A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

[uwot]

...I find that when you start the Cosmological Argument, there are people who jump straight to their visceral dislike of the idea of God...

I'm sure that happens on occasion, Mr Can.

...bypassing all the evidence the argument actually offers, and failing to realize how powerful the argument actually is.

And then there are those who have studied the ontological argument in detail and know full well that the initial premise is not logically sound. It isn't even valid. However intuitively certain it may seem, it does not follow from the fact that something began to exist, that it had a cause. It may indeed be true, but there is no logical contradiction in saying that something simply began to exist.

So I think we win a lot by going slowly and carefully, not reaching beyond ourselves, but only asking people to believe one step at a time.

Well that's the thing; you are compelled to ask people to believe you...

If we move too fast, there's a real danger they're going to think we're only making a "faith based" argument, and stop considering it at all.

...so it is a "faith based" argument.

[thedoc]

Oh, fair enough...yes, it is. But I find that when you start the Cosmological Argument, there are people who jump straight to their visceral dislike of the idea of God, bypassing all the evidence the argument actually offers, and failing to realize how powerful the argument actually is. So I think we win a lot by going slowly and carefully, not reaching beyond ourselves, but only asking people to believe one step at a time. If we move too fast, there's a real danger they're going to think we're only making a "faith based" argument, and stop considering it at all. So slowly but surely on that.

At some point, if they're personally determined to dismiss the idea of God regardless of all evidence, they'll jump off the train, it's true; but maybe they won't forget that they rode it for three or four stages before they did that. And that may well be enough to show them that their resistance to it was only visceral and not actually intellectual. Anyway, that's my hope in moving carefully.

I can see your point but I believe that most people here already know your position and what the Cosmological Argument is. If you were addressing people who didn't know anything about you or the argument, it might work, but I think that here there will be less chance of deceiving anyone.

[Harbal]

Oh, fair enough...yes, it is. But I find that when you start the Cosmological Argument, there are people who jump straight to their visceral dislike of the idea of God, bypassing all the evidence the argument actually offers, and failing to realize how powerful the argument actually is. So I think we win a lot by going slowly and carefully, not reaching beyond ourselves, but only asking people to believe one step at a time. If we move too fast, there's a real danger they're going to think we're only making a "faith based" argument, and stop considering it at all. So slowly but surely on that.

The fact that you care rather gives the game away. You need as many people as possible to believe the same as you in order to validate what is, in reality, an irrational notion. You're just trying to turn the tables. I don't think many people care what you believe, what they don't like is you trying to get them to believe it.

[ken]

I have already shown how 'your' maths and 'your' logic does NOT work.

No, actually. You have shown yourself why you think it doesn't work. And you've convinced yourself that the mathematical proof doesn't count, somehow. That's not at all the same thing.

Explain again how you beliece your maths is proof.

How exactly can one person not being able to count a set of infinite integers prove to you that the Universe is not infinite?

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 think you need to go back and go over the demonstrations I offered earlier on. But if they don't satisfy you, that isn't their fault, perhaps. It may be you're not seeing what's there.

Your demonstrations are invalid and unsound. If you go back and go over them maybe you will see the contradictions and invalidity in them.

To recap: you have found that you cannot count the infinite set of integers, treating each as a causal prerequisite for the next. You have not done so, and even admit you couldn't. But somehow that fact doesn't translate into a realization for you, and I have no handy explanation for why that is. It's not a fault of the demonstration, clearly.

Just to recap further: I admitted that obviously ONE person can not count the infinite set of integers, treating each as a causal prerequisite for the next. I have admited that. I explained that the infinite set of integers, with each as a causal prerequisite for the next, CAN BE counted. But not by one person. Therefore, if it CAN BE done, by 'your' logic, so then the Universe could be infinite.

If you propose that "logically" if an infinite set of integers cannot be counted then that means the Universe is not infinite, then by that "logic" if an infinite set of integers can be counted then that would mean the Universe is infinite. An infinite set of integers can be counted. Therefore, does that mean the Universe is infinite?

As you hopefully can see your maths and "logic" does not work.

