This is what happens when you try to discuss an argument that so far nobody has made.

Next time just copy The Kalam in your OP or something.

no, you are backwards. god doesn't avoid the infinite regression. Avoiding the infinite regression is assumed. Then what follows from the assumption is called god.

you don't assume god to stop the regression. you assume the regression stops, and find god. that's why god is at the end of the chain, not in the middle, its just one of the assumptions of the argument.

if you want to propose a separate claim that the first cause was also caused, then the burden of proof is on you to show that the first cause is a finite and contingent being that requires a cause or if you want to claim that the designer was designed, again burden of proof is on you to show that designers must be designed.

I don't know what you mean by framework but I'm not sure it matters since whatever else God is, he's the first and there was nothing before him right? The problem of the infinite regress past god is solved simply by saying, there was nothing before God.

Ok, then I claim that there was nothing before the big bang, is that reasonable of me?


It's an assertion without any grounds, can you provide any kind of justifying reason for it? (and this is the crux of the matter)

I didn't provide the reason for the infinite regression not existing, the theists did. I simply want to understand their reasoning. Are you now arguing that there's no such thing as an infinite regression? You'd be in good company, William Lane Craig has made an argument for that.

And how are your answers any more meaningful than "because I said so, because I said so, because I said so, because I said so,..."

no, that does not follow from logic. you are making a separate claim.

your logical fallacy is : argument from ignorance. just because you don't know how something could have been done, you assume it must be 1 particular way.

so just because you don't know how a non-complex being could have created the universe, you falsely assert that it can't have happened.

---

Here is 1 version of the cosmological argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause (which i will define as God)

or
Whatever was designed had a designer.
The Universe was designed.
Therefore, the Universe had a designer (which i will define as God)


If you want to 'using the same logic' show that God must also have had a cause, the burden of proof is on you to show that, in this case, 'God began to exist'. Or in the other case that 'Designers must be designed'. I do not accept either of those claims unless you can support them.

You've messed up the design argument. As it stands, premise 2 is unsupported (most design arguments support it in the premises, hence the mistake is yours). Weirdly, OrP's treatment of the design argument was similarly missing the key aspect: that design arguments point to a common feature of designed entities. The problem is finding common features that won't also apply to God.

I like this theory except for that assumption. How are you just assuming that the regression actually ends somewhere (whether you call it God or not)? Do you not think it's possible for there to be an infinite regression?

Well actually I'm using theist logic, I don't personally have a position (I don't even believe in God), I'm questioning their termination of the very tool they use to arrive at God. It seems hypocritical and I can't prove anything because I'm not making any statements, other than repeating the Theist position for the purpose of explaining why I'm asking the question. What am I supposed to provide proof of? That a regression can be infinite?

Sure. If you want to claim that the big bang is the start of the universe, I've got no issues with that.

Do I need to justify the color "red" in order for it to be a useful description of a color?

You also didn't provide a reason for an infinite regression to exist.

No. I'm merely asking you why an infinite regression should exist. You haven't provided a reason for it.

You may not have kids or have interacted with kids. "Because I said so" is a perfectly meaningful answer to the question sometimes.

Most definitely not. I'm asking the Theists to provide their justifying reason for the position that the regression ends with God.

I'm not taking a position based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. That's the argument from ignorance. If anything, it's the theists who may be committing that fallacy by saying that the regression ends with God and you can't prove it doesn't. Wellll I'm not trying to, I'm simply asking for their explanation.

Per definition, the term ‘God’ connotes self-causation and denotes a being whose existence is self-caused.

Per definition, a self-caused being (an uncaused-cause) is immune from causal regress.

Therefore, if God exists, then (per definition) God is a self-caused being immune from causal regress.

The above converges with: if the cosmos requires an uncaused-cause as an explanation for its existence, then God is a candidate to explain the cosmos’ existence.

Ok, good job you didn't ask for my logic to support it, I don't have any.


No, you don't 'need' to do anything.

Sure I did. Several times.

Here it is again: This complex thing exists, it must need a designer. The designer is God. God exists, he must need a designer, the designer is 'the designer of God'..... repeat ad infinitum.

See above.

Not on this occasion. I started the thread to try to find some understanding. 'Because I said so' doesn't provide it.

there's more than 1 version of all of these arguments and an unsupported assumption has no bearing on the logical accuracy.

you can reject the assumption if you want, and many atheists do, hence why they don't buy the argument. Many theists accept it because it seems intuitive to them.

