The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any integer.
The rest of your argument fails from there. — Banno
That would only be true if you were infinite. The universe being infinite would only mean its properties are inexhaustible. — Merkwurdichliebe
Exactly. That's how you begin your attempted reduction to the absurd. But you aren't logical enough to make it work. You just zoom in, follow the chain for a while, then make a giant logical leap to a presumed start. — S
No, you start by assuming that an infinite regress has no start, and then you do as I described above, which still assumes a start, just not straight away. First, you pretend to be logical, and then you assume a start. — S
An infinite sequence need not contain every possible permutation. So "101010101010101..." need never contain "...111...". — Banno
Plus, it's ostensibly about infinity, so a certain obsessive moron is going to have a field day (or more, depending on how long this thread floats on the front page). — SophistiCat
I'm sure it must have been asked and answered, but I don't see it If there is a non-material God, what is/are he,she, it, they if not material? — tim wood
Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?" — Frank Apisa
The moment you postulate a "first cause"...you essentially are conceding that somethings have no cause...but "always was" — Frank Apisa
Ah, yes. But he has an argument against an infinite regress. An argument which resembles ancient logic which leads to absurd conclusions. Except that his logic only gets partway through the breakdown and then just, again, simply assumes a start, instead of continuing on to infinity. So it is actually far worse, because although this ancient logic is unsound, it is at least valid, whereas his logic makes an invalid logical leap to his desired conclusion. — S
Whilst by ancient logic, Homer can never reach the end of the path — S
But remember, none of us have presented any criticism! — S
It isn't a deep argument at all. It's quite shallow. He assumes the "first mover" by writing on behalf of a church and education system that will jail him, possibly torture or kill him, if he doesn't. It's obvious from the flow of the dialogue that he began with the premise that God exists and is writing everything else in an attempt to fortify that position. It's a house of cards with a complimentary 90mph wind. — whollyrolling
Im not claiming something can start by itself, I do not know.
You DO know, so tell me the answer. How do you know that simething cannot? What evidence do you have for this claim? — DingoJones
1. The "argument from motion" is a paradox. It is full of sentiment, assumption and speculation. Just as easily as we can speculate that there must be a "first mover" and assign a human personality to it, we can also speculate that "the singularity" was not the first event to have ever occurred in all of reality. Also, if a "first mover" was to exist as was assumed in the "proof", the implication is that the "first mover" began all things and is outside all time and space, eternal. If not time and space, then something must extend infinitely in all directions through all dimensions or some lack thereof, and this is assumed to be the "first mover". Either without time and space, or if time and space were infinite, both of which are impossible, it would be irrational to think that any instance could occur. By this rationale, we don't exist, and neither does the "first mover". — whollyrolling
2. First Cause. He argues against himself again here, determining that the "first mover" can't have existed eternally because nothing can exist prior to itself, and nothing exists which hasn't been initiated by something else. To paraphrase this nonsense, he says "I'm confused, therefore God". It's ridiculous to use examples from observable reality to support claims of imaginary things that not only have no foundation in observable reality but effectively contradict it. — whollyrolling
. Necessary Being. Here he hits the nail on the head by iterating what I just pointed out in my previous rant: that this is all absurd. Again, a paradox. "I'm confused, therefore God". — whollyrolling
4. Degree. To assume any intrinsic valuation is preposterous. He is now preaching based on abstract human notions of nobility and truth that a God, who if human would be a raging sociopath, is responsible for all that is good and decent in humans but not responsible for anything that is corrupt or evil. — whollyrolling
5. He presumes, again based on religious belief and in the absence of science, that anything that doesn't appear to be self-aware by human standards is unintelligent and aimless, which was fine in the 1200's, when everyone was a blithering moron, but none of this stuff holds true in modern times. — whollyrolling
This argument, and it's no argument at all, is just another confused rant from a place of scientific ignorance and intellectual deficiency. If its writer isn't intellectually deficient, then he's attempting to mislead his reader and pander to authorities his life depends on. The only thing infinite here is the writer's self-contradiction. — whollyrolling
...while I don't think that my understanding of time is sufficient to justify a cause for it. Or not. — Pattern-chaser
It seemingly does hold, and that's the problem you have to contend with. — S
The logical resemblance is crystal clear. It's just a backwards chain and a forwards chain. You go into detail in a similar way that Zeno's paradoxes do, with a similar logic, and then at an arbitrary point, you randomly assert your dogma of a first cause, like the parallel conceivable dogma of a final destination. — S
You really want the logic to work in the special case of God, even though it doesn't work elsewhere — S
Your reasoning against an infinite regress is just of the sort that Homer has to get halfway, and half of halfway, and so on, and then you randomly assert a first cause, which would be like randomly asserting a final destination. — S
That's like you reasoning that for the universe to have existed the time that it has done, then it must have existed half of that time, and half of that time, and half of that, and so on. Except that you then just randomly assert without reasonable justification that there must have been a first cause. — S
Only if cause and effect applies in this scenario — Pattern-chaser
If Homer can walk to the end of a path, then the universe can be without a first cause. — S
Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on. — S
Your argument for the necessity of a first cause uses the same logic — S
If you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause?
Looks like the same kind of logic to me — S
Your suggestion of God (and Her existence) is not logically derived from anything. — Pattern-chaser
Describe it yourself. Describe to me the faults in Zeno's arguments.
When you were at school, did you just sit back and ask your teachers to explain everything to you, so you didn't really have to learn through tasks and challenges? If you had've done so, how do you think your teachers would've reacted? Is this reflective of your understanding of education? — S
Although you have not - probably wisely - defined what God is, I see no reason to assume She is bound by the same constraints that apply to us humans. [And no reason to assume She is not so bound.] — Pattern-chaser
Perhaps She has divine powers that make things different for Her, or maybe our misunderstanding of (in this case) time leads us to misunderstand? And so on. Speculation often only leads to ... more speculation. — Pattern-chaser
The "2nd law of thermodynamics" is not a law, in the sense that it does not bind us, the universe or God. It's a guideline we have discovered that appears to apply to most of the things we know of, most of the time. It might apply to a material, or non-material, God, but if it did, how would it apply? — Pattern-chaser
Does cause and effect apply to God, for example? — Pattern-chaser
What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? — Pattern-chaser
I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all — Pattern-chaser
Do you understand how it can be doubted that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise, and that the flying arrow is motionless? — S
If the universe is infinite, that would mean there is an infinite number of 'me' out there — JohnLocke
So, if there is indeed an infinite number of 'me' out there, then when this me dies, I will be born again and live exactly the same life as before? If this me dies, will my consciousness immediately 'jump to another me that is not dead' at some other place in an infinite universe? — JohnLocke
It has to do with logic. But there's no point explaining it because you're an evangelical. — S
How can God be non-material if God doesn't exist, and how can you begin a discussion by assuming that God exists if there's no foundation for the claim? My commentary is directly related to the topic. The OP has begun by assuming that God exists, which implies that it doesn't, and I'm arguing that it's a contradictory, self-defeating and unproductive position. The existence of God has to be demonstrated in order to discuss its properties. — whollyrolling
"It seems simple to me, the universe can't have existed forever (it would have no start so none of it would exist)
— Devans99
Yeah, yeah. And Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise. And the flying arrow is motionless. — S