However, I cannot remain infinitely concerned whether or not you catch up, one way or the other. So you will have to fend for yourself henceforth. If you cannot see it, you cannot see it. I don' t deny you can't. I can't change your mind for you either.

Condescending speeches will not help you.

You have not shown anything substantial, valid, nor sound
to support your belief and conclusion.

But maybe if you move onto what you call stage 2, then that might shed more light onto how you arrived at your stage 1 conclusion, which then might show Me how the Universe is finite and was created by an uncaused cause.

I have already that I can show you how an uncaused cause creates everything, but you have shown no interest whatsoever in that. So I have been trying to get you to move onto your stage 2 so that I can learn more.

[Immanuel Can]

I can see your point but I believe that most people here already know your position and what the Cosmological Argument is. If you were addressing people who didn't know anything about you or the argument, it might work, but I think that here there will be less chance of deceiving anyone.

Aux contraire, thedoc: I was trying to avoid deceiving anyone. To put it another way, I was trying to move carefully so that the logic would be evident to those who have questions, so that they could avoid deceiving themselves about having already thought the issues through, and so dismissing the Cosmological Argument without having understood it at all.

I should point out that as a Christian, I would have zero interest in deceiving anybody...for anything someone comes to believe by way of deception is not useful in the creation or sustaining of a genuine faith. I'd be wasting my time to try. Locke said this very thing, and more eloquently than I have.

Yes, people know what my position will be, when the argument reaches its end. But it's clear to me from the comments of people like ken and wtf, that there are a number of people who don't actually have an understanding of even the first step of the Cosmological Argument...let alone having thought it through entirely and dismissed it for rational reasons. However, it is possible, as I have suggested, that one or both simply doesn't want to see even the first (essentially unobjectionable) step in the process, out of fear it will lead them to have to reopen the God hypothesis. I'm not sure if that's how we account for their difficulty, or whether it's some minor misapprehension they have. It's impossible for me to tell.

Anyway, slow we go...not to hide the truth, but to make it manifest. And, of course, anyone who is interested can follow. But the rest...well, sadly, nothing can be done about what they choose or refuse to see. Deception is not a means of salvation.

[Immanuel Can]

The fact that you care rather gives the game away. You need as many people as possible to believe the same as you in order to validate what is, in reality, an irrational notion.

We both know that would be a case of Bandwagon Fallacy. I have no concern about how many people believe what I believe, except that it stands to do them good. If I got a billion people to agree with me, it would make no view of mine either more true or more false. Truth value is utterly unrelated to numbers. Remember that at one time, every person in the world believed the Earth was flat. It didn't make it so.

I don't think many people care what you believe, what they don't like is you trying to get them to believe it.

A funny thing to say on a Philosophy site. What do people do here, except contend for views that others may or may not find agreeable, and do so on the basis of rational argument?

If I were speaking wryly, I would suggest they should grow up. This world is full of ideas, and not all of them are what one already believes. Moreover, I would suggest they should take up a safer hobby than Philosophy. For that is all we do here: we swap insights and ideas, and change people's minds if we can, and sometimes our own as well.

Those who can't stand the heat, as the saying goes, had maybe best stay out of the kitchen.

[Harbal]

Aux contraire, thedoc:

Yes, thedoc, aux fucking contraire. Okay?

I should point out that as a Christian, I would have zero interest in deceiving anybody...

I'd be wasting my time to try.

Actually, you ARE wasting your time.

Yes, people know what my position will be,

Missionary?

[Harbal]

A funny thing to say on a Philosophy site.

Not as funny as talking about God on a philosophy site.

[thedoc]

I can see your point but I believe that most people here already know your position and what the Cosmological Argument is. If you were addressing people who didn't know anything about you or the argument, it might work, but I think that here there will be less chance of deceiving anyone.

Aux contraire, thedoc: I was trying to avoid deceiving anyone. To put it another way, I was trying to move carefully so that the logic would be evident to those who have questions, so that they could avoid deceiving themselves about having already thought the issues through, and so dismissing the Cosmological Argument without having understood it at all.

