LOL

Sorry... but I don't know how else to respond to this.

Let's say we define "god" to mean "self-caused being." Then we find some being that we call god--let's say the being worshipped in Christianity. Does this mean that by definition the being we call god is self-caused? No. That isn't how names work. Names pick out objects in the world, and do not rely on their meanings matching the object to be able to pick those objects out.

Sorry, maybe I just misunderstood you. I agree with you that the common features in the things being compared is important in Paley-style design arguments. What I meant to be challenging was your statement that "the problem is finding common features that won't also apply to God." I thought you meant by this that it would be difficult to find such features when it seems fairly easy to me to do so.

The problem here is that you are running together different things in a way that is bound to be both confusing and provocative. So, here is an uncontroversial use of a claim about an infinite regress in an argument for the existence of God:

1) The world contains instances of efficient causation (given).
2) Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
3) So, every efficient cause seems to have a prior cause.
4) But we cannot have an infinite regress of efficient causes.
5) So there must be a first efficient cause “to which everyone gives the name God.”

Now, here it is an explicit premise of the argument that there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes. If this premise is true then, assuming validity and the prior premises, there must be a first efficient cause (obviously you can disagree about whether this is god, but ignore that for now). In that case, asking what caused this first cause just misses the point of the argument. The argument is meant to show that there is something that is not itself caused and your asking whether this something is caused doesn't make sense if you think the argument is successful.

Of course, you can disagree with (4), but then you are challenging the argument on substantive grounds.

On the other hand, you are also using the term "infinite regress" to refer to a kind of response to cosmological and design arguments where you ask, what caused god or who designed god. Now, I personally think you shouldn't refer to these responses as "infinite regress." There isn't in principle anything infinite about them--you are just going back another step in explanation. Furthermore, since there is a well-known usage for the idea of an infinite regress in arguments for the existence of god, I think it'll just be confusing to people (it was to me).

That being said, there is a certain kind of response that you are referring to here. So, someone gives an argument for why we should think the universe is designed and then speculates that the designer of the universe is God. Or they argue that there must be something that is the first cause of the universe, and then identify this first cause as God. Your basic idea here is that you think that the arguments showing that the universe is designed, or requires an initial cause, if applied to God, would seem to show the same thing about her. However, to show this to be true, you would have to have specific arguments in mind, and would have to demonstrate that they rely on premises that imply that e.g. God is also designed. FWIW, I can't give you a good example of an argument like this because I don't think the better arguments for God have this flaw.
It's nice that you discounted them, now show why they don't protect theism from the problem you are concerned with.

I'm not really sure how else to say it, but they aren't using the logic you put forth.

Change your expectations. I suspect the thing you had hoped to learn isn't knowable because it's not something that's of actual relevance to the argument you think is being made. Take the time to actually understand whatever argument you think it is you're "asking questions" about and then try again.

You say this as if you think that a single punctuation mark protects you from everything else you've said in this thread. The reason you come off as sounding like you have a point to prove is that you're you keep challenging the same point, but this point has nothing to do with any actual arguments that are being made.

Until you relent from the nonsense position of challenging "infinite regression" by invoking design-like arguments, you're never going to get unstuck from where you are.

I've asked this same Q before but never noticed any response (theist or not): beyond the labeling, what are examples of something that began to exist.

I haven't seen that version before, it does change things. What it changes is that I can't disprove 4) and without being able to do that I can't establish that an infinite regression is possible and then can't ask the question about how God is immune to it.

I don't understand the logic that supports 4), it seems to make the assumption that nothing can be infinite (to generate that first cause) but with the same breath, theists assert that God has always existed. If God is infinite, why can't the causal chain also be?

Again, I'm not really asking those questions, I'm asking how Theists can be so certain that it's not possible. It's a difference in motivation rather than outcome I suppose.

So you think that there are arguments that do have that flaw but rather than there being a valid counter (which is what I'm after) those arguments are actually better ignored in favour of arguments that don't have that flaw?

Ok, here goes.

(a) god is simple

This would be a counter to my proposition that if we need a designer then so would God.

If God is simple, make me one. If you can't, then how can you state that God is simple? (I'm not particularly a fan of this tactic, in fact I'm kinda dreading the responses it might generate, but is it nevertheless a valid counter?)

Whilst accepting that complex can come from simple (otherwise natural selection wouldn't explain the complexity we observe) it seems improbable that anything that could be used to support an Intelligent Design argument could be less complex that that which it designed.

Going to stop there. I'm aware that I'm taking an opposing stance to philosophers like Plantinga and Craig.

(b) god wasn't created

The counter to my proposition that God could have an anticedent which would be necessary to sustain the possibility of there being an infinite regression, or at least of a regression extending beyond God.

