So then to what do we owe the reality of the first element, a first tuner, if not an anterior one? Sure a finite regress all elements owe their reality to the first element, but I cannot see how that is true of an infinite one. — NOS4A2

The argument is that infinite regresses are impossible. So that leads to there must only be finite regresses in reality. At the base of each such regress, there must be an uncaused cause; there is no other logical explanation.

To be uncaused means to be beyond time (there is no 'before' for a timeless thing - it has no cause).

There are quite a few ways to show that time must have a start (eg do you believe a greater than finite number of days has elapsed?) and if that is true, then logic points to the reality of something atemporal.

I kind of see where the "nitpicky logic" tone that a lot of the threads degenerate into comes from now though. Top down I think. — Pantagruel

I have a nitpicky logical tone because I wanted to get a clear statement of your position. I apologise if it made you uncomfortable.

The argument was about the reasonability of believing in anything that isn't contradicted by existing evidence — Pantagruel

Yes. I understood that was what you were claiming. What I did not see was an argument linking it to your simultaneous reference of falsifiability, paradigm shifts and the fragmentary and limited nature of knowledge. Can you please explain to me how falsifiability, paradigm shifts and the fragmentary nature of knowledge establish (or should convince me) that a belief is reasonably held when it is not contradicted by anything known?

The argument is that infinite regresses are impossible. So that leads to there must only be finite regresses in reality. At the base of each such regress, there must be an uncaused cause; there is no other logical explanation.

To be uncaused means to be beyond time (there is no 'before' for a timeless thing - it has no cause).

There are quite a few ways to show that time must have a start (eg do you believe a greater than finite number of days has elapsed?) and if that is true, then logic points to the reality of something atemporal.

I’m aware of the argument but I do not see how it makes the case that infinite regresses are impossible. A first element presupposes finitude, so why would we apply it to an infinite regress? I agree that a finite regress would require a first element, but disagree that an infinite regress does.

That leaves me as mostly deist and you as mostly atheist. That's your right. — Devans99

It may leave you as a deist...but it most assuredly does not leave me as mostly atheist. I'd sooner become a Trump supporter than an atheist...and I would not become a Trump supporter if you held a gun to my head.

Would be interested if you could break your calculation down. — Devins

Sure...I've got a good memory for someone my age.

First flip was a tails; second was a tails; third was a tails; fourth was a heads; and the final toss was a tails.

Hope that helped.

I’m aware of the argument but I do not see how it makes the case that infinite regresses are impossible. A first element presupposes finitude, so why would we apply it to an infinite regress? I agree that a finite regress would require a first element, but disagree that an infinite regress does. — NOS4A2

If you imagine the negative integers:

{..., -5, -4, -3, -2, -1}

Then its clear that you can start at -1 and define the whole sequence because you have a starting point.

However, you cannot start at '...' and define the whole sequence because you have no starting point.

Such is the case with cause and effect, the cause defines the effect so the cause must pre-exist the effect. An infinite finite regress has no initial cause. So each subsequent cause cannot be defined, just like the way it is impossible to derive the negative numbers from '...'.

It may leave you as a deist...but it most assuredly does not leave me as mostly atheist. I'd sooner become a Trump supporter than an atheist...and I would not become a Trump supporter if you held a gun to my head. — Frank Apisa

Glad to hear it (on both counts).

"Is this universe a created universe?"

Because there are an almost infinite number of different types of sort Y. So the answer space is clearly not evenly distributed between Yes and No. — fdrake

There is created
Or uncreated (existed forever)

Existing forever is impossible. It has no initial state, so it has no subsequent states.

So the universe must be a creation.

But you have statistical evidence (common experience) that there are no elephants in your backyard. So the question does not have a boolean sample space; it is loaded with evidence towards 'no'.
. — Devans99

You're trying to have it both ways. First you said:

By showing that the 2 possibilities are not symmetrical, you are introducing evidence for/against the proposition. — Devans99

But with the elephant, YOU are introducing evidence for/against the proposition. Which is it - do we consider "evidence" when determining whether or not there's a "boolean sample space", or not?