I should point out that as a Christian, I would have zero interest in deceiving anybody...for anything someone comes to believe by way of deception is not useful in the creation or sustaining of a genuine faith. I'd be wasting my time to try. Locke said this very thing, and more eloquently than I have.

Yes, people know what my position will be, when the argument reaches its end. But it's clear to me from the comments of people like ken and wtf, that there are a number of people who don't actually have an understanding of even the first step of the Cosmological Argument...let alone having thought it through entirely and dismissed it for rational reasons. However, it is possible, as I have suggested, that one or both simply doesn't want to see even the first (essentially unobjectionable) step in the process, out of fear it will lead them to have to reopen the God hypothesis. I'm not sure if that's how we account for their difficulty, or whether it's some minor misapprehension they have. It's impossible for me to tell.

Anyway, slow we go...not to hide the truth, but to make it manifest. And, of course, anyone who is interested can follow. But the rest...well, sadly, nothing can be done about what they choose or refuse to see. Deception is not a means of salvation.

It seems that 'deceiving' was a bad choice of words on my part, I didn't mean that you were deceiving them by not telling the truth, but that you were deceiving them by leading them to a position that was different from what they believe now. In the end if they follow and accept your logic they will be enlightened and will discover the truth, they will be free of the deception they suffer with now.

One of the advantages of a forum like this is that when you post something and someone else challenges your ideas, you are forced to rethink what has been posted, and try to say it more clearly and accurately. I know that there have been many times when I will reread a post, and realize that what was posted is not really what I intended to say.

[Harbal]

I know that there have been many times when I will reread a post, and realize that what was posted is not really what I intended to say.

So all the crap you've written so far was just an accident?

[thedoc]

I know that there have been many times when I will reread a post, and realize that what was posted is not really what I intended to say.

So all the crap you've written so far was just an accident?

My biggest mistake is clicking on one of your posts to see what you have written.

Your posts are like wishing, and as someone once said, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one gets full the quickest.

[Harbal]

you can wish in one hand and shit in the other

I'm sure you can, doc, but please tell me you wear gloves.

[thedoc]

you can wish in one hand and shit in the other

I'm sure you can, doc, but please tell me you wear gloves.

Why would I do that?

[Noax]

However intuitively certain it may seem, it does not follow from the fact that something began to exist, that it had a cause.

More to the point, it does not follow that if time has a lowest value, that it or the universe of which it is a part "began to exist".

Existence has more than one meaning, and mixing the two is a great deal of the fallacy of the cosmological argument. A thing can exist IN the universe, with 'universe' meaning this glob of physical reality in which we find ourselves, with a bang at the front. Within it, things exist (a star say), and such things are temporal and can be said to begin to exist. The universe is not something within the universe, and thus this definition of existence does not apply. It cannot 'begin to exist'.
Another sort of existence is more abstract: The existence of Pi, of other universes with or without temporal physics, God, and our universe itself. Such things can only be said to 'begin to exist' if they are in some sort of containing reality that has time of its own, and the thing in question does not exist for the entire duration of that temporality. Thus, while our universe may well exist in such a container and thus 'began to exist', none of evidence/logic put forth in the cosmological argument supports this conjecture.
The argument attempts to take the one definition of existence and apply its rules to the other.

[surreptitious57]

But I find that when you start the Cosmological Argument there are people who jump straight to their visceral dislike of the idea of God
bypassing all the evidence the argument actually offers and failing to realize how powerful the argument actually is. So I think we win
a lot by going slowly and carefully not reaching beyond ourselves but only asking people to believe one step at a time. If we move too
fast there is a real danger they re going to think we re only making a faith based argument and stop considering it at all

The Cosmological provides no evidence at all for God. But what it attempts to do is assume his existence by premises and a conclusion which
are logically consistent with each other. But belief is an article of faith which requires no evidence and so claiming the argument itself offers evidence but that it should be taken on faith is confusing. Also it is not about winning. Because how popular an argument is has absolutely no bearing on how valid or sound it is. And they are all that matters. Nothing else