Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Impenitent]

If one looks at Zeno's runner at the finish line, he had an infinite number of prerequisites which he could not fulfill. He should not be at the finish line.

he was probably Russian

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

Nobody "has difficulty" with the idea of infinity here. But we want to do so with logical and mathematical accuracy, not with errors.

An infinite number of prerequisites means that there is no exhausting the prerequisites. Thus, the prerequisites are never fulfilled. It's called the "infinite regress" problem. And infinity is part of the demonstration.

Precisely, just as we do with mathematics.

Your First Prerequisite exists by AXIOM.

There is NO problem with "infinite regress" unless you have an axiom declaring that. Nothing to "start" the progression is ASSUMING it had to have a start instead of always being. There is nothing wrong that the Integers have no "start". The Natural Numbers do have a start in 0, which was stated to exist and not to have a predecessor (was not the successor of any number) BY AXIOM.

I have absolutely no problem with you accepting as an AXIOM "there exists something (the First Cause) that is not caused by anything else" to start causality. I simply don't believe you (or anybody else) can derive that from just the definition of causality. YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So? << you don't think you need to rule out "infinite regression" by AXIOM? >>

My aim here (and in the topic devoted to "First Cause", where does (just) that lead) is NOT to consider religious beliefs false, just to deny they are other than religious beliefs (not things we can believe true because of logic). The situation is the same even if you have First Cause (you aren't going to be able to derive things like "the First Cause" is omnipotent, cares about the effect, etc. << go to the topic "First Cause"" >>

PLEASE NOTE -- the ancients were not so formally careful with logic. Thus an ancient problem like "cannot construct the trisection of an angle" would be defining "construct" as "using a series of steps with only compass and straight edge" but NOW we would more carefully define "construct" as "using a finite series of steps with only compass and straight edge".

Axiom of First Cause ------ There exists X, a cause such that no Y is the cause of X ---- You can't DERIVE that. You need it or an equivalent.

[Immanuel Can]

There is NO problem with "infinite regress"

Yeah, sorry...there is. There's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes, because logically and mathematically, such a chain cannot ever start. It eternally lacks the prerequisite to begin.

YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So?

So you could not possibly exist. Nor could the universe.

[MikeNovack]

There is NO problem with "infinite regress"

Yeah, sorry...there is. There's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes, because logically and mathematically, such a chain cannot ever start. It eternally lacks the prerequisite to begin.

YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So?

So you could not possibly exist. Nor could the universe.

IC, you just do not understand formal mathematics of the last ~150 years.

Do you REALLY mean to say "the Integers do not exist" (because infinite if BOTH directions)

LOOK at your second supposed point ---- you got "could not possibly exist" by taking AS AN AXIOM "could not always have existed". The only problem with the "infinite progression of cause and effect" is IF the universe did not always exist. You are saying "here, I can prove the universe did not always exist, had a start, because if the universe didn't always exist it had a start". DUH ......??????

[Immanuel Can]

There is NO problem with "infinite regress"

Yeah, sorry...there is. There's no such thing as an infinite regress of causes, because logically and mathematically, such a chain cannot ever start. It eternally lacks the prerequisite to begin.

YES in the absence of a First Cause would mean "infinite regression". So?

So you could not possibly exist. Nor could the universe.

IC, you just do not understand formal mathematics of the last ~150 years.

Well, somebody certainly doesn't.

Do you REALLY mean to say "the Integers do not exist"

You are so far from the point, I don't know what to say. It's not "integers," but causal chains that are the issue. I showed you the mathematical evidence, I showed you the empirical confirmation...I even pointed out how your own ancestors illustrate the point, and you still didn't get it.

Or didn't want to. I can't know which it is.

But I've done what I can for you. I can think of no other ways to explain this simple fact. You'll have to continue as you are, I suppose.

[MikeNovack]

You are so far from the point, I don't know what to say. It's not "integers," but causal chains that are the issue. I showed you the mathematical evidence, I showed you the empirical confirmation...I even pointed out how your own ancestors illustrate the point, and you still didn't get it.

Or didn't want to. I can't know which it is.

But I've done what I can for you. I can think of no other ways to explain this simple fact. You'll have to continue as you are, I suppose.

You don't understand Zeno's paradox.

I am NOT misunderstanding "causal chains". Or that if X is the cause of Y, then must be "before" Y in the temporal sense. What you are misunderstanding is "how much "before" is available. You think there NECESSARILY isn't enough "before", that you would run out of "before". There is enough "before" for an infinite chain EVEN IN A FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME (assuming time is indefinitely divisible). .

