I read a lot about infinite regress, my problem is how to deal with the problem of infinite regress with a Theist. They will assert that infinite regress is not possible so we need to invoke a GOD. how should I refute this?
I know that Actual Infinity is not possible and Infinity is a concept. Hence, should I tell that infinite regress is Possible, so we cant invoke God. I mean what is our (athiest) position on infinite regress - is infinite regress possible, so there will be infinite Gods of gods, or its not possible as the theist claims. I m confused.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Atheism is a position of lack of belief in a god or gods that is all.
There is no atheist "position", philosophy, belief, or religion.
Atheism is a reply to the claim "there is a god or gods": Atheists will say: "I do not believe you" That is all.
Now go reword your post. And use a fucking dictionary.
I knw what atheism is, now I also know how an atheist can be !!!! I made it clear that I do knw the definition well.
---------------I mean what is our (athiest) position on infinite regress
Vs
--I knw what atheism is
Obviously fucking not you muppet.
They will also likely assert that god is real. I wouldn't be too concerned about their assertions.
-----------------------
What makes you so sure?
I read in many places that Actual Infinity is not possible..., Its a concept, not quantity.
Plz be specific in ur answer. Do u think infinity is possible or not, do u think infinite regress is possible or not?
Actual infinities are assumed by postulate in ZFC; which is essentially one of the foundations of modern mathematics. It seems rather cavalier to dismiss them out of hand.
-----------------------------------
Presumably there is an infinite number of locations between one of your fingers and the keyboard, which you managed to cross, in sequence, repeatedly to type your message. Again, I would be hesitant to dismiss it without good cause.
"Presumably there is an infinite number of locations between one of your fingers and the keyboard, which you managed to cross, in sequence, repeatedly to type your message. Again, I would be hesitant to dismiss it without good cause."
Then u mean infinite regress is possible, ur example sounds like Zeno's Paradox to me
While it is certainly far from obvious: it is possible to sum the amount of time an infinite series of events will take to complete; and have the answer be a finite amount of time.
Still waiting for the bingo square "set theory is bollocks" to come up, maybe we can get a bingo!
@DRKFUTURE
"do u think infinite regress is possible or not?"
I do not because I can prove a contradiction in it's application. As mentioned, if infinite regress was possible, then as my finger was moving towards the keyboard, it would never reach the keyboard by the rules of infinite regress. But the simple fact that my typing is producing results negates that assumption.
I can prove a negation of infinite regress. Can you provide proof of infinite regress?
Einstein produced a great theory, of relativity. But it was just a novelty and not accepted by the mainstream scientific community until it was proven by Eddington's study of an eclipse in 1919. That is the crux of any theoretical postulation, that you can talk all day, but whatever intellectual conclusion you reach is absolutely worthless until you actually test it.
And if one can not test a proposition and product results, then the intellectually honest thing to do is admit 'I do not know".
1. If a god has always existed, how is it not in itself any infinite regress?
2. If there is no infinite regress, you don't get to create an exception with your imaginary god. What created god? Either he was created or an infinite regress is possible. If god in infinite, then the universe can be infinite as well and we have no need of moving to a god.
2. The infinite regress is generally based on the idea that the universe has an initial cause. Even if we agree that the universe has a cause and was not self contained, how do you get to a god vs. any billions of natural causes or any billions of other imaginary causes, Blue Universe Creating Bunnies is at the top of my list. So given there was a first cause, how do you get to a God. How did you rule out all the other crap. All the person is doing is asserting a magical god into existence and claiming it has the power of stopping an infinite regression. So does a magical rock if that was the cause of the universe.
I do know all the stuff u have said, this a common cosmological argument, I can deal with them well, I just want to deal with the portion of "infinite regress". U hv just pointed out one issue that God itself is an infinite regress. Thats the only point u've made as far as my question is about.
@ drhfuture I start with 'we don't know." infinite regress is a useless starting point. Saying it proves anything is there or not is silly. Its more about a mechanism than anything else. basically, a claim with a mechanism, explanation, and repeatable predictions are more valid than claims that don't have them.
"god was always here." isn't proving a thing. That being said, If I claim the the universe seems to have been "born" and theists say "god made it". who has a mechanism? ok, we can say neither are testable yet. What do we do then?
for me, and I suggest for us all really, put them side by side, use commonsense, and see if they seem like they are equal.
