A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

[thedoc]

Science doesn't address the question of God at all, science is only concerned with materialistic explanations. ...

Well for sure it can't deal with questions about something nobody's been able to, so far, show exists but so far it's put a real dent in a lot of the claims about what this 'God' is up to in the world, i.e. it's pretty much destroyed most of the ' 'God' does it' answers to how the world works.

there is no reason to believe that any Universe existed before this one, likewise there is no reason to believe that there was not a universe or several before this one, science has no way to answer that question and most religions don't address it. ...

Eh!? So where did your 'God' exist before this one?

Mostly they are the questions of "what is God like" and "What is Heaven and Hell like". ...

Oh! I don't have such questions. They seem a bit ridiculous to me but whatever.

Death would be the end of the quest to find the answers.

So why bother asking them if you're going to get the answers at the end?

Are you saying you'll have no questions when you get to this 'Heaven or Hell'?

I don't know and science doesn't have an answer either.

Most of the claims about what God has been doing in this world have been misinterpretations of what is written in the Bible. So proving them wrong is no big deal.

I will probably have some questions when I die but I will probably also have the answers.

[wtf]

I've seen Craig's phrasing and it's always seemed a little off to me. What does "begin to exist" mean? For one thing it seems very binary.

It is. But some things are genuinely binary. As they say, "You can't be 'a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.'"

I can think of counterexamples. Some people think you exist as long as your in the minds and hearts of others. Isaac Newton lives in present time, through his work and his influence on the world. That's part of the model of a probability wave of existing. First your parents imagine their future kid (or try to prevent it). Either way they're thinking of you before you are even born. So existence can indeed be viewed as a fuzzy wave, not a discrete event.

Secondly, there are philosophical problems. You have a big oak tree outside your window. When did it start to exist? When it first sprouted above the ground? When it was an acorn that fell from some other oak tree? But when did that oak tree start to exist? Trace it all the way back, and the oak tree "began to exist" at the moment of the big bang. The quarks and strings and whatever that we're all made of were formed there. So you tell me, when did the oak tree "begin to exist?"

So that's two challenges to your binary idea of existence right there. If you want to posit binary existence that is a hidden assumption in your argument.

A thing "exists" or it does not.

I define wtf's number as the length of the shortest Turing machine that generates a proof of the Riemann hypothesis. Does the wtf number exist?

If it "exists" a little bit, then it "exists." If it does not, then it does not at all. That's simply definitional of what it means to say a thing "exists" at all. It's also basic logic, as first explained to us by Aristotle.

You are making an assumption. Nothing wrong with that. But in philosophical arguments it's helpful to acknowledge the assumptions you're making. As far as old Aristotle, an appeal to authority will not help you here.

No, I would say not. And in fact, not just Aristotle but every logician afterwards thinks so. Without the distinctive meaning of the idea of "existence" no predications at all are possible.

Oh but now you have pulled a rhetorical trick. We were talking about whether a thing can sensibly said to "begin to exist." And now you are talking about the binary nature of existence. I can agree with you that an oak tree either does or does not exist outside your window. But I challenge you to tell me the exact moment when it "began to exist." That's Craig's phrase, and we see that it hides many philosophical difficulties.

At least three things. First, the absolute certainty that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.

Refuted by the negative integers. But why do you say an uncaused cause has existed forever, but that an infinite regress of causes is impossible? It seems that these are miracles on a par. There's no logical basis to accept one and reject the other.

Once we know that pretending things can start to happen without causes, we know that such a chain must begin somewhere.

Why? The uncaused cause didn't begin anywhere? Why does God get a get-out-of-cause-free card?

Secondly, we do seem to know some things that appear to exist independent of the contingent, time-bound, empirical world. Numbers seem to be one of those things. "2" is still "2" at all times and places (no matter what symbol we use for it, whether 2 or the Roman number II, or .. or whatever).

Now that is VERY funny. A post or two back you were pretending not to understand the negative integers, and NOW suddenly you are all about the wonderful abstractions of math.

Thirdly, we can observe empirically that the universe is not infinitely old.

The part of the universe we observe is called the observable universe. We don't know anything about the part of the universe we can't observe, or if such a thing even exists. But surely you are not going to claim that historically contingent empirical observations can be used to prove things with finality in science. I truly hope you misspoke yourself and don't actually believe that. If your theory of a finite universe is based on empirical considerations it's subject to refutation with tomorrow's experimental news.

Entropy, even at an extremely slow rate...say only 1/1,000,000th of its' actual, measurable rate today...would mean that in an infinite universe, we would have attained heat death an infinite amount of time ago. Likewise, we can observe things like the Red Shift Effect that demonstrate our universe is linear and expanding, not cyclical or contracting. So the scientific observations we have square with a "caused" universe.