But with the elephant, YOU are introducing evidence. Which is it - do we consider "evidence" when determining whether or not there's a "boolean sample space", or not? — Relativist

I think you have to be careful with the question selection, but certain questions can be said to be normally distributed (between yes and no):

1. I toss a coin 100 times. How many heads?
2. Is space discrete?
3. Is the universe a creation?

IE they have no loaded evidence built into the question. Then you can allow for the evidence in follow-on calculations.

As I say, with question [3] above, before assessing the evidence, I think 50% / 50% is correct.

Having thought about it some more, I think you have to define 'creation'. My definition is: something that does not exist in time, and comes into existence (in time) due to some external force.

Existing forever in time is impossible. There would be no initial state, so it no subsequent states. So nothing can exist forever in time. So therefore everything in time must be a creation (everything requires an external force to create it).

Yes. I understood that was what you were claiming. What I did not see was an argument linking it to your simultaneous reference of falsifiability, paradigm shifts and the fragmentary and limited nature of knowledge. Can you please explain to me how falsifiability, paradigm shifts and the fragmentary nature of knowledge establish (or should convince me) that a belief is reasonably held when it is not contradicted by anything known? — fdrake

Sure. Paradigm shifts illustrate that even our most "certain" beliefs are subject to revision. So you may be "certain" that the universe wasn't created because of...well, science, I presume. As I said I don't see any overt contradictions there. You still haven't broached that one.

Likewise, the contingent and limited character of knowledge goes to the same point.

As far as falsifiability, I wasn't arguing that specifically, I guess my reference to Popper sent you there? What I did note was Popper's (correct) position that you can't account for novel hypotheses by evidence, because you would be in an infinite regress. It doesn't matter where the hypothesis comes from. It was a general statement of the fact that not every belief in life is scientific, and it is possible to have a reasonable belief which is nevertheless false. Look at children. They develop "superstitious" beliefs about things, but in light of their limited knowledge those beliefs can be seen as "reasonable." You consistently return to the specific case about the created universe, but it's about the general case of believing and I think I have already restated that cogently in several ways now.

Bottom line, people have different beliefs. Do you honestly think that everything you believe is true? I also made reference to Newton, and how different people have different abilities when it comes to grasping evidence. If A and B disagree, no amount of logic is ever going to reconcile that. That's why I am asking. Ok, if the universe was created, what does that change? That's pragmatism. Or pragmaticism if you prefer Peirce (I do).

edit: that a belief IS reasonably held? Not necessarily. But could be reasonably held. That's sufficient.

Sure. Paradigm shifts illustrate that even our most "certain" beliefs are subject to revision. So you may be "certain" that the universe wasn't created because of...well, science, I presume. — Pantagruel

Good point. Look at our culture through the ages:

- 2000 years ago maybe 10% (?) of what we knew was actually correct
- 100 years ago maybe 50% (?) of what we knew was actually correct
- Now maybe 60% (?) of what we know is actually correct

So we need to keep an open mind as to our believes.

So we need to keep an open mind as to our believes. — Devans99

This is all I am saying. Nothing more. Especially when it comes to establishing a dialog. If we fundamentally disagree, we need to find a common ground not try to persuade one another to alter our viewpoints.

Z = {...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3,...} or Z = {...-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,..} or Z = {...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2,..} — TheMadFool

These notations designate the same ordered set.

The point is that there's no reason that there must be a first element in an ordered set of causes. The first-mover argument assumes what it's trying to prove. How do you know there's not an infinite regress of causes? "It's turtles all the way down."

All infinite causal regresses are impossible — Devans99

I just showed you a model of infinite causal regress. It's the plain old integers. What law of nature says it can't exist? On the contrary, it probably does exist. What caused the big bang? Random quantum fluctuations in the vacuum state of the pre-universe. What caused that? What caused the laws of physics? What caused that cause? You never get to the bottom.

