Actually I think it's just an example of the Theist application of the regression to anything that isn't God.

The Khalam argument was changed to "comply with modern physics", which translates to claiming that only things that begin to exist needs a cause. I'm sure that this being very practical for arguing for God is only a byproduct, and that no bias was present in the conjencture.



Ofcourse, anybody who has even opened a pop-science book for children knows that modern physics have not established that the "universe began", but merely modeled its development from an existing state. The "initial condition" is an unknown.

Quasi-philosophers who wish to one-up 400 years of physics with cute oneliners don't worry themselves with such trifles, however.

That's how it seems to me.

I'm reading up on the Khalam argument and the first question that occurs to me is what I do when I disagree with a famous philosopher like Craig over statements like "the first premise is strongly supported by intuition and experience" and when he disagrees "with physicists on the definition of "nothing"".

How does he have 'experience' of the abilities God would need to be immune to regression, since when is 'intuition' something on which we base strong opinions and how can simply disagree with modern physics? Is he qualified to do that to that level of certainty?

I'm taking this as you agreeing that God being immune to the regression is questionable?

Even with access to modern Physics, there are still arguments that rely on propositions like 'An actual infinite cannot exist' or 'something cannot come from nothing' to suggest a first cause and then label it God. Do they not just take over from where Aquinas was?

I don't even we are at that stage. I think the whole argument is extremely questionable.

Why does everything need a cause? Why does God not begin to exist? Is the existence of God inferred or implied? Is one assuming religion, or concluding religion? Why is the argument used by apologists? Is apologetics sound? Why must the argued "mover" be "God"?

And as far as I can tell, the only answers given are empty phrases more suited for fortune cookies than discourse. Using a term like "regression" is at this point pearls for swine.

Classic Boosh.

Let's go with some examples.

In the Uncaused Cause argument, the theist is arguing that there IS a termination to the infinite regress. They then simply define that terminator as "God". You have three options

1) Accept the argument and become a theist
2) Deny that there is a such a First Cause
3) Deny that "God" is an appropriate definition.

In the Design argument, the theist argues that (roughly) everything ordered needs a designer, and that designer is god. Here the regress IS a big flaw in the argument, as the theist is special pleading or begging the question.

However, as a general principle we should NOT requires that every explanation has its own explanation - this would destroy science. It is perfectly acceptable to posit the existence of an entity if that entity can explain the phenomena we are interested in. A good example of this was Dalton's hypothesis in the 19th century that the behaviour of gases could be explained by the existence of tiny particles (atoms). He did not need to explain where atoms came from.

It is in all our interests to avoid the problems of skeptical regress which is why we allow the use of axioms - sets of unproved assumptions from which we can logically derive further conclusions.

So the theist has no obligation to explain where God came from EXCEPT in the situations where they use the skeptical regress as a premise in their arguments (e.g. the Watchmaker argument). All philosophical arguments for God fails, but not simply because the atheist can say "and where did God come from?"

I don't think anyone is doing that here. We are talking about the Khalam argument, which makes a claim about everything - when you make a claim about everything, it isn't exactly unfair that one is expected to be able to lay out a rough explanations of the mechanisms in play.

Modern day physics for example, largely admits it can't reliably explain the universe's initial state due to the inherent limitations of measurement.

It seems fairly absurd then, to give apologists a free pass on making claims about this initial state.

You are talking about the Kalam, I am pointing out to MB that the degree to which regress is a problem depends which argument one is countering.

I was under the impression OP could only be referring to the Kalam argument. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Really? Wow, I'm pretty crushed by that actually. I mostly didn't go into specifics in the OP because I genuinely thought it was such a well known and understood issue that I'd be insulting the intelligence/knowledge of the posters I was hoping to get responses from, yourself included, by listing the relevant arguments or explaining why I was asking.

Jeez, just when I thought I was getting somewhere.... My bad. Next time I'll be specific.

Then I should (and could) have listed the 'Design' argument in the OP because it's one I'm familiar with and you agree that the regress causes it a problem. I've been careful to stay away from your 3rd option because what I'm not doing here is addressing the existence of God. That axiom I've accepted for the purposes of asking the question in the thread Title.

What I had in mind was a 4th option, that God exists (that ‘God’ is an appropriate definition), but does not in fact terminate the regression because there was something before God. This is established using the same logic that Theists use to get back to God before they arbitrarily bestow properties on God that end the regress with him. Explanations supporting that God terminates the regression because he is 'outside of time', 'didn't have a beginning' or 'is above the laws of nature' seem unsatisfactory to say the least, but I'm not saying "and where did God come from?"'.

So, I withdraw the Uncaused Cause example, even though I don't fully understand at this point why the Infinite regress issue isn't relevant that argument too, and replace it with the Argument from Design. (which to be fair to myself, I sort of touched on in an earlier post when I mentioned Irreducible Complexity. I would say that they're kissing cousins at least).

Now is it valid for me to ask how God is immune to the Infinite regression?

Is it not fair to say that the only thing that ever began to exist is the universe itself? Things in the universe are only products of the constituent parts that make up the universe. It's only our labelling of the interactions of those constituent parts that make us say a tree began to exist, but all the elements that make up the tree were there since the origins of the universe.

From that, the broad labelling of "things with beginnings have causes" is a questionable premise since we can't establish that the only true beginning we know of needed any such cause at all. Thus God is an unnecessary entity until this premise, which is trying to be passed off with simple intuition, can be properly established.

