Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is the paradox of infinite regress a fallacy?

skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:31:01 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.
Homunculus fallacies are only infinite regress when the explanation is used to explain an explanation that in return has no other explanation,

The earth was seeded by aliens to start life.
Well how did the aliens lives begin?
The aliens planet was seeded by aliens from another planet....etc...
Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life.

No explanatory value is gained unless there is a sufficient amount of supporting evidence in certain cases. You have to focus on whether the answer is being given with something of value or it's merely a deflection from the actual question. Or just say go get stoned and find something better to think about, like atoms are actually little galaxies.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 6:44:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:31:01 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.
Homunculus fallacies are only infinite regress when the explanation is used to explain an explanation that in return has no other explanation,

The earth was seeded by aliens to start life.
Well how did the aliens lives begin?
The aliens planet was seeded by aliens from another planet....etc...
Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life.

No explanatory value is gained unless there is a sufficient amount of supporting evidence in certain cases. You have to focus on whether the answer is being given with something of value or it's merely a deflection from the actual question. Or just say go get stoned and find something better to think about, like atoms are actually little galaxies.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

From you link....
Phenomenon X needs to be explained.
Reason Y is given.
Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

What happens when the phenomenon which is being explained is a CYCLE which is simply endless like...
Phenomenon of water needs to be explained....
Explanation of the cycle is given....
http://www.abc.net.au...
http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
Basically the explanation says water comes from water.
Therefore the water in the explanation depends on water. If there was no water to start with, there would not be any water at all.

The same with any cycle. You can claim a cycle begins anywhere along the cycle but it still remains a cycle regardless of where you put the beginning point.

Eg where do frogs come from?
http://www.thunderboltkids.co.za...

Answer. Frogs ultimately come from frogs.
There is no beginning to such a cycle when nature itself teaches us its cycles are cycles of infinite regress.

Any other explanation is mere speculation since it cannot be observed to be happening.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 6:52:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
The concept of infinite regress cannot be a fallacy when it makes sense and can be proved like in the life cycles of any living things.

http://www.iq.poquoson.org...
http://image.slidesharecdn.com...

It is the concept of a "beginning point" for every life form from something non living which is a fallacy.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 10:08:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 6:44:24 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:31:01 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.
Homunculus fallacies are only infinite regress when the explanation is used to explain an explanation that in return has no other explanation,

The earth was seeded by aliens to start life.
Well how did the aliens lives begin?
The aliens planet was seeded by aliens from another planet....etc...
Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life.

No explanatory value is gained unless there is a sufficient amount of supporting evidence in certain cases. You have to focus on whether the answer is being given with something of value or it's merely a deflection from the actual question. Or just say go get stoned and find something better to think about, like atoms are actually little galaxies.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

From you link....
Phenomenon X needs to be explained.
Reason Y is given.
Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

What happens when the phenomenon which is being explained is a CYCLE which is simply endless like...
You can't prove it is endless......Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen thus ending water.
Phenomenon of water needs to be explained....
Explanation of the cycle is given....
http://www.abc.net.au...
http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
Basically the explanation says water comes from water.
Therefore the water in the explanation depends on water. If there was no water to start with, there would not be any water at all.
Hydrogen and oxygen make water. The hydrologic cycle doesn't explain where water "comes from", it explains how water recycles. The beginning of the molecule of combining the atoms H20 is where water comes from.
The same with any cycle. You can claim a cycle begins anywhere along the cycle but it still remains a cycle regardless of where you put the beginning point.
Completely wrong.
Eg where do frogs come from?
http://www.thunderboltkids.co.za...
You don't understand the difference between where something comes from and where did it originate from. Frogs come from frogs is not evolution. So its not like I'm disagreeing with that. But the cycle of reproduction isn't infinite regression.
Answer. Frogs ultimately come from frogs.
There is no beginning to such a cycle when nature itself teaches us its cycles are cycles of infinite regress.
You don't understand infinite regress. I've explained before, a circle isn't infinite regression.