It seems to me that "There can't be an infinite regress therefore God" is a terrible argument. How do you know there can't be an infinite regress? The integers are a model of infinite regress.

Sure. Paradigm shifts illustrate that even our most "certain" beliefs are subject to revision. So you may be "certain" that the universe wasn't created because of...well, science, I presume. As I said I don't see any overt contradictions there. You still haven't broached that one. — Pantagruel

To my understanding, paradigm shifts occur when privileged statements and techniques at the centre of a research paradigm get revised. It is rare that a statement or technique is part of the core of a scientific research program, nevermind things as far removed from core scientific theory as creation myths. Let's focus on statements as they are relevant here. The revision of a privileged statement seems to occur when the range of phenomena to which that statement is accurate is limited by some discovery which cannot be explained well by other means.

I see little to no relation between the privileged statements at the core of scientific research programs and creator hypotheses. This would require that they have content amenable to scientific study alone; and I do not believe that. In that regard they are consistent with the claim, but they also give me no reason to believe it. If it were stipulated that creator hypotheses were indeed related to the privileged statements at the core of privileged research programs and were in conflict with them; this would be evidence of the falsehood of the creator hypotheses. In general I would not give the status of even being plausible to any creator hypothesis if it were treated with the required pedantry for scientific claims.

A counter example to the claim that "X is consistent with Y entails X may reasonably be believed given Y" is two irrelevant statements, "apples are sometimes green" and "pigs are sometimes quite pink", and I am not in the business of believing apples are sometimes green because pigs are quite pink. Consistency alone won't do for justification.

What I did note was Popper's (correct) position that you can't account for novel hypotheses by evidence, because you would be in an infinite regress. — Pantagruel

The most common example of a paradigm shift that motivates this intuition is the shift from Newton's model of gravitation to Einstein's; the two theories are quite far apart conceptually, and it would be implausible to find sufficient hints toward general relativity in Newton's model. What happened here (per Rovelli's book The Order of Time) is that Einstein noticed that special relativity falls out of a peculiarity of Maxwell's equations breaking down when attached to a moving coordinate system; which motivated the equivalence principle in special relativity, which motivated a localisation of the principle in general relativity and a relationship of this principle to massive objects.

Per the example, hypothesis generation occurs through a consideration of both theory and experiment; the theory suggests networks of coherent statements (perhaps under some motivating assumptions and framing devices)- new theory research brings out new implications or reveals network blind spots, experiments provide interesting measurements; new experiments test theories, provide phenomena for theory to account for at a later date and furthermore constrain what theoretical implications are plausible to given the experiment. The two can be done in tandem and interweave (as is typical in "series of experiment" theory generating papers in psychology.)

The majority of (declarative) knowledge does not work like science as regards the theory construction/experiment, of course. For this reason, the stipulated properties of scientific methodology are likely not to be as relevant for non-scientific knowledge; we don't constantly run research programs in first person, or in our friend groups. What remains, for me at least, is a network of items of (declarative) knowledge which are linked by argument and evidence in a broader sense.

In that regard, I find it implausible that the universe was created by beings with inconsistent properties, or with properties that have sufficient tension with the above scientific or more informal networks, or elaborations/relations using the two. Creator hypotheses lay in that hinterland of (the conceptual consequences of) scientific and non-scientific claims taken together.

A being "outside the universe" would not exist, as the universe is all that is, a transcendent being would similarly be outside the universe, a transcendent and immanent being is inconsistent (but wait, it just has transcendent and immanent descriptions without having parts blah blah...). The stories of holy books have a terrible habit of getting dates wrong, and their creation myths should be treated as simply allegorical, nice fiction, or plain wrong when considering what it would mean for there to be an agent at the start of the universe and/or outside the universe (assuming time has a first point, even though it radiates out as part of spacetime and we know that "when something first happened" is frame dependent), are wrong on the geology etc...