It doesn't matter how we go here in this god argument. We do know we are here now and the universe seems to be processing information in a meaningful way. What does that mean? processing in a meaningful way? we would have to talk about that.
To stop infinite regress just say this universe was the first and admit we don't know what was before it. when people say to me "what if it was God?". I answer with "what if it was a human?"
I have no idea why theist need god to have always been here. it seems like a cop out. even if they say god made it I don't know why they don't say, "I don't know if its always been here or not, but I believe something made the universe."
For me, "deny-everything" just isn't science. "my-god-only" just isn't science either. We don't have to pick one or the other when they are both so clearly wrong.
PS ... I am not sure if the mods talked about this. this system of in bedding threads gets confusing and isn't as easy as putting most recent post at the bottom for most users.
There is no reason to assume an infinite regression is not real. Infinite regression in itself is not a fallacy. People do not like it because it is not clean. All events rely on a precursor event in a causal chain of events. If there is a first cause, that event necessarily must come from itself or from nothing in order to break the chain. The other option I am aware of is a circular chain of events. The universe naturally expands and contracts only to expand again.
The skeptic can always ask a philosopher for justifying reasons. When those reasons are given, he can demand their justification, and this in turn leads to an infinite regress of justifications. This, in no way implies that the reasoning itself is fallacious. This is the imputes behind the idea that "Nothing Can Be Known to 100%." It does not matter. We live in a real world with real consequences for real behaviors and to reduce everything down to the ultimate cause (or nothing) is a useless avenue of inquiry and leads us to nowhere.
On the face of it there are only two logically possible accounts for The Totality's existence:
An infinite causal chain stretching backwards in time; or
Space/Time sprung out of nothing.
Either logical possibility seems equally causally impossible. It seems that it would be far more reasonable that nothing existed. However, I know, for certain, something exists.
Existence, therefore, appears paradoxical. It is easier to claim that we really do not know than it is to call something impossible. You must also understand that the origin of our universe may have nothing at all to do with the origin of the cosmos. We have no idea at all of the physics that exist beyond Planck Time. It is only the theist that pretends they know and make wild assertions of the existence of a God as the origin of everything.
THE ASSERTION OF THE FALLACY OF INFINITE REGRESSION, IS A COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. There can not be an infinite regression, there must be a beginning, therefore God. NO. The theist can not merely assert a god into existence. They can not do this with an infinite regression and they can not do it without an infinite regression.
I didnt know there is a difference between COSMOS and Universe , U mean Cosmos contains Universe ?
Is the Plank Time , the beginning of time , when Time - 0
I do not deal with philosophical "what-if's" but rather, what is real. And this begins with our understanding of our known universe. And in all logical and rational scientific explorations of physics and this universe, scientists have never had to resort to infinite regress arguments or any of that crap.
Infinite regress is a philosophical argument, just like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". Infinite regress is not a scientific argument.
If someone asserts that you cannot have an infinite regress but you can have an imaginary cosmic mage, then you can end the conversation right there and simply file all of their comments under 'B' for bollocks.
not totally true if the mage have some of the properties they say. And some properties ... well not so much.
Well if they say that, I would strongly suggest removing the paint thinner they have been heartedly sniffing.
There are no actual properties for a 'god', why do you think theist always go to extremes of what is impossible to prove... immortal, timeless or as they tend to use... omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
It simply demonstrates how much of a credulous bunch of fuckwits they are!
Brain washed into believing such far fetched ideas, to the point where you can replace 'god' with anything else mythical and it makes an equal amount of sense.
For example, a pan dimensional, liquid gold shitting unicorn called Eagbert The Unseen.
well yeah, you have a point. I think its the fundy think type that does that tho. Like with anything, the fundy thinks remove all commonsense. look at liberalism. Its actually not a bad idea but Fundy think types turn it into communism. weather they are far right or far left fundy think types. they both turn a good idea into communism.
the fact is, something is there. but its just not what they say it is.
how do we address that? for the middle of the roader?
It's not simply the fundermentalists amongst the religious that look upon their God in such a way, most do.
Be it consciously or subconscious.
When you press any theists to demonstrate their 'God' they ironically regress back to essentially a God of the gaps fallacy where they insert their imaginary friend via the backdoor when logic, reason and science can't answer.
Just look at what they say when discussing the possibilities of potential precursors prior to T=0.
@noreason: RE: 'if the mage have some of the properties they say. And some properties ... well not so much."
