Free Will

[Immanuel Can]

“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one. And we know for certain that it is not eternal, since it is entropic and because it’s governed by causality, of which there can be no infinite regress.

Right. So you have just invalidated your claim that God is eternal.

If God had a “cause,” then you’d be right. But no monotheist believes in a “caused” God.

[attofishpi]

“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one. And we know for certain that it is not eternal, since it is entropic and because it’s governed by causality, of which there can be no infinite regress.

Right. So you have just invalidated your claim that God is eternal.

If God had a “cause,” then you’d be right. But no monotheist believes in a “caused” God.

Lol. So what precisely are you believing? That God is eternal ..but then it can't be part of the 'uni' verse as you pointed out as EVERYTHING in physical existence is one total and not eternal. So all you can claim to attempt to prevent your contradiction is that God is NOT part of the universe, therefore is NOT physical, therefore cannot exist!!

[Immanuel Can]

No, the problem is that we do not have the information that would enable us to correctly apply the maths or logic.

Since something that is mathematical does not depend on empirical facts, far less on any ideology or belief system, but on impartial calculation within a closed symbol-system, that’s impossible. It can’t be “the information” that is lacking, unless by “the information” you mean “the ability to do simple maths.” And I doubt you can mean that.

So you think you know everything there is to know about reality, and about the nature of time, do you?

You’ve made a bizarre jump there. Nothing I said even remotely suggests it. You’ll have to justify it, I suppose.

All I’ve said is that you and I can do simple maths. (Well, I’m confident about me, but losing some certainty about you, at the moment, on the basis of the difficulty you’re having in grasping even the idea of a simple regression of symbols; but maybe you’re simply being disingenuous — I can hope so.)

[attofishpi]

Since something that is mathematical does not depend on empirical facts, far less on any ideology or belief system, but on impartial calculation within a closed symbol-system, that’s impossible. It can’t be “the information” that is lacking, unless by “the information” you mean “the ability to do simple maths.” And I doubt you can mean that.

So you think you know everything there is to know about reality, and about the nature of time, do you?

You’ve made a bizarre jump there. Nothing I said even remotely suggests it. You’ll have to justify it, I suppose.

All I’ve said is that you and I can do simple maths. (Well, I’m confident about me, but losing some certainty about you, at the moment, on the basis of the difficulty you’re having in grasping even the idea of a simple regression of symbols; but maybe you’re simply being disingenuous — I can hope so.)

No. There really is not much point in debating logically with someone that still believes that a MAN SPOKE the universe into existence.

[Harbal]

maybe you’re simply being disingenuous

No, you are just being slippery, like you usually are when you are avoiding uncomfortable questions.

[Immanuel Can]

Right. So you have just invalidated your claim that God is eternal.

If God had a “cause,” then you’d be right. But no monotheist believes in a “caused” God.

Lol. So what precisely are you believing? That God is eternal ..but then it can't be part of the 'uni' verse as you pointed out as EVERYTHING in physical existence is one total and not eternal. So all you can claim to attempt to prevent your contradiction is that God is NOT part of the universe, therefore is NOT physical, therefore cannot exist!!

I’m believing what maths proves — that there can be no such thing as a chain of causes that goes infinitely backward…and as a consequence, I’m asserting that we can be quite certain that the universe itself had some origin point. I’ve said nothing yet, in this particular sequence of argument, about what that beginning or cause would be. The infinite regress point can only take us so far. We need an additional set of arguments to justify any claim about what that cause would be, and I have such arguments, but have not yet even presented them.

Patience. You’re hasty, and thus inventing your own bad arguments and assuming them to be mine. They’re not. All I’ve asserted so far is the absolute necessity of the universe having had an origin point. If you want to take issue with that, you’ll have to deny the reality of basic maths.

[Immanuel Can]

maybe you’re simply being disingenuous

No, you are just being slippery, like you usually are when you are avoiding uncomfortable questions.

You’ll have to point out one that might potentially be “uncomfortable,” or even “relevant.” At the moment, you need to prove that simple maths are delusory. Good luck.

Go ahead.

[Immanuel Can]

///aMAN SPOKE the universe into existence.

This is a good example of an argument you invented. Nobody’s made it, and no monotheist makes it. I’m sorry to point out that you’ve managed to disprove nobody, therefore.

[Harbal]

maybe you’re simply being disingenuous

No, you are just being slippery, like you usually are when you are avoiding uncomfortable questions.

