Sure, but I'm fairly certain that I'm not. Can you explain how Design or Uncaused Cause don't rely on a regression that is terminated with God to prevent it being infinite? If you can, then I'd be barking up the wrong tree.

Not exactly. I'm asking how Theists can say that there isn't an antecedent.

I don't think anything came before God because I don't believe in God, so I don't see how I could be arguing what you're saying. I'm not arguing anything, I'm asking for the logic behind the termination of the regression. It seems arbitrary to me.

do you not see that its different to say "the universe was created" and "that which created the universe exists or was designed or began"? the first conclusion is clearly different than the followup claims. the conclusion that "the universe was created" in itself tells you nothing about that which created it, nothing about its existence, state of being, beginning or lack thereof.

that's not what zumby said.

Yes. Your posts are helping with that though.

And now I'm going to join my wife in front of the log burner with a glass of wine. Enjoy your Friday evening.

Ummmm... they don't rely on terminating an infinite regression because they don't.

Like this: "There's no antecedent."

This is bad logic and bad rhetoric. You never want to be on the bad side of those. (And definitely not at the same time!)

Yes or no: Are you raising a criticism of an argument?
If yes -- Guess what? You're making an argument. You're arguing that the logic is flawed in some way.
If no -- Then you're saying there's no problem with the argument.

Either way, it doesn't work for you to try to go about it in this way.

exactly. extending logic is not using their logic, you are making additional claims.

Wrong, i don't need to claim that god is not complex to reject your argument.

there is a difference between 'not accepting X' and 'accepting ~X'. rejecting "If we need a designer because we're complex, then God needs a designer." does not require "saying that God isn't complex". it only requires not accepting that he necessarily is complex, which is simply possible by not making any assumptions about his characteristics - which is a good default position to take.

no they arent. and you so far have failed in every attempt to apply their tactics to god by failing to support your claims that god possesses characteristics that fit the premise of the argument. (also, the cosmological argument has nothing to do with christianity)

---

Further though, your objections are pretty nonsensical. Look at the following argument.

That which is complex was designed
That which was designed had a designer
The universe is complex
therefore the universe was designed (for discussion, call the designer god)

For some batty reason, you seem to be trying to dispute this argument by claiming that god must be complex and therefore must have been designed himself.

why? that is silly. that above argument makes no claims at all about the designer. your claim is easily disregarded by a theist by merely accepting a god that is not complex. congratulations, theist wins. you seem to scoff and laugh at this, 'what, but how can a god not be complex'. in doing so you commit the fallacy, argument from ignorance. just because a theist doesn't know how a simple god could do it doesnt mean it can't be done.

why do you even subject yourself to any of that. instead of making your own claims which are easily countered - just refuse to accept the theist claims. don't accept that "that which is complex is designed". Force the person to defend that claim.

if you accept their claim, and make an additional claim, you are forced to defend yours. instead, force them to defend their own claims. and the cosmological argument doesn't make any claims about the resultant designer, so you need to attack the premises that were used to bring about that conclusion.

You can't accept that there is a designer then try to show a contradiction by assuming that the designer has certain characteristics. Theist will just say, "oh ok then, i guess the designer doesn't have those characteristics, thanks for accepting that there is a designer".

Please give a specific version of the design argument where this is an issue. So, for instance, the Paley version is an analogical argument between the functional nature of human artifacts and natural objects (such as eyes) that, according to Paley, show that the natural objects were probably intentionally created just as the human artifacts were. But this isn't meant to show that, say, rocks were intentionally created. It is consistent with this argument that some natural objects do not have the analogical connection with human artifacts such that we should think they were intentionally created. Similarly, it is consistent with this argument that god is such that he doesn't have this kind of analogical connection to human artifacts. So it is difficult for me to see how your infinite regress issue is even relevant to Paley argument. You might just raise it as an argument against God existing, but I don't see how accepting that at least this version of the design argument is sound requires some premise that implies that god was also designed.

Similarly, the fine-tuning arguments doesn't seem to me to imply any such premise. So which design argument are you talking about that does?