My objection to this is simple, it relies on justifications that are not possible to know (Zumby's magic). My proposition that God may have been created seems equally valid because I take all the attributes arbitrarily awarded to God to place him above the laws of nature and outside time and choose to remove them and award him my own. I can't explain how something came from nothing, nor do I accept that it means that there was always something and I'm not willing to fill that gap in my understanding with a God, for the moment.

I'm with Boosh. His question is simple, yet no one has an answer beyond "because theists don't have to have an answer to that."

Which is nothing more than saying, "I don't know how or why it would be possible to have an uncaused cause, but there must be one, right?"

I think all the theists here are just blowing smoke rather than answer the painstakingly obviously question he is asking.

I appreciate the support but can I just point out that I don't mind who answers the question, Theist or Atheist, since I just want to know if there's a logical answer.

I haven't really thought about where I'll go after that, I'm not at this point leading up to something.

Me. I am an example of something that began to exist. Unless you are stating I have always existed?

No. This is the straw man fallacy and you are misrepresenting their position. It does not assume that 'nothing' can be infinite. It assumes that some subset of things cannot be infinite. only certain things which fit the stated premise of the particular argument.

'things with a cause must be caused' does not mean 'everything must be caused'. those are completely different statements. 'things with a cause' is only a subset of 'everything'.

Obviously. If a mathematician tries to prove some theory, and makes several failed attempts that all have flaws - then later succeeds in proving his theory - it makes no sense for skeptics to attack his initial failed attempts. Only the strongest possible argument needs to be put forth and that is the only one it makes sense to counter.

If there is a theological argument with 2 flaws that is revised to eliminate 1 of them, obviously it only makes sense to address the 1 flaw argument.

No. Nobody would ever counter your claim with that statement. The counter to 'if we need a designer then so would god' is 'prove it'. you cannot support your claim, and this claim does not follow from the argument to which you'd be responding so you cannot just say i'm using your logic. this claim is new and unsupported.

No, this is not a valid counter.

This logical fallacy is called 'argument from ignorance'. I'm not namecalling, that's just what its called and doesn't necessarily say anything about you.

'Argument from ignorance' is just because the alternative is improbable doesn't prove your claim. Even if you can't think of any other alternatives doesn't mean there aren't any.

When a theist says, "Look around you, how could all of this be here except by God" - that is them committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. But when a theist provides an actual logical argument showing that the universe was created, and you respond, "well that only works if god is simple, and i can't imagine how a simple god could do it", you have dug yourself a hole and committed the same fallacy that they normally fall into.

-Further - if you are willing to accept "there is a god, and he must be simple", you have just accepted the theist argument and he's won the debate. if a theist argues that god created the universe and your response is only to attach a characteristic to god - the theist has no problem with that and welcomes you to his side of the argument. He'll even invite you to sunday brunch where you can both talk more about the properties of the god that you both now agree created the universe.

I guess that depends on if you are looking at "god" as a classification or a name. I think that mostly what we deal with in this forum is the classification unless otherwise specified. Even if we are to specifically look at the God of the bible my point was that that God is said to be the greatest conceivable being, in which case God would take on any attributes (such as "self-caused") that would be consistent with or necessary for the category of greatest conceivable being.

yes, this. the arguments discussed in this thread only strive to show what happened, not how or why. those are separate questions that may or may not have other arguments/explanations/whatever.

And there's nothing wrong with that template, its used all the time in science. There are lots of things in physics that were first proved to exist, and it was decades or centuries later before they were actually observed or understood.

There are flaws in the arguments. But not knowing more about the uncaused cause isn't one of them. That's beyond the scope of these particular claims.

--

worth adding that your issue doesn't seem to be mightyboosh's at all. You correctly assess that theists aren't making a claim on how/why through these particular arguments and you find this lack of complete understanding unsatisfying. boosh is mistakenly supposing that theists ARE making claims to fill in the complete information, and trying to show an inconsistency. But the claims he is proposing in order to counter are his own, and not part of the theist argument.

I also want to make a general comment to those that are accusing theists of special pleading. If God were subject to the infinite regression issues but theists where saying "it doesn't count or doesn't matter" then they would be guilty of special pleading. But as it stands God is classically defined (at least within the christian tradition) has having no beginning. Therefore has no sets of proposition and cannot be said to have the inherent issues of an infinite regression. No special pleading.

An entity or phenomena having a quality "by definition" is extremely weak and theists should not be advocating that view ITT. For example, if someone says "why is the speed of light 3x10^8 mps" we don't say "that is the speed of light by definition" - we show how it is derived from the Maxwell equations and agreement with observation. Simply adding properties to a definition doesn't do the work you want it to do.

