A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

[uwot]

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".

Yeah, but that's going to whoosh over quite a few heads in this place.

[ken]

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

Is that meant to be a joke, because if it was, then that is one of the funniest thingsthat I have ever heard. To comment and say that religious people have not been deceiving anybody is one of the most humorous things I have ever heard. The reason you can NOT explain WHAT God is and HOW It exists just proves that you have been decieved all along.

Yes, people know what my position will be, when the argument reaches its end.

I do NOT know what your position will be. I also do NOT care what your position will be. If I see your first premise or stage 1 is NOT correct, then I will point that out. If you are unable to show HOW what I have pointed out, then do not expect Me nor others to be able to follow YOUR "logic".

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.

I hope it is very clear to you that I do NOT understand YOUR "argument" because I clearly stated that and have shown HOW YOUR argument does not make sense.

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.

How can it be impossible to tell. I have told you on numerous occasions now that I can show you HOW God created everything AND HOW God IS the uncaused cause. But your refusal or inability to read the actual words I write leaves you in the state of confusion that you are in.

You are so blinded by your own beliefs that you really can not see what has been going on here. I can show with proof and evidence HOW what you believe is true. BUT I can NOT show you anything whilst you hold onto and maintain those distorted views that you have of the truth. Wipe away any preconception you now have of God, you know those ones you have that you are completely unable to explain when asked, "What is God?", and then you will be able to learn more and become wiser. If you want to and do let go of your beliefs, then you can ckearly see how YOUR maths and logic is NOT working.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Granted.

But I've still got to wonder how telling people what you genuinely believe is the truth can be construed as "deceiving" of any kind. I was rather thinking that if anything, I'd be trying to "undeceive" people. But as you say, maybe not quite the intended term, so that's all good.

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.

Yeah, this is more the idea.

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.

Yep, sure. Me too.

It's easy to drop a word that's not quite what one wanted to say. The famous "principle of charity" in interpreting each other sometimes saves us from the worst misunderstandings, but sometimes not.

How great it would be if language could always be exact.

[Immanuel Can]

To comment and say that religious people have not been deceiving anybody

Didn't say that. You didn't read well. I said I don't, and people of my kind have no such incentive, and Locke made the same case. I make no such claims for any other of what you call "the religions." In cases where there is a singular truth, then by unavoidable logical implication, all competing views have to be some degree of false. That's inescapable for both of us.

I hope it is very clear to you that I do NOT understand YOUR "argument" because I clearly stated that and have shown HOW YOUR argument does not make sense.

It ought to. WHY it doesn't add up to you, I can't say. And apparently, I also can't fix that.

So be well.

[thedoc]

It's easy to drop a word that's not quite what one wanted to say. The famous "principle of charity" in interpreting each other sometimes saves us from the worst misunderstandings, but sometimes not.

Too many times others will misinterpret what is written, usually it is an honest mistake of misunderstanding, but occasionally the reader will quote some obscure meaning in order to twist the meaning to something that is not intended but easy to criticize. It's a bit of a straw man argument and only tends to make the exchange contentious and often leads to hostility. I have sometimes been the victim of such an exchange and it's not fun but usually indicated a disingenuous attitude on the part of the other poster, they are just looking for a fight not a serious exchange of ideas.

[ken]

To comment and say that religious people have not been deceiving anybody

Didn't say that. You didn't read well. I said I don't, and people of my kind have no such incentive, and Locke made the same case. I make no such claims for any other of what you call "the religions." In cases where there is a singular truth, then by unavoidable logical implication, all competing views have to be some degree of false. That's inescapable for both of us. .

But you did say that. You said you do not decieve and people of your "kind' have no such incentive, so that infers religious people do not deceive. I have also already explained how you have been decieved all your life by religious people.

I hope it is very clear to you that I do NOT understand YOUR "argument" because I clearly stated that and have shown HOW YOUR argument does not make sense.

It ought to. WHY it doesn't add up to you, I can't say. And apparently, I also can't fix that.

So be well.