At one second before the big bang, B causes A, at 1/2 second before C causes B, at 1/4 second before, D causes C, ..... at 1/2**n second before R causes Q .............. The cause is ALWAYS before the effect. There is always time in which the cause can exist before the effect. Why do you believe you would run out of instants when this would not be so?

And that is with a finite total amount of "before". Why are you assuming the past doesn't go back indefinitely. No limit to the total amount of "before".

My point is that you ARE making such an assumption, your First Cause is an AXIOM. I am not objecting to you choosing this axiom (making this assumption), just to your claim that it is NOT an axiom (that you can derive it from JUST "cause and effect").

This section is "Philosophy of Religion". I am taking a philosophical position, that our religious beliefs cannot be derived without axioms.

[Immanuel Can]

You are so far from the point, I don't know what to say. It's not "integers," but causal chains that are the issue. I showed you the mathematical evidence, I showed you the empirical confirmation...I even pointed out how your own ancestors illustrate the point, and you still didn't get it.

Or didn't want to. I can't know which it is.

But I've done what I can for you. I can think of no other ways to explain this simple fact. You'll have to continue as you are, I suppose.

You don't understand Zeno's paradox.

Yeah, I do: and it has nothing to do with the argument.

You think there NECESSARILY isn't enough "before", that you would run out of "before".

The opposite: there is no "before," because "before prerequisites recede infinitely. Nothing starts the chain of prerequisites, so none are ever met.

Sorry...I guess you're just not going to get it. But you'll still be wrong, of course. There is no such thing as an infinite regress of causes. It simply never runs out of things that have to happen before anything else can happen. That's what infinite regress means.

[MikeNovack]

And you don't get formal reasoning.

Let's lay that aside for a moment. You can think you derived First Cause and I think you needed/had to use an axiom for it, but either way, let's say you have First Cause, which you can call God.

Let's consider the attributes you think "God created the universe" (THIS universe) lets you derive.

God is omnipotent.
God is omniscient.

God created the universe by intent.
God cares about the universe.

I've grouped those in pairs for a reason.

Consider the first pair. Do you believe you can derive them from (just) God created the (this) universe. How? I see how you could conclude God sufficiently powerful to create THIS universe because did so. Conclude that God has sufficient knowledge to create THIS universe, because did so. BUT, how do you derive enough power and knowledge to create ANY universe? To have created THIS universe differently than done, add features, leave features out. REMEMBER -- I am not suggesting God not omnipotent or omniscient but am suggesting that you can't derive those JUST from the creation of THIS universe. If you can't derive them, two more axioms.

Now consider the second pair. Does God having created THIS universe mean "by intent"? Does it imply God cares about the universe? Compare with this example, a sculptor, with hammer and chisel, and a large rock. The sculptor intends to create a statue and proceeds by placing the chisel and striking blow. The result was a chip of the rock flies off, a chip was created. If asked, the sculptor would say of course I am aware that I am creating chips of stone in the process of creating this statue. They of necessity happened as I created this statue, but I had no particular intent to create chips of stone. But while I care about this statue I am creating, I don't care at all about those ships of stone. AGAIN -- I am not suggesting God did not create this universe by intent or that God doesn't care about it. Only that from JUST God created the universe you can't derive either of those. Two more axioms.

I am NOT saying anybody's religious beliefs are wrong, just that they cannot be derived and so it's not going to be possible to convince anybody else by the use of logic. You can lay out your axioms, argue for their reasonableness, but being axioms, you can't prove them.

[Immanuel Can]

And you don't get formal reasoning.

Well, somebody doesn't, I suppose. But there's no more that can be done with that.

Let's lay that aside for a moment. You can think you derived First Cause and I think you needed/had to use an axiom for it, but either way, let's say you have First Cause, which you can call God.

Let's consider the attributes you think "God created the universe" (THIS universe) lets you derive.

Consider the first pair. Do you believe you can derive them from (just) God created the (this) universe.

You've missed the argument yet again.

The argument proves the existence of a First Cause. That's all it does, and all it was designed to do. For more information, we would need additional arguments. We would need to have accepted the necessity of the First Cause argument, and have moved on to "What sort of First Cause would it be?"

So the words you cite and attempt to criticize are not related to the argument being made. They're also invented terms, a kind of "best effort" of some theologians to get at particular concepts about the divine nature, and so can be misleading if not properly explained. They're not inspired words, and not Biblical terms, so nothing is gained or lost by arguing over them.

And you forgot the third that is usually proposed: "omnipresent." But that, too, is a human term, and one in need of nuancing.