Prove me wrong: there is no God

[commonsense]

IGod must be benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.

Why must God be those things?

Would you have it that God is not these things?

[Gary Childress]

Again, I gave that several times, with lengthy explanations. To go over it yet again seems unnecessary. If you have a comment though, after you go back and read it, I'll address it.

Where can I find your explanation of the infinite regress problem that contains the precise wording of the problem?

The previous 30 or so pages. It's repeated several times, and objections are raised and dealt with there. I'm not going to go over all of that again, but if you're interested, you won't have a hard time finding it and following the trail.

So I have to read 30 pages to find the answer. Is it too inconvenient for you to repeat it and give me a precise wording in your own words or maybe you've forgotten and no longer know what your precise wording was? As far as I know, I already gave a pretty concise description. I don't understand why you won't accept mine or what my answer is missing. It seemed pretty straightforward. Can you at least tell me what is missing in the definition that I gave:

The problem of an "infinite regress" in cosmology is that there must be a beginning, and "something" cannot come from "nothing".

[Immanuel Can]

Where can I find your explanation of the infinite regress problem that contains the precise wording of the problem?

The previous 30 or so pages. It's repeated several times, and objections are raised and dealt with there. I'm not going to go over all of that again, but if you're interested, you won't have a hard time finding it and following the trail.

So I have to read 30 pages to find the answer.

Probably not. Start at the beginning. But the great thing about all the rest is it will handle all your objections before you can even think of them. I've done the work, so now it's up to you.

If you care, you'll have a look. If you don't care, what are we doing?

[Gary Childress]

The previous 30 or so pages. It's repeated several times, and objections are raised and dealt with there. I'm not going to go over all of that again, but if you're interested, you won't have a hard time finding it and following the trail.

So I have to read 30 pages to find the answer.

Probably not. Start at the beginning. But the great thing about all the rest is it will handle all your objections before you can even think of them. I've done the work, so now it's up to you.

If you care, you'll have a look. If you don't care, what are we doing?

In the time it took you to post the message above, you couldn't put your mind to typing out a more precise formulation of the infinite regress problem. We both know that you can't come up with a formulation that isn't making unfounded assumptions about reality beyond that of which humans have knowledge. I'll take your answer as the inability to do better at giving a formulation of the problem. Let's just leave it where we both know it belongs: that there are no logically deductive "proofs" of the existence of "God".

[Immanuel Can]

So I have to read 30 pages to find the answer.

Probably not. Start at the beginning. But the great thing about all the rest is it will handle all your objections before you can even think of them. I've done the work, so now it's up to you.

If you care, you'll have a look. If you don't care, what are we doing?

In the time it took you to post the message above, you couldn't put your mind to typing out a more precise formulation of the infinite regress problem.

I want you to look, so we don't have to rehash anything I've already dispatched. It will save me a ton of wasted time, in the end, and give you a more complete answer. We both win.

[Gary Childress]

Probably not. Start at the beginning. But the great thing about all the rest is it will handle all your objections before you can even think of them. I've done the work, so now it's up to you.

If you care, you'll have a look. If you don't care, what are we doing?

In the time it took you to post the message above, you couldn't put your mind to typing out a more precise formulation of the infinite regress problem.

I want you to look, so we don't have to rehash anything I've already dispatched. It will save me a ton of wasted time, in the end, and give you a more complete answer. We both win.

IC. We both know you are evading the question I posed. I gave you my formulation of the infinite regress problem as it applies to cosmology and theology. Why don't you start there and tell me what's wrong with it?

[Gary Childress]

Or how about this:

Will you accept the formulation below?

Contingent things require an explanation.
The universe is contingent.
Therefore, the universe requires an explanation.
The ultimate explanation cannot itself be contingent.
Therefore, there exists a necessary reality—God.

Yes or no? If not, then what's wrong with it?

[Immanuel Can]

Or how about this:

Will you accept the formulation below?

Contingent things require an explanation.
The universe is contingent.
Therefore, the universe requires an explanation.
The ultimate explanation cannot itself be contingent.
Therefore, there exists a necessary reality—God.

