God is a logical conclusion.

Infinite regress.

If the complexity of the universe is such that an intelligent creator is required, then the creator, being even more complex, must logically also have a creator - ad infinitum.

 

And what is wrong with the notion of 'infinite regress'? All that implies is that one who claims or leans on the notion of infinite regress has no means of proving or disproving the subject within that infinite regression. Much the same as you or me or anyone else simply saying "I don't know". So, as one travels down that road of infinite regression, one would soon weary his/her own being and would him/her self die before even coming close to an answer. Of course, when dealing with what you call 'infinite regress' or infinite regression, one can also consider the notion that God has been labeled as 'infinite'.... the beginning and the end... the alpha and the omega... the first and the last. Oh well.

 

I don't want to steal any thunder here, but it's quite different. One is a claim about not knowing the answer and one is claiming to know an answer. And an infinite regress would mean that there are a number of Gods of various complexity, not one God.

 

Ok! If you want infinite regress to imply that there are more than one god, then that is ok, because the Bible itself says that there are many gods. So where is the problem?

 

The problem is that it is a definitive assertion about the origin of the Universe, "I don't know" isn't.

 

Ahh but if the Theist is simply using the regression notion that you speak about, then where is the 'definitive assertion about the origin of the universe'? If there is a definitive assertion, then it would be one where it is understood that there is no proof (according to scientific terms) that the alleged definitive assertion is true or false. So where is the problem? Do you have photographic proof of the instant in time of the 'big bang'?

 

I'm kind of confused about where we are headed with this argument. Are you playing devil's advocate here? First off, if a person is relying on the notion that there is an infinite regression of Gods, he isn't a theist, he's a polytheist. Secondly, if that polytheist is claiming that the Universe was caused by a complex God, but that God was created by another God... That is still an assertion about the origin of the Universe.

 

Something can't come from nothing?
God came from what?

 

Interesting question above. What do you suppose is the most correct answer?

Why don't you surprise us all and give us the answer?

 

No! To do so would require the belief in the existence of the 'Devil'. Do you hold such a belief?

Where is the dictate printed that says such a person has to be either one or the other? Now, if the person declares that he/she is one or the other, then that is what the person is stuck with.

How can it be a positive assertion when it is stipulated that the regression itself renders an uncertainty (I don't know) as to the existence of a God or gods? BTW: presumptions never make good arguments... deal with the facts.

 

No it wouldn't, it's just a common use of language that has a pretty widely understood meaning in our society. It's just like people that yell "Jesus Christ!" when they hurt themselves.

I suppose you are right.

How does an infinite regression produce uncertainty? If some guy says that there is an infinite regression of increasingly complex Gods, I'm stumped to find any uncertainty in that proclamation.

 

Do we really know that something cannot come from nothing? We've never observed actual nothingness, so we have no way of observing whether something can come from it or not. We can only theorize, and I don't even know of a cohesive and complete theoretical concept of true nothingness, which we could test theoretically for its ability to create things. I therefore put it to you that both the statements "something cannot come from nothing" and "something can come from nothing" are equally unsupported. Feel free to take a position on either side, but know this: your position is nothing more than your gut feeling on it.

Nonetheless, I accept the possibility that the universe had a force that brought it into existence - but I dont think 'creative force' is necessarily the same thing as 'god'. It seems you agree, since you then go on to talk about INTELLIGENT creation.

But similarly, what you think the universe looks like is only your opinion. I don't think it looks intelligently designed. I'm sure many scientists do, but it's just their opinion too, not a scientific observation.

Then you go on to bash multi-verse theory, which is one of the more 'fringe' theories even now, and not one that convinces me personally yet either.

You then assert once again that the universe shows design, and once again you offer no reason for this assertion.

Moving on, we then have your assertion that "we know now the universe is finite". In fact I don't believe we know any such thing.

In short: Your logic, by which I mean the process by which you come to your conclusions based on premises, is sound enough. However, the premises may or may not be correct - someone who accepts your premises will see your conclusion as logical; someone who does not accept your premises may not.

And then, just when I least expected it, Incorporeal said something sensible.

 

Oh! So you use meaningless jargon to make a challenge? Interesting.

Now you resort to guesswork?

If the regression is "infinite" then there can never be any conclusion made which has any certainty other than the infinite nature of the regression. In your example, can the guy prove the infinite regression of Gods? Can you disprove the infinite regression of Gods? "Infinite" is never ending.... I would love to see someone prove that status with regard to anything.

 

I specifically said it had a meaning.

You can also not prove one God, let alone an infinite regression of Gods. But just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't an affirmative declaration about the origin of the Universe. There is a difference between saying "I don't know how the Universe began" and saying "I completely know how the Universe started". Simply because you can't prove the latter statement doesn't put it on equal ground with the former statement, it just means you made an unprovable statement.

 

By golly you did say "it's just a common use of language that has a pretty widely understood meaning in our society." So, what is that widely understood meaning?