Depends on what you mean by fair. We don't really have any models that tells what the universe was initially, because this state is hidden beneath our treshold of measurement.

Now, one might say that intuitively the universe began to exist - but intuition is a harsh mistress. It's good for basic survival and staying away from bees - but it doesn't really get you very far in cosmology.

No need to be upset, you just have a bit of a habit of lacking specificity and not defining your terms.

IME, the Design argument is one of the main ones that your OP is relevant to (though cosmological arguments are often pretty similar) so the best next step would be to find the strongest version of a design argument and post it in this thread so that we can work though the logical implications together.

I don't mean anything by fair. I just use it as an expression probably similar to "wouldn't you agree?".

I believe God exists outside of time because I believe God created time, the universe, and everything.

Your initial question and your current question have little to do with each other. That you're trying to make a link between them suggests that you're not really sure what you're talking about.

It's far from obvious to me that MB is actually doing anything in particular when he posts.

No. My question is aimed at the fact that "infinite regression" seems to mean to MB something about what happened before the beginning of something.

Edit: Yup. It's right here:

...

I think I'll just leave it as it stands and go where the conversation goes.

Ok, The Argument from Design itself seems to have evolved since the days of Paley (and earlier proponents apparently) when the argument was simply that the complexity of biological life was compared to a simple watch, which is known to have been designed, and it was inferred that immeasurably more complex constructs such as biological life should therefore also have a designer and that designer was identified as God. Since that argument was undermined by Evolution and Natural Selection, a 'Cosmological' version has evolved where the low probability of intelligent life arising in the universe is taken as evidence of an intelligent designer.

It seems to me that both this argument and the argument of Uncaused Cause rely on a skeptical regression that requires a termination, and then defines that as God (borrowing your terminology there for clarity).

To be clear, I'm not asking 'where did God come from', I've accepted an existing God for the purposes of the discussion. I'm not trying to show that the termination of the regress can't be God because there is no God.

So, Theists take what we observe and explain it by regressing to a creator, a first cause that is God, but then bestow on that creator attributes that allow it immunity to the same regression being applied in turn to it (i.e. God needs no designer and nothing caused God).

I'll stop there then and ask, what are the implications of that logic?

It seems to me that I'm still asking why God is immune to the infinite regression but I can never rule out the possibility that I'm not really sure what I'm talking about.

Do you have an argument to support that? The regression terminates with God because God exists outside of time. How do you know that's true and that it isn't just a convenient and arbitrary invention to solve the problem caused by the infinite regression?

Unnecessary. I'm getting deja vu.

Really? lol.

You think we can regress to a point where God created everything, I propose that we can regress even further than. Now explain to me why God is immune to me applying the same tactic that you're yourself using to get back to God?


Perhaps best actually, you're not really helping, just the usual ad hominens and comments along the lines of how I don't make sense to you.

what your looking for doesn't exist. if it did, there would be no atheists. You keep saying 'well that argument isn't very convincing because ...' or 'well what about...'. All the unsatisfying responses you've already heard here - that's it, that's all there is. There is no argument or explanation on this topic that will change your opinion.

Which is fine. But what argument do you think you're criticizing?

The problem being solved isn't really infinite regression. The problem being solved is a question of meaning, values, our particular origins, and other things of that nature.

What argument do you think I'm actually making? As Zumby has pointed out, you need to actually say what you're talking about.

This reminds me much of those other conversations we've had where you say "I'm accusing you of a logical fallacy" but are never actually able to articulate what the supposedly fallacious logic is, and that you think that because you don't know what it's called that it somehow prevents you from elaborating on your position.

I'm not going to pretend like you make sense when you don't. Also, I'm not going to pretend like you don't make sense when you do.

But I will point out that the following statement of yours is highly indicative of the fact that you don't realize how unclear you are in your posting, and that you seem to camp yourself in particularly nebulous places.

Let's try to characterize your actual position a little more clearly. You seem to be making the following claim.

Claim: Everything must have something that came before it.

Do you agree that this claim is central to your position?

The question assumes a lot of things.
It assumes that the temporal dimension is infinite, therefore allowing infinite loops. It also assumes that GOD is subject to time.
It also assumes god is immune to infinite loops.
Imo, this is the most solid argument against many christian beliefs.
But it still doesn't disprove religion in any way. Only certain religious constructs, (like the man with a beard, or anything that experiences time.)

No, see below:

Both the argument from Design and the Uncaused Cause rely on a regress which requires a termination to avoid it becoming infinite. That termination has been identified as God. God is immune to the regression because it's not possible to regress beyond God.

My question is, and always has been ITT, how is God immune to the regression.

So far the reasons proposed for that immunity (outside of time, above natural laws, has no beginning) are arguments that seem terribly arbitrary. In fact I'd go so far as to say that they can have no credibility with anyone except those who want to believe them and are no more likely than anything I could imagine myself.

I was hoping that there'd be a more satisfactory answer, or a logical proof.

It's the problem I'd like to solve but if you think I'm asking the wrong question I'm open to hearing your thoughts.

I don't think you follow your own logic. If you reject the claim that everything must have something that came before it, why is it a problem to have something that doesn't have something that came before it?

Well that came out of left field but surely in a loop everything is before everything else (and after everything else) so you can't terminate a regression anywhere?

Can you clarify?