Yes but you yourself are promoting an uncaused universe. God cause the universe but God was uncaused. So really, the universe is uncaused. Because the first cause has always been there, forever. Surely causality is transitive. God was uncaused, God caused the universe, hence the universe is uncaused.

How can you claim to believe in cause when you are the one claiming there's an uncaused cause? You want it both ways, you want to say that there's no infinite regress of causes but there is a magic uncaused cause. To me both of those seem equally mysterious.

That'll do for now, I'm sure. I'm glad, though, that we've broken through to the key point. Thanks for your thoughts.

We have broken through, but only to shed light on the hidden assumptions and philosophical problems of Craig's argument. You're welcome for my thoughts Thanks for yours too.

[Arising_uk]

I don't know and science doesn't have an answer either. ...

Well according to you it's not asking such questions so no surprise there but if any of the things you've talked about actually exist then I think science will be the best place to find out how.

Most of the claims about what God has been doing in this world have been misinterpretations of what is written in the Bible. ...

Er! Then 'God' is just a misinterpretation?

Are you saying there is a correct interpretation of the Bible?

So proving them wrong is no big deal. ...

Oh! You mean the creation myths and things like a 'virgin-birth', a resurrection from the dead and being a son of 'God' and such like.

I will probably have some questions when I die but I will probably also have the answers.

Doubt it as you'll be dead.

[Immanuel Can]

I've seen Craig's phrasing and it's always seemed a little off to me. What does "begin to exist" mean? For one thing it seems very binary.

It is. But some things are genuinely binary. As they say, "You can't be 'a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.'"

I can think of counterexamples. Some people think you exist as long as your in the minds and hearts of others.

But as the poet Robert Browning pointed out, this depends on a less-that-honests use of the word "exist." YOU are not existing at all...people are simply thinking about a dead man or woman. It mistakes a metaphor for a reality.

Isaac Newton lives in present time, through his work and his influence on the world.

Same problem.

So existence can indeed be viewed as a fuzzy wave, not a discrete event.

Non-sequitur, because of an error of amphiboly. In order to make a sound judgment, you've got to keep your middle term (i.e. "exist") from shifting meaning. But in this case, you're using it two different ways, ways that actually do not entail one another. Surely we can both see that the truth is that one may be "thought of" and not, in any literal sense, "exist" anymore.

...an appeal to authority will not help you here.

I wasn't citing him as an authority. I was suggesting where you could find out that you'd made an error in logic: that is, in Aristotle's Law of Identity. I should have specified that. But okay: now I have.

At least three things. First, the absolute certainty that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.

Refuted by the negative integers.

Non-sequitur again. Write me an infinite string of actual integers, and call me when you're done.

But why do you say an uncaused cause has existed forever, but that an infinite regress of causes is impossible? It seems that these are miracles on a par. There's no logical basis to accept one and reject the other.

There is, actually; but I see you aren't grasping that at the moment. There's some aspect of my demonstration -- perhaps a genuine perception of what is implied by infinity? or maybe a misconception that I'm arguing against a conceptual infinite instead of an actual one? or maybe a forgetting to plug in causal dependence? I can't tell which it is, or if it's something else you're missing, so I don't know how to cure the problem for you. Maybe you can tell me what seems missing to you, because I can detect it in what you say.

The uncaused cause didn't begin anywhere? Why does God get a get-out-of-cause-free card?

We haven't gotten to God yet (we will, but not until we establish the prior principle first). We're parked on the question of whether an infinite regress of causes is possible. It's not, but I can't seem to find the way to help you see it.

Yes but you yourself are promoting an uncaused universe.

Utterly untrue. I have no idea why you think I am. Everything I've said has focused on the opposite.

God caused the universe, hence the universe is uncaused.

Look at those two sentences, and you'll see you've contradicted yourself. The first rules out the second, by definition. You couldn't possibly imagine I'd accept such an obvious mistake.

Okay. Well, here's where we're parked: you think an infinite regress of causes might be possible. I'm quite certain we have the best reasons to know it's not. You don't seem to see the reasons. So now, what I don't see is how we move forward.

So maybe we stop.

[Dalek Prime]

It is. But some things are genuinely binary. As they say, "You can't be 'a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.'"

I can think of counterexamples. Some people think you exist as long as your in the minds and hearts of others.

But as the poet Robert Browning pointed out, this depends on a less-that-honests use of the word "exist." YOU are not existing at all...people are simply thinking about a dead man or woman. It mistakes a metaphor for a reality.

Isaac Newton lives in present time, through his work and his influence on the world.

Same problem.

So existence can indeed be viewed as a fuzzy wave, not a discrete event.

Non-sequitur, because of an error of amphiboly. In order to make a sound judgment, you've got to keep your middle term (i.e. "exist") from shifting meaning. But in this case, you're using it two different ways, ways that actually do not entail one another. Surely we can both see that the truth is that one may be "thought of" and not, in any literal sense, "exist" anymore.