What remains after all that is no reason to believe in any creation hypothesis, and much reason to believe that almost all are false. The claim simply doesn't fit with what is known and what can be reasonably inferred.

It was a general statement of the fact that not every belief in life is scientific, and it is possible to have a reasonable belief which is nevertheless false. — Pantagruel

Yes, scientific knowledge does not exhaust knowledge, and all knowledge is fallible.

Look at children. They develop "superstitious" beliefs about things, but in light of their limited knowledge those beliefs can be seen as "reasonable." You consistently return to the specific case about the created universe, but it's about the general case of believing and I think I have already restated that cogently in several ways now.

We can find the reasons someone believes a claim to be understandable even when they are not reasonable.

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist

Meta-time has existed as long as meta-universe. Meta-time goes both forward and backward at the same time, so it doesn’t go anywhere and thus it is always “now”, but every now and then meta-universe creates some kind of little mini-universe, such as ours, and then baby-time particular for that baby-universe begins.

You could say meta-universe exist “beyond” (our) time and space, in so much that it contains it, and you can call it god, but meta-universe doesn’t care, it’s too busy worrying about meta-meta-universe.

I see little to no relation between the privileged statements at the core of scientific research programs and creator hypotheses. This would require that they have content amenable to scientific study alone — fdrake

You are construing everything literally and narrowly, instead of addressing the general principle which I over and over reiterated. As I suggested, there are plenty of beliefs that are non-scientific.

The claim simply doesn't fit with what is known and what can be reasonably inferred. — fdrake

Do you mean with what you know? Or with what someone else told you that they know? If you think it possible to precisely and exhaustively describe the scope of human knowledge I'd say that's the most implausible thing I've heard yet. I know that claim is weak. The claim that the universe was created? I know neither the strength nor weakness of that claim can be established. It's a metaphysical claim. Are you saying that all metaphysical claims are unreasonable? Do Forms exist? Who knows? They are widely debated though. They're hypotheses.

So your beliefs are reasonable? Were you ever wrong? Hmmm. And when you were a small child? At what point does one become "reasonable?" My own views have switched from Idealism to Scientific Realism. Were my previous beliefs "unreasonable"? The fact that someone believes it means it is reasonable...for that person. It's how that belief plays out that determines whether its "extension" is also reasonable.

But with the elephant, YOU are introducing evidence. Which is it - do we consider "evidence" when determining whether or not there's a "boolean sample space", or not? — Relativist

I think you have to be careful with the question selection, but certain questions can be said to be normally distributed (between yes and no): — Devans99

Sure- when we have prior knowledge of the probabilites, as in a coin toss. When else is it reasonable?

If applying the Principle of Indifference (that's what is called when you apply equal probabilities to a set of possibilities), to a yes/no question is reasonable then the order and mix of questions should result in the same conclusion. Let's test that with a different sequence of questions:
1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)

Clearly, this doesn't lead to the same conclusion as in YOUR questions. Are any of my questions unreasonable?

The point is that there's no reason that there must be a first element in an ordered set of causes. The first-mover argument assumes what it's trying to prove. How do you know there's not an infinite regress of causes? "It's turtles all the way down." — fishfry

It's impossible for it to be, as you say, turtles all the way down because we're at a particular position in the sequence, right? There must be an ordinal number, as in nth number, that marks our position in the sequence. What is that number? There is none as I illustrated with the various ways the set of integers Z can be written.

Another way to look at it would be that every number in the sequence of integers corresponds to the ordinal number infinity itself; after all we can only reach it after "beginning" at negative infinity by completing an infinite number of steps. It's my humble opinion that the infinite regress technique basically relies on the inability to complete an supertask as this is; to "begin" at negative infinity and reach any finite position in the sequence is impossible.

On the amazing argument in the twitter feed you posted.