Any other explanation is mere speculation since it cannot be observed to be happening.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 6:16:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.
Sky here's what you're doing.....
Life can only come from life, not non life. Agreed, but that's different logically than frogs can only come from frogs. Here's why.
Life (elephants) can only come from frogs (life), that what logically life comes from life applies to.
Life, meaning all life on this planet, cannot come from non life is an explanation where the conjecture that an eternal source of life, those arguing God, stops circularity. A circle isn't infinite regression. The choice of "life comes life" argument isn't infinite regression the way you argue it, it's merely circular. Creationist don't say life came from non life, as they say God is a living God. Hence life didn't come from non life.
The point of infinite regression isn't frogs come from frogs. It would be frogs come from tadpoles.,tadpoles came from single celled organisms. Single cell organisms came from aliens. Those aliens came from another group of aliens that seeded their planet. That planet was seeded by another group of aliens......etc.
You essentially make a fallacy of equivocation because saying life comes from !ife is ambiguous. You then claim that you're using the word life , in the case of frogs, as a certain type of life. Hence the ambiguous use of life can have numerous meanings. Justs like water can only come from water. You can get water by combining hydrogen and oxygen too. Water only comes from water is circular, not infinite regression.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 10:08:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 6:44:24 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:31:01 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.
Homunculus fallacies are only infinite regress when the explanation is used to explain an explanation that in return has no other explanation,

The earth was seeded by aliens to start life.
Well how did the aliens lives begin?
The aliens planet was seeded by aliens from another planet....etc...
Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life.

No explanatory value is gained unless there is a sufficient amount of supporting evidence in certain cases. You have to focus on whether the answer is being given with something of value or it's merely a deflection from the actual question. Or just say go get stoned and find something better to think about, like atoms are actually little galaxies.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

From you link....
Phenomenon X needs to be explained.
Reason Y is given.
Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

What happens when the phenomenon which is being explained is a CYCLE which is simply endless like...
You can't prove it is endless......Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen thus ending water.

You can't prove its not endless either. It is a paradox which cannot be proved either way because even if it works in theory it would never work in practise.
Why ?
Because it is impossible to collect all the water in existence and separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Humans would need to do it and in the process they would die due to lack of oxygen and not have separated all the oxygen and hydrogen anyway.
It doesn't happen naturally to my knowledge. If it does please educate me and provide an example of it happening naturally.
Humans might be able to extract those chemical elements from water but they will never destroy the whole water cycle for the reasons I explained above.
Therefore your speculation does not work in reality to destroy the water cycle even if you manage to destroy a small amount of water

Phenomenon of water needs to be explained....
Explanation of the cycle is given....
http://www.abc.net.au...
http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
Basically the explanation says water comes from water.
Therefore the water in the explanation depends on water. If there was no water to start with, there would not be any water at all.

Hydrogen and oxygen make water. The hydrologic cycle doesn't explain where water "comes from", it explains how water recycles. The beginning of the molecule of combining the atoms H20 is where water comes from.

Water comes from the natural recycling process of water.
If you want to claim water comes from combing hydrogen and oxygen, please give an example of how nature combines the separate chemicals and ends up with water.
Then please explain where the hydrogen and oxygen originated, because if water does come from a natural combination of the chemicals, you either need to accept that the chemicals have always existed naturally or explain logically where each of the chemicals came from. If you have no evidence that nature produces water by combining the chemicals, you are basing your theory on a speculation.

Water contains the chemicals but does not necessarily come from combining them.
You also contain many chemicals in your body but no one can create a self aware human by mixing all the chemicals necessary to form one. Claiming water comes from a combination of chemical elements is like claiming you came from a combination of chemical elements. You didn't. You came from the natural reproduction cycle of humans. You began in the womb of your own mother not as a bunch of chemicals which randomly combined in the air.

The same with any cycle. You can claim a cycle begins anywhere along the cycle but it still remains a cycle regardless of where you put the beginning point.
Completely wrong.

Please explain why it's completely wrong. Just telling me it's completely wrong is not informative or educational.

Eg where do frogs come from?
http://www.thunderboltkids.co.za...
You don't understand the difference between where something comes from and where did it originate from. Frogs come from frogs is not evolution. So its not like I'm disagreeing with that. But the cycle of reproduction isn't infinite regression.

Where something comes from and where it originated are the same thing. I came from my mothers womb and I originated in my mothers womb. She went through the same process and so did her mother etc... etc ... infinite regress...

I am not talking about evolution. I am talking about reproduction and its infinite regress.
Why do you think life cycles are not infinitely regressive ? What causes you to believe it is not? Speculation that there MUST be a beginning to the cycle somewhere? Brainwashing that all life evolved from some pond scum ?
Where is any evidence that any reproduction CYCLE has an ultimate beginning to the cycle?