Yes or no? If not, then what's wrong with it?

No.

Read, or forget it. I've already done all the work.

[Gary Childress]

Or how about this:

Will you accept the formulation below?

Contingent things require an explanation.
The universe is contingent.
Therefore, the universe requires an explanation.
The ultimate explanation cannot itself be contingent.
Therefore, there exists a necessary reality—God.

Yes or no? If not, then what's wrong with it?

No.

Read, or forget it. I've already done all the work.

So your belief is that you've made a formulation of the infinite regress problem that is deductive and cannot be questioned or debated. It is with absolute certainty the case that there must be a "God" and that "God" is the Biblical "God" and not some other version of "God". Is that correct? Or is that not correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Or how about this:

Will you accept the formulation below?



Yes or no? If not, then what's wrong with it?

No.

Read, or forget it. I've already done all the work.

So your belief is that you've made a formulation of the infinite regress problem that is deductive and cannot be questioned or debated.

No, I offer the past dialogue of proof that I have encouraged it to be both questioned and debated, and have dealt with the objections you may already be formulating.

[osgart]

Telomeres, endogenous retroviruses, and genetic patterns as evidence of evolution:

The human genome contains roughly 3 billion base pairs. When a retrovirus inserts itself, it chooses a location across these billions of options.The mathematical probability of two entirely separate species being infected by the exact same virus, which then integrates into the exact same base-pair location independently, is effectively zero. Therefore, if two different species share an identical ERV at the exact same genomic locus (known as an orthologous insertion), it mathematically demands a single conclusion: they inherited that specific piece of DNA from a shared common ancestor who suffered the initial infection.

How is this refuted?

[Immanuel Can]

...it mathematically demands a single conclusion: they inherited that specific piece of DNA from a shared common ancestor who suffered the initial infection.

Or that both were created as is, but out of the same sort of materials.

How is this refuted?

By not being logically demanded at all.

[osgart]

...it mathematically demands a single conclusion: they inherited that specific piece of DNA from a shared common ancestor who suffered the initial infection.

Or that both were created as is, but out of the same sort of materials.

How is this refuted?

By not being logically demanded at all.

That's like saying they made it all up! Especially about sharing exact endogenous retroviruses in exact patterns through each generation

[Immanuel Can]

...it mathematically demands a single conclusion: they inherited that specific piece of DNA from a shared common ancestor who suffered the initial infection.

Or that both were created as is, but out of the same sort of materials.

How is this refuted?

By not being logically demanded at all.

That's like saying they made it all up!

No. It's saying that there is an alternate explanation for the same phenomenon.

[Will Bouwman]

We have nowhere near enough supposed transitional stage fossils to support any such narrative.

As you have said yourself, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I've heard others say that line; but you'll find I've never said it.

I stand corrected.

If the subject is the Theory of Evolution, then the theory owes us its evidence, its demonstrations, its proofs.

You could do worse than starting here: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-orig ... ecies.html

Name one.

Australopithecus afarensis.

Well, I'm sure you Googled that. But okay.

As it happens, that's Lucy, the most famous human ancestor that I am aware of. Some of us were taught evolution, dontcha know? Louis Leakey, Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon; stuff like that.

Two problems. One is that you don't know whether it's an authentic transitional fossil or not. Piltdown Man and Ramapithecus, as well as archaeopteryx, once appeared in all textbooks, yet turned out to be frauds.

Well, Piltdown Man is the only fraud of those three. Ramapithecus was a misclassification rather than deliberate fraud. I can't imagine what you could misconstrue as archaeopteryx being a fraud.

The second problem, the one I mentioned, is that there are nowhere near the millions or billions of fossils...

According to the Smithsonian Institute:
"From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals."
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
If you think millions or billions of fossils should be lying around, you do not understand how fossilisation works. Even if we include Piltdown Man in those 6000, that leaves more than 5,999 individuals whose existence is explained by human evolution. Other than a woeful lack of scientific understanding and ludicrous conspiracy theories, how does your version of creationism account for those 6000+ individuals?