I hear this being mentioned a lot - that the universe is cold and inhospitable. However, one can always explain the vast distances in the universe being necessary to prevent supernovae from snuffing life out in the star systems, the radiation that permeates the vacuum is necessary because we need stars and stars radiate and the last part, that the universe is devoid of life is devoid of life is incorrect. We don't know if there's life out there or not? According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, life on earth is composed of the most common elements in the universe to wit Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and the rest of the universe will likely have a similar composition; if life could evolve in the solar system, why couldn't it evolve in different star system?

Now does fine-tuning look as bad as the twitter feed you posted makes it out to be?

It never came into existence, it exists permanently, timeless and uncaused. So it must not need a fine tuned environment.

It looks highly probably that this universe did have a fine tuner though; there are about 20 constants that need to be at or near there current values for life to be possible. — Devans99

What is your definition of fine tuning? Is the definition necessarily associated with life; for example we can only say a universe X is fine-tuned if there's life in it? If yes then the universe that the uncaused first fine-tuner exists/existed in must be fine-tuned. If no then why do you say that our universe is fine-tuned? After all your claim that our universe is fine-tuned seems to turn on there being life in it.

It's impossible for it to be, as you say, turtles all the way down because we're at a particular position in the sequence, right? There must be an ordinal number, as in nth number, that marks our position in the sequence. What is that number? There is none as I illustrated with the various ways the set of integers Z can be written. — TheMadFool

Not at all. What law of nature says the collection of causes must be well-ordered? I agree it's intuitively appealing that there must be a first cause; but that's not a proof. Let me give you an example. The integers mark the years according to the Western calendar. We're currently at 2020. Ok, we're here. No question about it. And there was a year before that and a year before that, going back forever.

This is difficult intuitively; but there's no principle of nature that says it can't be so. And after all, God is not a principle of nature either. People who deny the possibility of infinite regress are reasoning with their emotions, not with logic.

Another way to look at it would be that every number in the sequence of integers corresponds to the ordinal number infinity itself; — TheMadFool

The set of integers is not well-ordered so you can't claim that. It's false. You want to try to make $- \omega$, so to speak, your "first element." But that is not the model. The model has no first element. It's like Peano in reverse. Every integer has an immediate predecessor as well as an immediate successor. Again, it's only your intuition that's objecting. You haven't got an actual argument. You can't. How do you know the universe isn't an infinite regress of causes?

after all we can only reach it after "beginning" at negative infinity by completing an infinite number of steps. It's my humble opinion that the infinite regress technique basically relies on the inability to complete an supertask as this is; to "begin" at negative infinity and reach any finite position in the sequence is impossible. — TheMadFool

No. You are trying to reach an integer from the "beginning" on the left. You can't do that in the integers. You surely know that. There was no beginning. There was no first cause. How do you personally know that the universe isn't like that? There is no negative infinity in this model. There's no negative infinity in the integers.

Do you have this same complaint about the number line itself Of course you don't. It would never cross your mind. Start at zero and you can always move a unit to the right or a unit to the left.

And why is it that you can always move a unit to the right but not to the left? My model has nicer symmetry. You have no fundamental explanation as to why you can move forever in one direction but hit a wall if you go too far in the other. You're making that up. You have a feeling but not a logical argument.

For a contemporary theory, if only a speculative one, consider Roger Penrose's cyclic universe. He posits an endless cycle of big bangs and big crunches. Who's to say he's wrong? There doesn't need to be a first cause. It IS turtles all the way down.

:up: Or maybe a this conjecture ...

All infinite causal regresses are impossible — Devans99

... ergo an 'infinite causal agent' exists??? :rofl:

I agree it's intuitively appealing that there must be a first cause; but that's not a proof. — fishfry

Infinite regress always occurs in a rational argument so intuition doesn't come into play here. Either the regress itself is problematic or it leads to a contradiction which is then employed to prove a point, whatever that maybe

There was no beginning. There was no first cause. — fishfry

Well, if the universe had no beginning then the past is infinite. So here we have the past as negative infinity as that's what you mean using the integers. Now consider the now to be any number on the integer number line: -3567, -9, 0, 1, 2019, etc. How do we reach these points? We'd have to pass through a positive infinity of time to reach these points. Now, is that possible? Of course not. Why? Think of the positive infinity {0, 1, 2, 3,...}. Can we pass through this positive infinity of time to reach any point that can be considered the present? Impossible, right? There has to be a beginning. It's not turtles all the way down.