You’ll have to point out one that might potentially be “uncomfortable,” or even “relevant.” At the moment, you need to prove that simple maths are delusory. Good luck.

Go ahead.

The point I am making is nothing to do with maths. You are just using maths as some sort of deflection. And as I am not the one claiming to know something, your demand that I prove it is quite ridiculous. You are the one claiming to know something, but failing to provide proof.

[Immanuel Can]

No, you are just being slippery, like you usually are when you are avoiding uncomfortable questions.

You’ll have to point out one that might potentially be “uncomfortable,” or even “relevant.” At the moment, you need to prove that simple maths are delusory. Good luck.

Go ahead.

The point I am making is nothing to do with maths.

Right. But the point I was making had everything to do with maths. In fact, it required nothing but a basic knowledge of maths.

[Harbal]

You’ll have to point out one that might potentially be “uncomfortable,” or even “relevant.” At the moment, you need to prove that simple maths are delusory. Good luck.

Go ahead.

The point I am making is nothing to do with maths.

Right. But the point I was making had everything to do with maths. In fact, it required nothing but a basic knowledge of maths.

I don't believe you can disprove the possibility of infinite regress with maths. If you think you can, please show us the maths. If you are not saying that maths disproves infinite regress, then we are talking at cross purposes.

[Immanuel Can]

The point I am making is nothing to do with maths.

Right. But the point I was making had everything to do with maths. In fact, it required nothing but a basic knowledge of maths.

I don't believe you can disprove the possibility of infinite regress with maths.

Then you don’t understand the maths.

If you think you can, please show us the maths.

I did. And you admitted there could be no first number in an infinite-regress sequence. So it seems you could do the maths, but just don’t want to.

That’s a strategy nobody can beat: to have the calculation, recognize the result, and still refuse to accept the inevitable. I can’t help you with that. Nobody can.

[Harbal]

Right. But the point I was making had everything to do with maths. In fact, it required nothing but a basic knowledge of maths.

I don't believe you can disprove the possibility of infinite regress with maths.

Then you don’t understand the maths.

If you think you can, please show us the maths.

I did. And you admitted there could be no first number in an infinite-regress sequence. So it seems you could do the maths, but just don’t want to.

Of course there could be no first number, or it wouldn't be infinite regress, would it?

Starting from any number, you can count backwards indefinitely, so if maths can prove anything about infinite regress, it proves it is mathematically possible.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe you can disprove the possibility of infinite regress with maths.

Then you don’t understand the maths.

If you think you can, please show us the maths.

I did. And you admitted there could be no first number in an infinite-regress sequence. So it seems you could do the maths, but just don’t want to.

Of course there could be no first number, or it wouldn't be infinite regress, would it?

If it’s so simple to see, why fight it the way you’re doing?

Starting from any number, you can count backwards indefinitely, so if maths can prove anything about infinite regress, it proves it is mathematically possible.

Oh, I see…you’ve missed the logical entailment.

The maths models something: it models the idea of an infinite regress of causes. Whatever you discover is true in the maths, it’s bound to be true of the thing it’s modelling, too — so long as the model is apt.

So we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that our universe had an origin. We know precisely because an infinite regress of causal prerequisites can easily be shown to be an incoherent idea. And it’s the application to causality that makes that clear.

[Harbal]

Then you don’t understand the maths.


I did. And you admitted there could be no first number in an infinite-regress sequence. So it seems you could do the maths, but just don’t want to.

Of course there could be no first number, or it wouldn't be infinite regress, would it?

If it’s so simple to see, why fight it the way you’re doing?

I am fighting your assertion that maths shows infinite regress to be impossible. And I am obviously right to fight it, because the maths seem to show that infinite regress is perfectly possible.

Starting from any number, you can count backwards indefinitely, so if maths can prove anything about infinite regress, it proves it is mathematically possible.

Oh, I see…you’ve missed the logical entailment.

No, I'm just resorting to simple maths, which is what you were insisting on.

The maths models something: it models the idea of an infinite regress of causes. Whatever you discover is true in the maths, it’s bound to be true of the thing it’s modelling, too — so long as the model is apt.

So we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that our universe had an origin. We know precisely because an infinite regress of causal prerequisites can easily be shown to be an incoherent idea. And it’s the application to causality that makes that clear.

I'm afraid talking gibberish isn't going to help your case.

No matter how incoherent you say "infinite regress of causal prerequisites" is, you can't produce a more plausible alternative.