I have already explained how your argument does not add up. But as i have already explained to you, you blindly will not even look at that. You have not even attempted to refute what I have said. I refuted what you said, so why do you not try to refute what i said?

But let us forget all that for now and just assume i agree with you that there is no way possible that there could be an infinite regress. Therefore i agree with you that the universe is finite and that it was caused by an uncaused cause. Could you please move onto the so called stage 2 now.

[thedoc]

But let us forget all that for now and just assume i agree with you that there is no way possible that there could be an infinite regress. Therefore i agree with you that the universe is finite and that it was caused by an uncaused cause. Could you please move onto the so called stage 2 now.

Perhaps IC can get on with the arguments, now that Ken has fake conceded to the 1st stage.

[ken]

But let us forget all that for now and just assume i agree with you that there is no way possible that there could be an infinite regress. Therefore i agree with you that the universe is finite and that it was caused by an uncaused cause. Could you please move onto the so called stage 2 now.

Perhaps IC can get on with the arguments, now that Ken has fake conceded to the 1st stage.

Yes hopefully immanuel can can.

[thedoc]

But let us forget all that for now and just assume i agree with you that there is no way possible that there could be an infinite regress. Therefore i agree with you that the universe is finite and that it was caused by an uncaused cause. Could you please move onto the so called stage 2 now.

Perhaps IC can get on with the arguments, now that Ken has fake conceded to the 1st stage.

Yes hopefully immanuel can can.

Since it seems that you have already made your mind up, why are you reading this thread?

[Harbal]

Perhaps IC can get on with the arguments, now that Ken has fake conceded to the 1st stage.

Yes hopefully immanuel can can.

Since it seems that you have already made your mind up, why are you reading this thread?

Would you say that Immanuel hasn't already made his mind up then?

[ken]

Perhaps IC can get on with the arguments, now that Ken has fake conceded to the 1st stage.

Yes hopefully immanuel can can.

Since it seems that you have already made your mind up, why are you reading this thread?

Why does it seem to you that I have already arrived at a conclusion? What do you presume that conclusion to be?

I am reading this thread to learn how to communicate better with people who have strongly held beliefs and who are not open to evidence and proof.

Why are you reading this thread?

[thedoc]

Since it seems that you have already made your mind up, why are you reading this thread?

Why does it seem to you that I have already arrived at a conclusion? What do you presume that conclusion to be?

I am reading this thread to learn how to communicate better with people who have strongly held beliefs and who are not open to evidence and proof.

Why are you reading this thread?

In previous posts you have clearly stated your position that the Universe is infinite in extent and duration, and you have stated that you do not believe that God exists. If you don't actually believe these things, why did you post them?

I am reading this thread to read IC's presentation of the Cosmological Argument.

[Noax]

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".

Yeah, but that's going to whoosh over quite a few heads in this place.

I noticed that.
That simple bit invalidates the whole argument, but since it conflicts what they know to be true, it is not even heard.
Can't blame em. Hard as I try, I know I also am guilty of confirmation bias.

[Noax]

Yes hopefully immanuel can can.

I would love to see a gif of this. Surely somebody has the skills to do it.

[Immanuel Can]

You said you do not decieve and people of your "kind' have no such incentive,

Not quite my wording, but essentially, I'm trying to tell what I know the truth to be; and people like me have no incentive to use deception, for it is counterproductive to their spiritual aims and defeats their purposes right at the start if they resort to it. And John Locke said exactly the same thing.

so that infers religious people do not deceive.

No, it implies nothing of the kind, once you understand I could not care less about defending "religious" people. The Hindus, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Animists, Roman Catholics and the Mormons, and even the Atheists...all will have to defend themselves if they want to. I have no stake and no interest in doing so. If they have able advocates, I welcome their input. If they do not, I cannot do their job for them.

I have also already explained how you have been decieved all your life by religious people.

Yeah, see, you've never met me, so this isn't exactly the most incisive comment anyone has ever made...

I have already explained how your argument does not add up.

Then for you, the argument is done. Nothing more can be said.