Which is the same as saying "I don't know". If I knew, then I would tell you so. To speculate on the origin is not the same as saying that I know the origin.. To say that there is a infinite number of gods also does not say that I know the origin. The 'origin' could have been in/through any one of those infinite number of gods. Therefore, the statement is inconclusive. It is much like you declaring (if you did declare) that the universe had its origin in the 'big bang' without photographic or eyewitness proof of the event. However, the Bible does give a clue pointing toward such an event.... "and God said, let there be light." Now that surely might have been a pretty high wattage source of light that emitted from such a 'big bang'. There in that passage of scripture from the Bible is the 'equal footing'.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

I'm just going to cut through this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and get to the point.The original context of what we are discussing stems from this post of yours:

"To assume that something as complex as the universe just suddenly appeared without the benefit of some intelligence behind that appearance, is just as ludicrous as perhaps you and others would say about Theists declaring "God did it."

Nullity then replied: "Infinite regress.

If the complexity of the universe is such that an intelligent creator is required, then the creator, being even more complex, must logically also have a creator - ad infinitum."

which you replied to saying: "And what is wrong with the notion of 'infinite regress'? All that implies is that one who claims or leans on the notion of infinite regress has no means of proving or disproving the subject within that infinite regression. Much the same as you or me or anyone else simply saying "I don't know". So, as one travels down that road of infinite regression, one would soon weary his/her own being and would him/her self die before even coming close to an answer. Of course, when dealing with what you call 'infinite regress' or infinite regression, one can also consider the notion that God has been labeled as 'infinite'.... the beginning and the end... the alpha and the omega... the first and the last."

My contention with you is the above bolded sentence. You can say the same thing that about anything supernatural in general. One that claims or leans on the notion of a supernatural creator has no means of proving or disproving that notion. The problem is that when you declare that you "know" that any supernatural entity exists it solely relies on faith: belief without evidence. I have no way of proving any faith wrong other than through empiricism, and they have no way to prove their faith right other than through empirical means. BUT, when those empirical means do not exist to prove a faith right or wrong, then we have a roadblock when trying to progress. I have a huge problem with faith because it gives people with no evidence a false stepping stone where they can now butt heads with empiricists because the empiricists can't prove their faith wrong in certain cases. Faith is a dangerous concept and should be dismissed outright from ANY debate, period, because there is nothing to debate besides "is faith a valid way of acquiring knowledge?"

 

Are you talking about birds? Yes...?

 

Gee.... and you possibly believe that you don't have a problem with reading comprehension? Did I say 'birds'? But of course: you are referring to the 'slang' expression 'birds' meaning "4. Slang A rocket, guided missile, satellite, or airplane." Unfortunately, if you are making such reference, those things did not evolve without the aid of intelligent design..

 

Wrong: you have willingly left out the scientific criteria of "experience". So, through the personal experience of those that have had such encounters, they hold a knowledge that you and others do not hold.

Well, if you have encountered a road block, then the most logical thing to do is to take another road. Seemingly the road of empiricism is lacking in the necessary equipment to deal with such things.

So now it boils down to those of 'faith' having a distinct advantage on the playing field. Try a different playing field.

Ahhh.. so the truth of why atheists involve themselves in religious forum discussions is so that they can make an attempt to dismiss 'faith' because 'faith' works against them due to the other fact that those who are lacking 'faith' cannot disprove 'faith' using empirical means. Well, perhaps you should take your debates to areas where 'faith' is not a preferred choice of debate material... you know... like a forum devoted to 'atheism'.

Certainly 'faith' is a valid way of acquiring knowledge. Knowledge of God, the supernatural, the origin of the universe, and many other things.... things of science, like why there is sand on the beaches, and why it is unwise to build houses on sand.

 

The scientific method also requires falsifiability. Unless personal experience is falsifiable, it is dismissed by the scientific method.

Sure, we can't prove something 100%, it is not a perfect system, but it is certainly the only that that leads to progress.

There is no different playing field.

Then prove it.

And even IF I was using faith to debate someone else's faith... it gets NOWHERE because there is no way to disprove someone's faith unless that faith can be backed up by evidence.

 

Yeppir: there you go, showing the name of the box that you have locked yourself in.

"Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science."

Define 'progress' without omitting the negative progress that is also resultant.

Sure there is,,, you just don't like the house rules of that playing field.

There you go again, with that 'prove it' thinggie when above you have admitted that your own system is not 100 % accurate. That is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, is it not? Prove the big bang with photographic evidence that was taken at the instant in time when the event occurred, with the signature of someone who was there to witness the taking of the photograph... that signature must also be authenticated.

 

Faith is the ONLY way to engage the supernatural. Now, whether it is valid or not can be debated, as faith does not lead to any consistent belief system, even within the confines of a given religion, or even a denomination. Faith leads to no agreement on beliefs. It allows people to confirm to themselves, and only themselves, what they have come to believe, generally through socialization and indoctrination. As a way of acquiring "knowledge", it can be discarded, unless knowledge is a maleable resource that has no inherent value for disseminating information that can be relied upon between different people.

 

You were the one that brought up how I was ignoring the experience criteria of science. I am saying that you're ignoring the criteria of science that a claim has to be falsifiable.

Learning new things.

Okay, what are the rules of the other playing field, then?

By prove it, I mean give credibility to your argument. Why do you suspect that faith is a valid form of acquiring knowledge? I never say "prove it" to mean "prove it to me without any uncertainty" because that is not how my mind works. I already accept that uncertainty will always exist due to the problem of induction. Give me some way to test whether or not faith is a valid form of acquiring knowledge.

 

I love the way you put things. Marry me?

 

We'll start with dating, then we'll see.