How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument (page 4)

bohm

A.Fenderson: The main problem here is that i have only a vague idea what the terms 'infinite regression' mean. Intuiatively, regression seem to fall in the same family of operations as recursion, but i am not sure. The problem here is that in that case the statement is quite strange: Infinite recursion is used to define pretty much all mathematical objects used in physics and engineering, for example the natural and real numbers.

Thats why i asked for a definition. The cosmological argument seem impossible to formalize.

A.Fenderson

I think BTS and I were inadvertently being too vague, and should more properly have said "infinite causal regress," i.e. a cause-event chain which extends infinitely backwards in time. Unfortunate, though, that this quick and dirty definition has some incredibly high-order abstractions ("what is 'time?' " etc), and is therefore practically semantically null. Maybe we can all agree on it superficially for the sake of this argument, though we could probably quibble endlessly about the meanings of the words used in defining it--assuming time extends infinitely forwards as well and we're all going to live forever on a paradise earth. ;-)

wobble

O.K Village idiot here,

I have sort of followed this threads argument, but what I don't understand is this, the universe exists, so we probably agree that as it is a pretty big thing, something must have caused it to exist, I know there are valid arguments against that,(causation), but wait for my question:

If we agree that the Universe had a cause, just for the fun of discussion, how come there is a quantum leap of logic that says a God must have caused it ??????

If you look up the meaning of God it will suddenly dawn on you that despite the definition, there is not ONE shred of evidence that a God exists anywhere outside of the fevered imagination of man.

Please explain the non-existence of evidence for a God to this Village Idiot (and part time drunk )

Wobble

darkl1ght3r

It's as good (if not better) as any other presupposition.

Really? You're taking my refusal to make a presupposition as a presupposition? Good move.

We have NO reason to assume anything about the universe before the BIG BANG, except to ask what caused it. There was no "before (or time that we know of) the big bang".

Ummm. That's essentially what I've been saying, although I would add that in relation to THIS current state of the universe, there was no "before". Although I find it very funny that after you wrote that, you then go on to contradict yourself:

Agree or not, God would be a reasonable cause or presupposition.

No. I strongly disagree. You're creating an arbitrary stopping point. You're purporting to explain something with the unexplainable. With supernatural magic. THAT is why it's not reasonable. However, naturalistic causes are infinitely more plausable than God, because we have evidence of naturalistic causes, and none for the supernatural. Unless you have some evidence for the supernatural that no one else is aware of. If you want to call that a presupposition, then that's fine (it's not). But if it is, then I must also presuppose that the universe wasn't created by transdimensional pink elephants.

To deny that the big bang effect, needs a cause, is violating your own rules.

I never said the Big Bang was uncaused. You asked if I could name something that does not have a cause. I gave you a mere possibility to highlite that the assertion that "all things require a cause" is ultimately unprovable. I was making a rhetorical point. I never said the universe itself was uncaused. I'm very careful not to make baseless assertions about things that are beyond human comprehension at this point in time.

That is the problem I have with creationist claims. Rather than humbly accept that we don't know, creationists arbitrarily leap to "GODDIDIT!" without providing evidence or reason for the claim. They claim to know the unknowable, and then proceed to glom specific characteristics onto the unknowable, like: It's sentiant. It's intelligent. It gives a rat's ass about humans. It hates homosexuals. Etc...

~~~~

EDIT: Thanks wobble, you said it far more succintly than I just did... LOL

If we agree that the Universe had a cause, just for the fun of discussion, how come there is a quantum leap of logic that says a God must have caused it ??????

Deputy Dog

Darkl1ght3r

That's essentially what I've been saying, although I would add that in relation to THIS current state of the universe, there was no "before". Although I find it very funny that after you wrote that, you then go on to contradict yourself

It was meant to be funny, not logical. I use it as a figure of speech.

No. I strongly disagree. You're creating an arbitrary stopping point. You're purporting to explain something with the unexplainable. With supernatural magic. THAT is why it's not reasonable. However, naturalistic causes are infinitely more plausable than God, because we have evidence of naturalistic causes, and none for the supernatural. Unless you have some evidence for the supernatural that no one else is aware of.

Really! Can I see them? Anything outside of the universe, would by default be "supernatural". Unless you have some evidence for the natural (outside of the universe) that no one else is aware of. As far as we know, there isn't even empty space outside of the universe.

... the assertion that "all things require a cause" is ultimately unprovable.

Just to be clear, I never said that all things require a cause. In fact I don't believe that either.

mindmelda

Supernatural (as defined as anything that is outside the "natural" which is one of the most vague words in the dictionary) doesn't fit the definition of a Biblical God, though. Supernatural=/=Intelligent Superhuman Being.

darkl1ght3r

It was meant to be funny, not logical. I use it as a figure of speech.

Ok. Sure didn't come across that way though.

Really! Can I see them?

Yes. Open your eyes. They're literally everywhere. Open any science book. Everything we've discovered so far can be explained through purely naturalistic means. You make this seem like a shocking revelation for some reason. It's why science works. Show me something that can be proven to be of supernatural origin, and we can add "supernatural" to the list of possibile causes for the origin of the universe. Untill then, I'm forced to exclude Zeus, Enki, Apsu, Taimat, Yahweh, Ra, Krishna, etc... from the list.

Anything outside of the universe, would by default be "supernatural". Unless you have some evidence for the natural (outside of the universe) that no one else is aware of. As far as we know, there isn't even empty space outside of the universe.

No, absolutely not "by default". Where would you even get that notion? You're creating a false dichotomy based on a flawed premise, these are unknowns we're dealing with here. You really have no idea what "natural" and "supernatural" mean, do you?

First of all, 'universe' can be simply defined as "all that exists". So there really is no "outside" of this universe, there are only portions we are unaware of. When you say universe, do you mean the 'visible universe'? But even still... the planets and stars and galaxies we can see, the "bubble" we live in, may only be a tiny portion of a much vaster "sea" of other "bubbles" we have no way of being aware of (and in fact there are good mathematical and theoretical [and even experimental!] reasons that point to such being a very real possibility). You say "As far as we know..." ??? We know NOTHING about what exists "outside" of our "bubble"! It could be nothing, empty space, or Cherry Kool-Aid! We don't know! Appealing to things "outside" the universe is as non-sensical as asking what is north of the noth pole.

I see this is getting nowhere. As mindmelda alluded to, you seem to have your own definitions for certain words and concepts.

BurnTheShips

-assuming time extends infinitely forwards as well and we're all going to live forever on a paradise earth. ;-)

That's a great idea. I'd be more than happy to make your acquaintance there. May I buy the first round? However, infinity, going forwards, is never actual infinity, only virtual infinity. At any point in the future, assuming a finite past, you've only got a finite timeline in actuality. ;-)

BTS

Deputy Dog

Darkl1ght3r

Yes. Open your eyes. They're literally everywhere. Open any science book. Everything we've discovered so far can be explained through purely naturalistic means. You make this seem like a shocking revelation for some reason. It's why science works.

Excuse me, but we (at least I) were talking about things beyond the limits of our universe and the possible cause of the big bang.

BurnTheShips

Excuse me, but we (at least I) were talking about things beyond the limits of our universe and the possible cause of the big bang.

I think it was Hawking that said something about "no observational consequences" before the big kaboom.

BTS

How To Construct a Creationist/Theistic Argument

Share this