...an appeal to authority will not help you here.

I wasn't citing him as an authority. I was suggesting where you could find out that you'd made an error in logic: that is, in Aristotle's Law of Identity. I should have specified that. But okay: now I have.

At least three things. First, the absolute certainty that an infinite regress of causes is impossible.

Refuted by the negative integers.

Non-sequitur again. Write me an infinite string of actual integers, and call me when you're done.

But why do you say an uncaused cause has existed forever, but that an infinite regress of causes is impossible? It seems that these are miracles on a par. There's no logical basis to accept one and reject the other.

There is, actually; but I see you aren't grasping that at the moment. There's some aspect of my demonstration -- perhaps a genuine perception of what is implied by infinity? or maybe a misconception that I'm arguing against a conceptual infinite instead of an actual one? or maybe a forgetting to plug in causal dependence? I can't tell which it is, or if it's something else you're missing, so I don't know how to cure the problem for you. Maybe you can tell me what seems missing to you, because I can detect it in what you say.

The uncaused cause didn't begin anywhere? Why does God get a get-out-of-cause-free card?

We haven't gotten to God yet (we will, but not until we establish the prior principle first). We're parked on the question of whether an infinite regress of causes is possible. It's not, but I can't seem to find the way to help you see it.

Yes but you yourself are promoting an uncaused universe.

Utterly untrue. I have no idea why you think I am. Everything I've said has focused on the opposite.

God caused the universe, hence the universe is uncaused.

Look at those two sentences, and you'll see you've contradicted yourself. The first rules out the second, by definition. You couldn't possibly imagine I'd accept such an obvious mistake.

Okay. Well, here's where we're parked: you think an infinite regress of causes might be possible. I'm quite certain we have the best reasons to know it's not. You don't seem to see the reasons. So now, what I don't see is how we move forward.

So maybe we stop.

Very nice to read this, IC. I'm so tired of people all too often making these mistakes.

[Immanuel Can]

Very nice to read this, IC. I'm so tired of people all too often making these mistakes.

Thanks, DP.

I'm beginning to suspect wtf of using the old trick of pretending to be deliberately "thick" in order to prolong arguments for their own sake. I say that because he's gone a bit ad hominem, which always signals a lack of serious effort, and more because I think he has all the explanations in hand but somehow magically can't put them together. It starts to look fake to me now, and rather than suppose him to be genuinely thick, I think that maybe he's just being contentious.

However, arguing just to argue I just don't find much fun...or a good use of time. So I think I'll just not bother with him after this. He'll figure out the truth, or he won't. But I think he's closed down the willingness to lose the basic point, no matter what anyone says.

[uwot]

I'm beginning to suspect wtf of using the old trick of pretending to be deliberately "thick" in order to prolong arguments for their own sake.

That could explain why Mr Can refuses to accept the difference between 'I don't believe there is a god', and 'I believe there is no god'.

I say that because he's gone a bit ad hominem...

Describing people who do not accept your premises as irrational is ad hominem.

...which always signals a lack of serious effort...and rather than suppose him to be genuinely thick, I think that maybe he's just being contentious.

Attributing their disagreement to a lack of goodwill is lazy.

So I think I'll just not bother with him after this.

Refusing to engage with people who challenge you is cowardly.
Clearly, there are some people who are content to accept a god that rewards hypocrisy, laziness and cowardice, but personally, I fail to see the value of such a being.

[Arising_uk]

...
But as the poet Robert Browning pointed out, this depends on a less-that-honests use of the word "exist." YOU are not existing at all...people are simply thinking about a dead man or woman. It mistakes a metaphor for a reality. ...

LMFAO! And this 'God' IC claims 'exists' is what?

Is IC not being a bit less-than-honest in his existence claim for his 'God'?

[thedoc]

...
But as the poet Robert Browning pointed out, this depends on a less-that-honests use of the word "exist." YOU are not existing at all...people are simply thinking about a dead man or woman. It mistakes a metaphor for a reality. ...

LMFAO! And this 'God' IC claims 'exists' is what?

Is IC not being a bit less-than-honest in his existence claim for his 'God'?

No, I accept that God exists, but I accept that the proof was just for me and those attending the event. I don't believe IC was there but I accept that he might have had his own experience. I will accept that you have not had any such experience or you deny that the experience was of God.

[Arising_uk]

No, I accept that God exists, but I accept that the proof was just for me and those attending the event. I don't believe IC was there but I accept that he might have had his own experience. I will accept that you have not had any such experience or you deny that the experience was of God.

What has this got to do with the kind of existence claim that IC is making for his 'God'?

I accept that you believe that your 'God' exists for you but this is a far cry from the claim that this 'God' exists in the sense of really existing apart from the way that IC denies is actually existing, i.e. just in the minds of others, which appears to be all you are asserting.