The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner. — Devans99

A good example of one of Kant's antinomies, which lead us to conjecture about things that might be, or must be, on the basis of what we observe, but which are forever beyond reason's capacity to resolve. 'We can't explain it, therefore there must be ....'

A better approach is simply to observe that knowledge is generally built on an order which must be presumed, but can't be explained. That suggests something beyond the order, but it's not something we can ever know, by definition. So I think, philosophically, the lesson is to stay with that sense of 'not knowing' rather than trying to rush to judgement about something which, by definition, is not knowable - which is very much in keeping with Kant's approach.

(That's the real meaning of agnosticism, although one that shades into apophaticism, another thing altogether.)

Penrose posits an endless cycle of big bangs and big crunches. Who's to say he's wrong? — fishfry

Hindus or Buddhists certainly wouldn't.

I just showed you a model of infinite causal regress. It's the plain old integers. What law of nature says it can't exist? On the contrary, it probably does exist. What caused the big bang? Random quantum fluctuations in the vacuum state of the pre-universe. What caused that? What caused the laws of physics? What caused that cause? You never get to the bottom. — fishfry

You are missing an important point; cause determines effect, so when using the negative integers to discuss causality, it must be the case that -2 exists before -1, -3, exists before -2 etc... So therefore something causal with the structure of the negative integers cannot exist as an infinite causal regress:

{ ... -> -5 -> -4 -> -3 -> -2 -> 1- }

It's not valid to write ... -> -5 as '...' is undefined then -5 is also undefined.

There are no examples of anything with the structure of the natural numbers in nature and actual infinity leads to absurdities (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1) so we can be sure actual infinity does not exist (no evidence for it and its logically impossible).

Quantum fluctuations are a red herring. If something cam from nothing naturally and time was infinite then matter density would be infinite - which it is not. Something does not come from nothing. That would be in violation of the conservation of energy and would be best classed as magic.

The universe is a creation because:

1. Anything existing in time forever is impossible. It would have no initial state so no subsequent states
2. So everything in time is a creation
3. So there is a creator or creator(s)
Or
1. time has a start
2. so time must be a creation
3. so there must be a creator(s)

It seems to me that "There can't be an infinite regress therefore God" is a terrible argument. How do you know there can't be an infinite regress? The integers are a model of infinite regress. — fishfry

No the integers are not an accurate model of an infinite causal regress because they do not reflect the cause-effect dependancy of infinite causal regress. A better model is pool:

1. The cue hits the white ball
2. The white ball hits the black
3. The back goes in the pocket

Notice how if we remove the first element [1] in the finite regress, then the other elements ([2] and [3]) all disappear. So a causal regress depends on its first element for existence. An infinite causal regress has no first element (by definition) so they simply can't exist.

That leads to the conclusion that all causal regresses in nature must be finite; implying an uncaused cause at the base (something timeless).

A being "outside the universe" would not exist, as the universe is all that is, a transcendent being would similarly be outside the universe, a transcendent and immanent being is inconsistent (but wait, it just has transcendent and immanent descriptions without having parts blah blah...). — fdrake

OK maybe it is clearer to say that the creator created spacetime but the creator is part of a wider universe of unknown characteristics. He would thus be transcendent but not immanent.

1) Does the supernatural exist? (P=.5)
2) Can an unembodied mind exist? (P=,.5*.5)
3) Can material come into existence without prior material? (P=.5*.5*.5)
4) is it possible for a mind to plan something as complex as a universe? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5)
5) Was there an intent to create life? (P=.5*.5*.5*.5*.5) — Relativist

[1] Is 100% IMO, spacetime is a creation, so 'super-spacetime' must exist
[2] Who says God is an unembodied mind? He may have a body. I do not know.
[3] Material could timelessly pre-exist the creation of spacetime. God could have used that in creation of the Big Bang
[4] I think this is 100% yes. God might have done a few prototypes first
[5] Is 100% IMO. What other motivation could he have?