Here's the problem I'm having. Phrased in this way it sounds like you are asking for some general principle why God is "immune to the regress," but the actual structure of the arguments in question are different enough that the absence of such a general principle isn't really very significant. So, for instance, the reasons why a theist would think that god isn't designed might be because they believe that (a) god is simple or (b) god wasn't created, but has always existed. However, these reasons don't have much to do with the cosmological argument.

You're method belies a falsehood, at least in as much as this pertains to our present state of reality or conscious experience.

An "infinite regression" is in and of itself a non starter for though you can certainly "say it" or "write it" it becomes meaningless if one looks out into our sense bound reality. There is an "estoppel " at each and every instant in time and space in our realities. No matter where you look, there are "stops" always present.

Whether you count to the endless or imagine the endless you can never reach this for you will die; this is a major estoppel. The "form" of the tree, the containment of our earthly air and even the "form" of your physical body all refer to a "containment" in our reality.

Proper thinking, in so far as the sensible element is concerned deals with "forms" and if the philosophical religious decide, via judgment, to state a "form" to our world they are indeed within the world of realities. They see "form" everywhere whereas you cannot see "infinite" anywhere. You can't see it at all. so you have to ask; who is living within superstition or delusion?

Now, in projective geometry one of the concepts brought forth is a point traveling to "infinity" in one direction returns from the other side; same line but now coming from your "left" whereas previously it went out to your right. A picture would be better but I'm computer ignorant in these matters.This mathematical idea again points to "form" though in abstraction. In this sense there is no need to speak of the "infinite" but more of a "closed circle" but that is another story. the snake biting it's tail of mystery centers is relevant here.

I bring up "form" because this is a religious forum and it is telling for if one reads the Hebrew Bible the creation speaks to the Elohim. In esoteric comprehension the "Elohim" in the Hebrew are the "Exousiai" of Christian terminology and are the "Spirits of Form" in Anthroposophical parlance.

We take for granted "form" in all we live within but there are Powers inextricably involved with this manifestation. Aristotle speaks to the physical body of Man and speaks to"form" as this very body. He is not speaking of the minerals but the "form" which is supersensible and the very outpouring of the "Spirits of Form".

Logic, the intellect, our language all perforce are within the "Form" of our world(s). this is why the religious philosopher speaks to reality.
the scientific philosopher also can see this and in this matter one sees an amalgamation of religion and science.

The hierarchy of beings; the Trinity then; Seraphim or Spirits of Love; Cherubim or Spirits of Harmony; Thrones or Spirits of Will; Kyriotetes or Spirits of Wisdom; Dynameis or Spirits of Motion; Exousiai or Spirits of Form; Archai or Spirits of Time or Personality;Archangels or Spirits of Fire; and Angeloi or Sons of Life or Twilight. Next are Human Spirits and further on are Spirits yet to come.

They all speak to world realities and are actively involved with these very realities. Finis

Use of the word "see" or "perception" is used as a simile for the perception of these realms calls for the attainment of "supersensible senses" but it can be brought to an intellectual presentation which is what Ive tried to do.

Really? How about non-eternal beings that exhibit ordered complexity, or have some functional purpose, etc. Or material beings that... etc. It is pretty easy to have a comparison class that does not include god; the question is whether the grounds for excluding god from the comparison class are very good.

I think this kind of move is intellectual flim-flam. Of course, in a logical sense you can define "god" however you want. But defining "god" to mean something doesn't mean anything about the nature of the actual being(s) god, any more than the meaning of "atom" means that it can't be split. We use words like "god" to refer to beings. Those words can still refer even if their meaning ends up being wrong.

Are we disagreeing? The tone suggests so, but I can't spot the issue. I mean... you've just provided what I thought was missing from your earliest post(s).

Well here's the thing. I can't be arguing that the logic is flawed because so far none has been offered. All I've had is objections to the idea that any of the Theist arguments that I've listed rely on a regression that is then arbitrarily terminated with God. Or that any Theist arguments do (unless someone is keeping quiet about one that they know does rely on it?)

I'm not offering an argument, I'm simply asking why the logic used by Theists can be used to prove god but is then arbitrarily suspended when it may have the opposite effect. All I've the responses to that, that I've had from you boil down to incorrect understanding of my question and 'because I said so'.