Great! Then what are those properties? How do you know those are the properties the Mage has? How can you prove your assertion? All theists do is pile one assertion on top of another and then assert that the first unfounded assertion is evidence for the second. Listen to Randomhero1982, IT'S BULLOCKS!
@cog we would have to talk about the properties wouldn't we?
I tend to ignore what theist say. I am atheist and I base no answer on what theist say. I only address their base claims individually. I also don't care about religion. I wish it had less power, but past that I dont care.
for example. "a living god."
For me ..
1) I look around me and see we are totally surrounded by life. Insert basic chemistry, physics, and biology and I see that that we are totally connected to all of those life forms around us.
Ok, so they feel they are part of a larger living thing. well, guess what, they are. I can't change that fact.
Now what I can dismiss is an old guy throwing lighting bolts at us if we don't believe.
2) "the universe loves us"
ok, lets look at it. Why would they say that?
for me, I see volumes of the universe "loving me". We can discuss the size of the volume, the simple fact is some volumes of the universe "love me."
Thats how I look at what they say.
@noreason: "for me, I see volumes of the universe "loving me". We can discuss the size of the volume, the simple fact is some volumes of the universe "love me."
Volumes? Seriously? 99.9999% of the universe is completely inhospitable to human beings. Much of the very planet we live on would kill us were we to try and live there without our scientific advancements. Bacteria want to kill us. Virus want to kill us. Our governments want to kill us. We all want to kill each other. Where are you getting this myopic idea? " "the universe loves us?" Really? I don't see how anyone could arrive at that conclusion.
I specifically said the size of the volumes are in question. The earth looks flat due to our size. we know its not. It looks like we are the center of everything. we are not.
When people say "we are the center", they are partly correct. But they are wrong too.
I used "love" as an example. I am with you. The actual base claim would be that the system around any given person is influencing what the person thinks is real. i am only saying that some of the things they are saying do line up to the standard model and some things they say do not.
The earth looks flat to me sometimes. Due to my size, its a reasonable statement. I am saying the exact same thing for them being surrounded by life. They thinks its bigger than it is. "all love" is as stupid as "all hate". Beside, they are emotions, they, the emotions, only partly describe whats going on around us.
the simple fact you didn't address it that we are surrounded by life. they mistakenly think its a god. Just like people mistakenly think its ok to let anybody in our country to take stuff or shoot, mistakenly think its ok to shoot anybody, trying to come in. they are both stupid and I don't have to pretend one is more right than the other when a middle ground has a more valid stance.
The same for this god thing. "The god Illusion" is more reasonable than "the god delusion". That doesn't mean some people are not delusional.
@noreason: "i am only saying that some of the things they are saying do line up to the standard model and some things they say do not."
You are being myopically indulgent by equating any sort of equality by even comparing things that are and things that are not.
RE: "Beside, they are emotions, they, the emotions, only partly describe whats going on around us." Where did you get this from? Emotions describe NOTHING that is going on around us. NOTHING! Emotions are a response to the world around us. Emotions are within you. The world around you is not a loving place but rather you opt to see it as a loving place by ascribing agency to it and giving it the ability to be loving. When you feel loved, it is the sensation within yourself that you feel, not something being projected onto you by another person or thing.
@noreason
"for me, I see volumes of the universe "loving me". We can discuss the size of the volume, the simple fact is some volumes of the universe "love me."
Let us put this children's fairy tale to bed. Which of the following two statements is more likely to be true.
99.99% of the known universe will kill me in an instant
or
99.99% of the known universe will keep me alive.
If you selected the first option, you are correct because just about everything in this known universe is designed to kill life. Our local sun is 99.8% of the total mass of this solar system. Go anywhere on or into this star, and anything that has "life" will die in an instant. And I was just talking mass. Start thinking volume, and all that nasty vacuum laced with radiation is not exactly a nice place for life.
you are changing what I said.
No, I copied and pasted YOUR statement. If there is any confusion, that is not my fault or problem.
@noreason: Just my 2 cents. You are in the habit of making some very loose associations. It leads me to think that English is not your first language or that you may just not be a big reader. (Setting that aside.) It might be helpful for you to clearly state what it is you did mean. It might also be a good idea to avoid analogy, simile, and parable. It is very difficult to come up with appropriate examples of these when you struggle with facts and simple language in the first place. Just say what you mean!
Pages