What is your answer?
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there cannot be an infinite regress in changers changed by another":
{ 1 } - is not based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for ontological change.
{ 3 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 5.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there cannot be an infinite regress in changers changed by another":
{ 1 } - is not based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for ontological change.
{ 3 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
Because there must be an adequate explanation for every reality, an infinite regress in explanations is not possible.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is correct!
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there cannot be an infinite regress in changers changed by another":
{ 1 } - is not based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for ontological change.
{ 3 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
An infinite regress in creators created by another would not be a sufficient explanation of why anything existed, for an infinite series of explanations or causes is not an explanation.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
3 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there cannot be an infinite regress in changers changed by another":
{ 1 } - is not based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for ontological change.
{ 3 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
If the world always existed, (a possibility that Aquinas does not think can be disproved by reason), there could be an infinite regress in time in accidental changers changed by another.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there cannot be an infinite regress in changers changed by another":
{ 1 } - is not based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for ontological change.
{ 3 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
If the world always existed, (a possibility that Aquinas does not think can be disproved by reason), there could be an infinite regress in time in substantial changers changed by another.
<= back | menu | forward =>
5 is wrong. Please try again.
The premiss in Aquinas' first way of proving God's existence that "there cannot be an infinite regress in changers changed by another":
{ 1 } - is not based on the principle of sufficient reason.
{ 2 } - is true for ontological change.
{ 3 } - is true for accidental change.
{ 4 } - is true for substantial change.
{ 5 } - is based on the principle of non-contradiction.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end