What is your definition of fine tuning? Is the definition necessarily associated with life; for example we can only say a universe X is fine-tuned if there's life in it? If yes then the universe that the uncaused first fine-tuner exists/existed in must be fine-tuned. If no then why do you say that our universe is fine-tuned? After all your claim that our universe is fine-tuned seems to turn on there being life in it. — TheMadFool

You cannot fine tune the uncaused cause's environment - it is timeless - there is no 'before' in which to do any fine tuning. Infinite regresses are impossible, so the fine tuning argument ultimately leads to something that must exist in a non fine tuned environment - something remarkable.

The integers mark the years according to the Western calendar. We're currently at 2020. Ok, we're here. No question about it. And there was a year before that and a year before that, going back forever. — fishfry

Do you believe that a greater than any finite number of days has passed?

So I think, philosophically, the lesson is to stay with that sense of not knowing rather than trying to rush to judgement. — Wayfarer

It is a favourite hobby of mine to try to prove the existence of God. Because it is difficult/impossible, it makes a great pastime.

Glad to hear it (on both counts). — Devans99

Thanks, Dev. Happy you feel that way.

Glad we have that particular thing in common.

What are you talking about? Universal forces creating life-support?

It is a favourite hobby of mine to try to prove the existence of God. Because it is difficult/impossible, it makes a great pastime. — Devans99

And it could lead to world fame. Imagine the accolades for having accomplished what the finest minds that have ever existed on planet Earth have failed to do. (Aside: Ya gotta be careful when that element is part of an equation. It tends to become the most important element.)

In any case, I doubt the task is "difficult/impossible." More likely, it is just IMPOSSIBLE.

My bet...there is no way to arrive at "therefore there is at least one god" using logic, reason, science, or math. Same thing holds for "therefore there are NO gods."

In fact, every indication is that one cannot get to "therefore it is MORE LIKELY that there is at least one god...than that there are none" or "therefore it is MORE LIKELY that there are no gods...than that there is at least one"...using those things.

One only arrives at those conclusions by "faith"...which is to say, a combination of a blind guess (usually referred to as a "belief")...coupled with an insistence that the blind guess is correct.)

Do you mean with what you know? Or with what someone else told you that they know? If you think it possible to precisely and exhaustively describe the scope of human knowledge I'd say that's the most implausible thing I've heard yet. I know that claim is weak. The claim that the universe was created? I know neither the strength nor weakness of that claim can be established. It's a metaphysical claim. Are you saying that all metaphysical claims are unreasonable? Do Forms exist? Who knows? They are widely debated though. They're hypotheses. — Pantagruel

The fallibility, incompleteness and contingency of knowledge entails absolutely nothing about whether the universe was created by an agent or not. An attitude of epistemic humility is consistent with conservative speculation, accounts requiring an agent before the beginning of the universe are anything but. They are riddled with:

(1) Logical contradictions (x exists outside of existence)

(2) conceptual error ("before" time, causally precedent events are required for all events except the origin of causation, conceived as an event within the series it generates)

(3) Obfuscations (equivocating between what is well justified to believe and what is believed),

(4) Invalid arguments: fallibility of knowledge => reason for belief in any creator.

(5) outlandish generalisations (deriving simultaneously vague and unsubstantiated guesses about the origins of the universe from unknowns or the fallibility/contingency of knowledge or mystical experience)

(6) falsehoods combined with all of the above (eg what we know about the biological systems required for agency do not exist before the origin of atoms, causation as a linear series moving forward in a universal time being an approximation that only works for sufficiently large, slow and light objects).

Creator hypotheses tend to evaporate into the hot air they are when stated and analysed.