Frankly, this hasn't gone how I thought it would and I haven't learned what I was hoping to learn. Everyone just seems to think I have some point to prove. There's a reason why the thread Title has a question mark at the end of it.

the logic used does not have the opposite effect so there is no suspension. you only think it does since you are putting words in their mouths, arguments and claims they are not making.

I still cannot figure out what mighty means when he says regression.

Fine, I'm not interested in debating that. As I've said, I'm not particularly interested in the Design argument or any other specific argument, I just want to identify an argument that we agree uses a regression so that I can then ask how God is immune to that regression. I'm not trying to prove or disprove any of the arguments, I'm not offering an argument, I'm simply trying to understand the Theist use of the skeptical regression and the manner in which they avoid the infinite regression.

Perhaps you can help me here by suggesting one? This isn't about 'winning' for me, I never intended it to be a debate, it's about improving my understanding. I've attempted to defend myself through the thread but frankly I'm a little surprised that there was even a need and it certainly isn't what I was hoping to get from this.

Yes, I suppose you could put it like that but there must be specific arguments for which it's a relevant question. For the record, I considered your a & b points and discounted them.

nobody thinks that. we think that you have so little understanding of the question you are asking that you won't even recognize the answer when you hear it. That's why people are prodding you to clarify your points. its to get you to recognize that all your answers are in the first 10 posts of this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

But hasn't God been traditionally defined something along the lines of "the greatest conceivable being" even if not in those words.

I've heard several answers, none were satisfactory but I don't think that you've actually read the thread and I'm not inclined to save you the trouble.

Are you referring to Anselm's Ontological argument?

that does not seem to along with how you have been using the word.

God have never been defined as a "series of propositions". God (proposition P1) as a necessary being would be defined as always existing with no beginning therefore would not necessitate the support of proposition P2, and so on. If this is the definition that you are using I don't understand how you could possible have a problem.

I am not referring to a specific argument. Just a traditional understanding of God. That phrase just so happens to sum it up nicely.

Why not? Nobody else seems confused by how I'm using it, only about why I'm suggesting it to be the case at all.


I'm not defining God as a series of propositions. I am asking how Theists can regress a series of propositions to a terminator, God, but then simply stop as if it's unthinkable and impossible that the series of propositions may continue past God, infinitely.

I think you likely meant this in a scoffing way. Regardless, the point you make here is important. Christians start with the assumption of an eternal, uncreated, and omnipotent God that exists outside of time. Once these beliefs are established it is fairly easy to believe in miracles and the virgin birth etc.

A little. But I remember what it is like to be a believer and I think, like you say, there is more than a little truth in that summary.

If you accept that god can do anything and you accept that god's motives and ways are (often) beyond human comprehension then any state of the world is consistent with the existence of god.

My argument would be that you are then in the position where you have to concede that "God" cannot be the best explanation (or even an explanation) for anything.

again, they don't choose an arbitrary stopping point in the middle and say that god has certain characteristics that make the chain stop. the arguments you are trying to come up with suppose characteristics of the universe and show that based on those, that the chain must stop. so your idea of why doesn't it keep going past that point is really kind of nonsensical.

-Assume that there exist contingent beings. that must come from some source, they cannot have come into being on their own. (if you want, people came from parents who came from amoebas who came from atoms who came from stars who came from whatever)
-you could trace back all contingent beings through what they were contingent on, infinitely, there's your infinite chain.
-We stop the chain by not asking the question, 'where did this particular contingent being come from - its predecessor' but 'why are there any contingent beings'?
-To say that contingent beings came from contingent beings presupposes that there already are contingent beings.
-therefore, in order to avoid assuming the existence of that which you are asking about, there must be some other non-contingent cause.
-call that noncontingent being god.

and it makes absolutely no sense to ask 'what is a noncontingent being contingent upon?', which is why the chain doesn't keep going.

the argument is certainly not proof. For example, this argument relies on a form of the claim 'something cannot come from nothing' which is unsupported. but maybe the phrasing and goal of explaining the chain itself instead of each member of the chain gives you a better understanding.