The problem of infinite regress is probably the most significant rational hurdle the Open View has to deal with.
Good to see you acknowledge the problem. Now to answer your two questions and then comment on the rest of your post...
Do you believe that the argument you presented actually does falsify open theism on rational grounds?
Yes. My intention is to show that the God of open theism cannot be the creator of the universe, and I believe that the argument is sound and does that.
Have you ever heard of
Zeno's paradoxes?
Yes. I have heard of Zeno's paradox but I don't think the God of open theism avoids the problem presented in the argument.
In short, we move through an infinite series of points in time all the time! You just accomplished an impossibility by having read this sentence (according to Zeno)! Now, with the invention of Calculus most mathematicians agree that Zeno's paradoxes have been put to bed but don't be so sure. There are still quite a number of prominent philosophers who disagree and with good reason. Either way, however, I submit that the problem of infinite regress, while a significant philosophical issue, does not prove that God could not have arrived at the present any more than Zeno proved you couldn't have reached the end of this post. It's a paradox, nothing more.
Ok, there are several reasons why I believe that what you said does not avoids the infinite regress and thus the problem still remains.
An actual infinite cannot exist in reality
I contend that an actual infinite does not exists in reality and that it only exists as an abstraction or idea. To illustrate, consider this analogy:
Imagine that you have a library with an infinite number of books. Say that you were to gather all of the books in the library, we get Infinity - Infinity = 0. Now, let's say that you were to gather all odd-numbered books, we get Infinity - Infinity = Infinity. Finally, let's say you were to gather all books numbered ten and higher from your library, we get Infinity - Infinity = 9. As you can see, we have here three equations subtracting equal quantities and leading to contradictory answers.
This problem lead a famous mathematician to say:
"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite . . . is solely that of an idea . . ." (David Hilbert, "On the Infinite").
As a consequence, mathematicians rule out the use of subtraction and division of infinite quantities. So, even if an infinite series of events could be passed in theory, such a concept cannot exist in reality but only in abstract mathematics. In the real world, there is nothing preventing us from subtracting things, and since the God of open theism is in reality and subject to time and he is not a mere abstraction, there is no reason to think that he is somehow immune to this problem.
Space-time is discontinuous
Your claim that
"we move through an infinite series of points in time all the time" assumes that space-time is continuous and infinitely divisible. But we know from science that this is not the case. According to quantum mechanics, space-time comes in quanta or discreet packages, that is, things move by really small "jumps", very much like a frame by frame animation. What this means, in other words, is that the electron is here, then it is there, and there was no in-between. This entails that things in the universe are popping in and out of existence every femtosecond.
So, one does not moves through an infinite series of points in time, but a finite series of points. The limit of the division of space-tme can be found in the planck time / length. Thus we find that
"traditional notions of space and time will break down at distances shorter than the Planck length or times shorter than the Planck time" (
source).
A further corollary of the above could be that we live in a motionless universe where what we perceive as motion is but a constant re-creation done by God that gives the appearance of motion, that is, motion is an illusion. But that involves something unrelated to what we are discussing, so let's not get derailed into that.
God's discursive knowledge
Another issue which is precisely one of the reasons why I focused on God's thoughts and the nature of his knowledge and not time or some other thing when making the argument, is that even if we grant that an infinite series of points are passed between two events, this overlooks the fact that to move across two points entails a though first, that is, thought is prior to movement. Now, since God's knowledge is discursive as you said, his thoughts are very much like space-time, that is, discrete. Otherwise how would he move coherently from topic to topic? So, unless you want to say that God's thoughts are infinitely divisible (something I think would leave us with anything
but a thought), then the problem of an infinite series of thoughts still holds for the God of open theism.
And what's more its the only one that I have yet discovered within the Open View paradigm, while the Settled View, in whatever form, is chocker block full of not only paradoxes but outright blatant contradictions which are simply ignored and called antinomies to make everyone feel pious about their intellectual dishonesty.
I believe that issues with the Settled View would fall into a separate discussion.
Evo