Isn't this special pleading? You appear to arbitrarily assign the attribute to God that he is self causing. How do you know that God wasn't in fact caused by something else?

If it were true that God is self causing then yes it would terminate the regression, but I don't see how it can be known.

Is it unreasonable of me to reject 'intuition' as a justification for something of this nature? I mentioned this down thread because Craig uses it in his argument for why there can't be an infinite regress.

Why must God need a designer?

You still have not realized that you're invoking precisely the assumption that you've claimed to have rejected. Why must there be an antecedent?

You should probably start by understanding your question. Without understanding the question, the answer is going to be meaningless to you.

Indeed there are more than one, which is why I talked about "most design arguments", but your one is particularly low quality. FYI, a logical deductive argument needs to be sound, which requires the premises to be true. One cannot insert speculation into the premise of a deductive argument. Perhaps you should try formulating your argument as an abductive argument instead?

Can you support your claim that God exists? If not, i reject it, and therefore you cannot show that he needs a designer.

you keep saying that you are not making new claims and not committing fallacies - but you are. You think the stuff you are saying is obvious and simple and uncontroversial, but they aren't. You are trying to slide these huge things through as if they are nothing. Nowhere in the theist argument quoted here did they claim that god 'exists'. that is your claim. In your argument the theist only claims that god designed complex things that exist. they never claim that god is complex or that god exists. that is your claim. and if you want to claim those things, you need to support that claim. if you can't support your claim, then you cannot use that same logical premise to show that god was designed.

I disagree with this.

One can reach a large number of logical conclusions based on certain given information, only to discover later that the information was faulty. That does not deny the logic of the conclusions.

If you couldn't do this, a proof by contradiction would not be meaningful.

Actually Aaron I've been pointing out all the way through the thread that I'm using the same logic that Theists use in my effort to understand how they create the regress (that something 'complex' needs a designer), then terminate that regress at the point that suits what they believe, with God. Over and over I've asked how Theists can use the tactic of regress up to the point where it would start working against them then claim some special consideration for God to prevent the tool undermining what they believe.

I would never claim a Designer, or a designer for the designer, would I. I don't believe in him. I have said that in posts directly addressed to you. I've repeatedly stated that I'm not asserting that there must be an anticedent, that I'm simply asking for the Theists logic for why the regress doesn't apply to God.

Based on the first para of your post, which is a significant failure to understand my viewpoint, I think I might actually be waiting for you to catch up with me. You've also intimated that I'm asking the wrong question but then failed to elaborate.

false

I can't support that claim. It's an axiom that I've agreed to for the purposes of the discussion. As pointed out, I don't actually believe in God.

Nowhere do Theists claim that God exists? ok, I have no answer to that. It appears to render the discussion pointless. Perhaps I can continue it with people prepared to work on the premise that God does exist.

The fallacy fallacy right? A conclusion can be true even if based on false premises. However, the argument itself wouldn't be sound even if it were valid.

I'm siding with Zumby on this one, a sound argument requires truthful premises.

1. no you aren't. you are making additional assumptions, specifically ones about the characteristics of the designer/first cause.
2. they are not claiming that it doesn't. their argument makes no claim either way.

Have you considered the possibility that you aren't accurately characterizing the argument?

As far as I can see, you're invoking the argument that there must be an antecedent. This is how you're getting the idea that you can push backwards to "before God." You're claiming that it must be there because you're saying that that argument can't be stopped.

I would certainly agree that I fail to understand your viewpoint. I think your viewpoint is incoherent. Have you notice how one time I asked you to characterize the argument you're criticizing, and you merely emphasized that you were asking a question, but later you tried to present an argument that you're critizing? You're trying to have it every which way except the way that it is.

I'm simply extending the Theist logic. If we need a designer because we're complex, then God needs a designer. Unless you're saying that God isn't complex?

Of course they are, otherwise we can apply their regress tactic to God and establish that something must have preceded him. That can't be allowed since it undermines the basis of Christianity so Theists terminate the regress with God. It's been happening ITT, have you actually read it?

To be fair, much of the thread is discussion about whether or not I have any clue what I'm talking about and me repeating myself ad nauseum. In among all that though are some relevant comments.

Have you considered the possibility that repeating yourself ad nauseum and people talking about you having no clue are related?