pleading fallacy? Could X really, in fact, be an exception due to the circumstances?

Community
  • 1
Lynel Hudson
  • 329
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9
  • I don't get it. You want to prove that Y is impossible - does that mean it cannot hold in any case, or not in all cases? - But Y is well accepted. So perhaps you should start with showing where the people that accept Y make a mistake. –  Jan 01 '16 at 05:50

1 Answers1

1

Special pleading is when something is said to be an exception to a general rule, while it is not justified why that thing is an exception.

So, in order to not commit special pleading, you should why that thing does not follow the general rule. If "God" is the exception, that's a little difficult, because it is often ill-defined or at least something we don't know a lot about - hence there is not much to go on to show why it can be an exception.

Even if one could convincingly show that Y is wrong [in at least one case], that doesn't mean X has to be the exception - why not P or Q or 37?

I.e., even if you could show that an infinite regress is impossible, that doesn't mean that some concept of God is the uncaused cause - why God and not something else? Aquinas sidesteps this problem (a) by saying his ways are just ways to get closer to God and (b) by assuming it is in God's nature that He is uncaused, thereby kind of begging the question.

  • The question I asked was if something is an exception to a general rule *because* that general rule is flawed does that still qualify that something as a specially pleaded case. In the linked question all the argument is "assuming" is: **If Y is wrong, An X, or P, or Q must be.** The question mentions in the beginning that "God" isn't being used in the traditional sense, rather, a placeholder for some source. This source could be anything. But it must be, given the argument. – Lynel Hudson Jan 01 '16 at 06:38
  • @solacyon I'm considering questions separately so won't discuss the other question in detail here. In any case: I didn't say you used special pleading. I said that is one criticism of Aquinas' second way. I shouldn't have said that that is the same as your argument, but only that it's similar - apologies. –  Jan 01 '16 at 08:03
  • @solacyon so if in the end what you're really saying [in this question] is that if Y can't always be true, there must be an exception to Y [call it X], then yeah, that's trivially correct. –  Jan 01 '16 at 08:06