Answer. Frogs ultimately come from frogs.
There is no beginning to such a cycle when nature itself teaches us its cycles are cycles of infinite regress.
You don't understand infinite regress. I've explained before, a circle isn't infinite regression.

I understand it perfectly. A circle diagram obviously isn't regressive but the CYCLE, the PROCESS of reproduction must be. Consider the diagram more like a spiral than a circle. We just find the circle diagram to be convenient when explaining one cycle of reproduction but one cycle leads to another to another to another....etc, etc, etc. and no cycle has ever been observed to change into a different cycle.

Any other explanation is mere speculation since it cannot be observed to be happening.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:50:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 6:16:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.
Sky here's what you're doing.....
Life can only come from life, not non life. Agreed, but that's different logically than frogs can only come from frogs. Here's why.
Life (elephants) can only come from frogs (life), that what logically life comes from life applies to.

That is a very strange way of looking at it. Why do you perceive it that way ? That's not what biogenesis teaches at all and it is biogenesis which says life come from life....
Biogenesis is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life."
https://en.wikipedia.org...
It is talking about each individual reproduction process. It is not saying frogs come from elephants or humans come from apes, or all life comes from the same pond scum. It is all about the many different reproduction processes of life which are easy enough for anyone to observe.

Life, meaning all life on this planet, cannot come from non life is an explanation where the conjecture that an eternal source of life, those arguing God, stops circularity. A circle isn't infinite regression. The choice of "life comes life" argument isn't infinite regression the way you argue it, it's merely circular. Creationist don't say life came from non life, as they say God is a living God. Hence life didn't come from non life.

I understand a circle is not infinite regression I explained that in my previous post.
However a CYCLE is not a circle. A CYCLE is a PROGRESSION of reproduction which humans simply explain using a circle as a diagram.
The CYCLE not circle is a PROCESS of infinite regress. A circle is not a process. It is just a diagram to explain reproduction. A cycle is a process when one life form reproduces another of its own kind which in turn reproduces another of its own kind etc etc.
Do you understand the difference between the circle and CYCLE now?

Creationist still believe that life in general once did not exist and began or was created by some supernatural spirit at a certain finite point in time. That concept is illogical when you KNOW for certain that Nature has innumerable reproduction processes which anyone can observe on a daily basis and it takes a certain form of life to reproduce its own form of life.

The point of infinite regression isn't frogs come from frogs. It would be frogs come from tadpoles.,tadpoles came from single celled organisms. Single cell organisms came from aliens. Those aliens came from another group of aliens that seeded their planet. That planet was seeded by another group of aliens......etc.

That is a speculation which makes no sense once you add your aliens because the aliens are not observed in the cycle of the life of a frog. All we observe in the natural cycle is frogs from tadpoles from eggs from frogs. Anything beyond that natural observable cycle is sheer speculation.

You essentially make a fallacy of equivocation because saying life comes from !ife is ambiguous. You then claim that you're using the word life , in the case of frogs, as a certain type of life. Hence the ambiguous use of life can have numerous meanings. Justs like water can only come from water. You can get water by combining hydrogen and oxygen too. Water only comes from water is circular, not infinite regression.

Are you claiming that Biogenesis is ambiguous when it is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life." ?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Are you claiming Biogenesis is a fallacy of equivocation?
I am merely saying the same thing Biogenesis says because it makes perfect sense to me.

I still need to see your example of how hydrogen and oxygen combine naturally to create water. No human experimentation involved. Just plain observation. Where exactly do you observe such a thing happening in nature?

I explained the difference between the circle and the CYCLE. Are you claiming the CYCLE which is referring to the PROCESS which continues to reproduce after its own kind, is not infinitely regressive?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 6:27:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:08:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 6:44:24 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:31:01 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.
Homunculus fallacies are only infinite regress when the explanation is used to explain an explanation that in return has no other explanation,

The earth was seeded by aliens to start life.
Well how did the aliens lives begin?
The aliens planet was seeded by aliens from another planet....etc...
Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life.