Was this a Christian event and were you an atheist before you went?

[attofishpi]

...
But as the poet Robert Browning pointed out, this depends on a less-that-honests use of the word "exist." YOU are not existing at all...people are simply thinking about a dead man or woman. It mistakes a metaphor for a reality. ...

LMFAO! And this 'God' IC claims 'exists' is what?

People have real experience of God - like you might have of the experience your own child. Its a far cry from the memory of a dead mother, that's the past tense - no longer 'exists'.

Is IC not being a bit less-than-honest in his existence claim for his 'God'?

On the whole, i think IC has been kicking a lot of atheists in the arse where their brains are and you all come up short sighted but blinded by each others face as its up the arse of the next atheist in the chain gang.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I accept that God exists, but I accept that the proof was just for me and those attending the event. I don't believe IC was there but I accept that he might have had his own experience. I will accept that you have not had any such experience or you deny that the experience was of God.

Well, the Cosmological Argument makes no appeal to "experience," either mine or yours. I think there certainly IS an argument to be made from experience, but it's got nothing to do with any I'm making here. The Cosmological Argument only requires a person to realize the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes. That's a mathematical and logical argument, nothing else.

Now, if we want to get into the question of what starts the progression of natural causes, the chain that accounts for our present existence, that's stage 2 of the argument. We're only at stage 1, where wtf is stuck. And until he gets unstuck, he won't be able to see any argument at all, no matter what I add. For stage 1 is the foundation upon which the rest of my Cosmological defense is to be built.

Hence, any assertions about the nature and content of stage 2 are premature and speculative, at best. No stage 2 argument has been launched by me yet, and nobody really knows yet what I will say about stage 2. I have only promised so far that at that stage I'll talk about the God hypothesis, among other things. But that hasn't happened yet.

I'm quite content to do stage 2 for the general strand when everyone who wants to participate is satisfied on stage 1 -- which I think they really should be, assuming they can do logic and maths.

[attofishpi]

No, I accept that God exists, but I accept that the proof was just for me and those attending the event. I don't believe IC was there but I accept that he might have had his own experience. I will accept that you have not had any such experience or you deny that the experience was of God.

Well, the Cosmological Argument makes no appeal to "experience," either mine or yours. I think there certainly IS an argument to be made from experience, but it's got nothing to do with any I'm making here. The Cosmological Argument only requires a person to realize the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes. That's a mathematical and logical argument, nothing else.

This implies that God is also finite - which i can accept but am sure you will not... The universe could rebirth, does that then mean that there is finality to God?

[Immanuel Can]

This implies that God is also finite...

Actually, no such thing. The first step of the Cosmological Argument does not even require a reference to God at all.

There is no inference in it but that there is, and can be, no infinite regress of causal chains. That's it. End of point.

[ken]

No, I accept that God exists, but I accept that the proof was just for me and those attending the event. I don't believe IC was there but I accept that he might have had his own experience. I will accept that you have not had any such experience or you deny that the experience was of God.

Well, the Cosmological Argument makes no appeal to "experience," either mine or yours. I think there certainly IS an argument to be made from experience, but it's got nothing to do with any I'm making here. The Cosmological Argument only requires a person to realize the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes. That's a mathematical and logical argument, nothing else.

If you want people to realize the the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes, then provide an argument that shows that. Until then I, for one, will wait. I have already shown how 'your' maths and 'your' logic does NOT work.

Now, if we want to get into the question of what starts the progression of natural causes, the chain that accounts for our present existence, that's stage 2 of the argument. We're only at stage 1, where wtf is stuck. And until he gets unstuck, he won't be able to see any argument at all, no matter what I add. For stage 1 is the foundation upon which the rest of my Cosmological defense is to be built.

wtf is not the only one who is, what you call, "stuck". Just because a person cannot count backwards, because that obviously would be infinitely long, that does not mean that the Universe is not infinite. The two do not go hand-in-hand.

Hence, any assertions about the nature and content of stage 2 are premature and speculative, at best. No stage 2 argument has been launched by me yet, and nobody really knows yet what I will say about stage 2. I have only promised so far that at that stage I'll talk about the God hypothesis, among other things. But that hasn't happened yet.

And never will happen if you are waiting for all people to say what you want them to say now. Show Me HOW 'your' maths and logic proves that the Universe had a beginning, then I will agree with and say that also. Again, until then I wait.

I'm quite content to do stage 2 for the general strand when everyone who wants to participate is satisfied on stage 1 -- which I think they really should be, assuming they can do logic and maths.

Remember 'your ' logic and maths may not necessarily be logical and mathematical in the truest sense.

If you want everyone to agree with your conclusion, then you will have to provide far better reasoning than you have so far.