* Especially as the theist has farrrrrrr stronger arguments available to him e.g. Plantinga's arguments about god as "necessary being" and similar strategies. Note that one doesn't just say "god is necessary by definition" one makes an argument for it. Otherwise why not just take the next logical step and claim that "god exists by definition".

the question was answered in the first reply in this thread, post #2. the regression only involves a subset of things that have whatever stated properties proposed in that particular version of the argument. the argument then shows that there must exist something that does not have these same properties.

he doesn't recognize the answer because the version of the arguments he is using in his head are informal or imprecise or constantly changing.

skipping a few steps here:
'there is a set of things with property A'
'things with property A have property B'
'there must exist something without property B'
'call that thing god'

-'well why can't God also have property A'? This is completely nonsensical. God is immune to the regression because:
Given: if A then B
Given: ~B
Therefore: ~A

if the argument starts, "contingent beings..." then the resulting god is noncontingent. If it starts "complex things..." then the resulting god is noncomplex. If its starts "things that began to exist..." then the resulting god did not begin to exist. He is immune because the form of the argument gives god the property ~B, which, since A->B, gives him the property ~A, which means he is not a member of the set that is subject to the regression.

the discussion of why the regression must stop, ie why there must be a ~B, is different and doesn't seem to be what op is asking.

This was my thought too. Pretty awful "style" and probably says all that needs to be said about the logic at work and the sincerity of the poster and maybe theists in general.

Also this.

Our brains can't even figure out optical illusions or sort out adrenaline rushes properly but I can trust its intuition on infinity and cosmology? Wat no.

No, it isn't making the assumption that nothing can be infinite. Instead this claim is based on Aristotle's analysis of motion and causation. However, the real problem here is that you are generalizing from a narrow claim--there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes--to a broader claim that there cannot be anything infinite. This is obviously a generalization that theists reject. It is also not an implication of the narrower claim. So, where is the problem for theists?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I'm sure you can invent an argument that says just about anything you want. However, your inability to so far give a single example of an argument with this flaw is strong evidence to me that your thinking on this issue is clouded. So, here's an example:

1) Everything is designed.
2) The universe is a thing.
3) God is a thing.
4) The universe is designed.

So, obviously here we can say that it is an implication of the argument that God is designed. However, this doesn't show that theists are being hypocritical in rejecting this claim because this version of the design argument is one that would be rejected by theists as well as atheists.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "make you one". You mean make a model of God? Obviously I can't do that. If you think that we shouldn't accept something unless we can model it then obviously theists are stuck, but that would be a pretty radical change in your ontology.

Anyway, maybe I'm confused on your goal here. Are you trying to show that theist arguments for the existence of god imply that god is designed or caused? Or are you just asking what justifies theists in believing that God is not designed or caused?

Okay...you are just pointing out that people who believe in God are unjustified, which fine, yeah, I agree with that.

Okay then, is "greatest conceivable being" supposed to be a definition of the word "god," or is it supposed to be a description of the essential nature of god?

If it is the first, then how do you know that the God of Christianity is actually a god? If it is the second, then you can't say it is just true by definition--this is a substantive claim about the nature of God that needs to be supported.

yes, that he's considered several answers and discounted them does seem to indicate that he's not just looking for an answer, he's looking for an answer that will convince him to believe it too, and of course there is none. no answers to his question come in the form of proof. A 'there must be a better argument than that' spiral really only ends when boredom sets in on one side because no answer will ever be good enough.

1. The creation of the world requires an uncaused-cause.
2. God is the creator of the world.
3. Therefore, God is an uncaused-cause.

Theists support the first premise via the cosmological argument, and the second with revealed theology from the Bible.

I think it may depend on how one interprets these sorts of intensional propositions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto
The literal translation of the phrase "de dicto" is "of (the) word", whereas de re translates to "of (the) thing".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pr...orts/dere.html
[snip]Suppose that [5] Sally believes that Bill is happy. Does it thereby follow that Bill himself has a property — namely, the property of being believed by Sally to be happy? Neo-Russellians say "yes," for reasons discussed above: Namely, Sally's believing that Bill is happy involves Sally's standing in the belief relation to a singular proposition that involves Bill himself as a direct constituent. Those that reject neo-Russellianism, however, answer "no." This is because Sally's belief, which is truly reported by (5), does not involve Bill himself but rather some mode of presentation of Bill. Bill himself is at best indirectly implicated in the truth of (5), by being determined by the mode of presentation in question.

This is a point I made earlier.

What we label as Jibninjas is comprised of constituent parts which all began to exist at the start of the Universe. We label the current state of those particles a Jibninjas, but none of the things that we know of that make up a Jibninjas began to exist at any point other than the Universe's origin.

In this sense, as I said previously, we might argue that the only thing we have available that began to exist is the Universe itself. Things within the Universe are just altering states, not the beginnings of new existences.