No explanatory value is gained unless there is a sufficient amount of supporting evidence in certain cases. You have to focus on whether the answer is being given with something of value or it's merely a deflection from the actual question. Or just say go get stoned and find something better to think about, like atoms are actually little galaxies.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

From you link....
Phenomenon X needs to be explained.
Reason Y is given.
Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

What happens when the phenomenon which is being explained is a CYCLE which is simply endless like...
You can't prove it is endless......Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen thus ending water.

You can't prove its not endless either. It is a paradox which cannot be proved either way because even if it works in theory it would never work in practise.
Paradoxes aren't things that can't be proven. And we know water forms by combiNing the 3 atoms, merely seeing the cycle of water doesn't mean it didn't start from non water or will end up without water. And scientists can make water so saying water makes water isn't how water originated just because there is a water cycle....
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Why ?
Because it is impossible to collect all the water in existence and separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Humans would need to do it and in the process they would die due to lack of oxygen and not have separated all the oxygen and hydrogen anyway.
You're assuming that nature has never or will never do what it obviously did in the first place. Unless you argue creation, then water didn't form through natural processes.
It doesn't happen naturally to my knowledge. If it does please educate me and provide an example of it happening naturally.

Humans might be able to extract those chemical elements from water but they will never destroy the whole water cycle for the reasons I explained above.
Assuming you think I mean just because humans can than that's the only way possible, I didn't say that.
Therefore your speculation does not work in reality to destroy the water cycle even if you manage to destroy a small amount of water
Law of entropy seems to disagree
Phenomenon of water needs to be explained....
Explanation of the cycle is given....
http://www.abc.net.au...
http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
Basically the explanation says water comes from water.
Therefore the water in the explanation depends on water. If there was no water to start with, there would not be any water at all.

Hydrogen and oxygen make water. The hydrologic cycle doesn't explain where water "comes from", it explains how water recycles. The beginning of the molecule of combining the atoms H20 is where water comes from.

Water comes from the natural recycling process of water.
If you want to claim water comes from combing hydrogen and oxygen, please give an example of how nature combines the separate chemicals and ends up with water.
Lol, do you pay attention to what you say. Hydrogen exists separate from oxygen, right? You don't seem to understand the nature of explanation. If I found a flint rock shaped into a arrowhead , its safe to say someone made it. But you then want the direct answer to who their parents were as in their names etc....,you're using infinite regression
Then please explain where the hydrogen and oxygen originated, because if water does come from a natural combination of the chemicals, you either need to accept that the chemicals have always existed naturally or explain logically where each of the chemicals came from. If you have no evidence that nature produces water by combining the chemicals, you are basing your theory on a speculation.
This is changing the goal posts.....You're now arguing infinite regression , homunculus fallacy.
You do realize that because oxygen exists separate from hydrogen and it takes the combining of the 2 then they had to have combined right?
Water contains the chemicals but does not necessarily come from combining them.
You also contain many chemicals in your body but no one can create a self aware human by mixing all the chemicals necessary to form one. Claiming water comes from a combination of chemical elements is like claiming you came from a combination of chemical elements. You didn't. You came from the natural reproduction cycle of humans. You began in the womb of your own mother not as a bunch of chemicals which randomly combined in the air.


The same with any cycle. You can claim a cycle begins anywhere along the cycle but it still remains a cycle regardless of where you put the beginning point.
Completely wrong.

Please explain why it's completely wrong. Just telling me it's completely wrong is not informative or educational.
You keep saying that everything IS a cycle and has always BEEN a cycle. That's why youre wrong, you don't know that. Its not a bad belief, but it is creationism so you are arguing the existence of a God, logically speaking.
You don't understand the difference between where something comes from and where did it originate from. Frogs come from frogs is not evolution. So its not like I'm disagreeing with that. But the cycle of reproduction isn't infinite regression.

Where something comes from and where it originated are the same thing. I came from my mothers womb and I originated in my mothers womb. She went through the same process and so did her mother etc... etc ... infinite regress...
See, this is called equivocation fallacy. You didn't originate from your mothers womb. You originated from a sperm cell and ovum combining to start a chemical reaction , cell division. You say originate meaning a place, But originate is used in your argument as to how something began, not WHERE it began.
I am not talking about evolution. I am talking about reproduction and its infinite regress.
Why do you think life cycles are not infinitely regressive ? What causes you to believe it is not? Speculation that there MUST be a beginning to the cycle somewhere? Brainwashing that all life evolved from some pond scum ?
Wow, why do you not understand the difference between infinite regress and cycle?
Where is any evidence that any reproduction CYCLE has an ultimate beginning to the cycle?
Umm, humans haven't been alive forever...Erased characters but not sure why, this is kind of useless when someone says "cycles lead to other cycles but cycles don't change into other cycles". I have absolutely no idea what the hell you think that even means, though I'm sure you'll claim a cycle now has a different meaning than what you have been using. Spiral not circle, what about picture a circle in your mind, it ends where it begins? That's what you said.
Everything was created by God. The spirit is pure but lacks wisdom, we are here to learn it.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:22:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Are you asking if infinite regress is a paradox?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 9:00:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:27:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:08:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 6:44:24 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:31:01 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life.

What happens when the phenomenon which is being explained is a CYCLE which is simply endless like...
You can't prove it is endless......Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen thus ending water.

You can't prove its not endless either. It is a paradox which cannot be proved either way because even if it works in theory it would never work in practise.
Paradoxes aren't things that can't be proven. And we know water forms by combiNing the 3 atoms, merely seeing the cycle of water doesn't mean it didn't start from non water or will end up without water. And scientists can make water so saying water makes water isn't how water originated just because there is a water cycle....
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

I understand water can be formed in various ways by humans but we are not creating water from scratch we are creating it by using principles of condensation and evaporation of water which already exists within our air and other things. The link mentions alcohol as an unlikely source of water but alcohol already contains a certain amount of water. Its just a matter of taking the alcoholic content out of it.

Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms according to science but science suggests all atoms came from the big bang.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...
That is illogical since atoms would have needed to exist before the big bang to create any reaction in space in the first place. Therefore science really has no clue where atoms came from.

As for your previous comment.... "Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life."

I happen to agree that life must have always existed to give life but how do you prove such a paradox? You said paradoxes can be proven so please explain to me how you can prove that life has always existed. I don't think we can. It is a logical conclusion we form due to not being able to see a beginning to the process.

If life has always existed, that logically makes life eternal which means there is no ultimate beginning to life in general in spite of all life beginning from life itself. It makes the overall process of life coming from life an infinite regress. There is no "once upon a time" when there was no life in general and some phenomenon or someone created life in general.
Life is all made of atoms which must have logically always existed.
If atoms have always existed, there is no reason to believe they have not always existed in innumerable forms and combinations which include all forms of life.
Betaomega00
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 9:40:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/13/2016 9:00:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:27:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:08:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 6:44:24 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:31:01 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life.

What happens when the phenomenon which is being explained is a CYCLE which is simply endless like...
You can't prove it is endless......Hydrogen can be separated from oxygen thus ending water.

You can't prove its not endless either. It is a paradox which cannot be proved either way because even if it works in theory it would never work in practise.
Paradoxes aren't things that can't be proven. And we know water forms by combiNing the 3 atoms, merely seeing the cycle of water doesn't mean it didn't start from non water or will end up without water. And scientists can make water so saying water makes water isn't how water originated just because there is a water cycle....
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

I understand water can be formed in various ways by humans but we are not creating water from scratch we are creating it by using principles of condensation and evaporation of water which already exists within our air and other things. The link mentions alcohol as an unlikely source of water but alcohol already contains a certain amount of water. Its just a matter of taking the alcoholic content out of it.

Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms according to science but science suggests all atoms came from the big bang.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...
That is illogical since atoms would have needed to exist before the big bang to create any reaction in space in the first place. Therefore science really has no clue where atoms came from.

As for your previous comment.... "Or life only gives life so therefore life always existed to give life to life."

I happen to agree that life must have always existed to give life but how do you prove such a paradox? You said paradoxes can be proven so please explain to me how you can prove that life has always existed. I don't think we can. It is a logical conclusion we form due to not being able to see a beginning to the process.

If life has always existed, that logically makes life eternal which means there is no ultimate beginning to life in general in spite of all life beginning from life itself. It makes the overall process of life coming from life an infinite regress. There is no "once upon a time" when there was no life in general and some phenomenon or someone created life in general.
Life is all made of atoms which must have logically always existed.
If atoms have always existed, there is no reason to believe they have not always existed in innumerable forms and combinations which include all forms of life.

If this isn't proof for an intelligent designer (not saying God or any religions specifically, just intelligent design) who is the final truth of proposition that started all "infinite regress"
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 9:44:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:27:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:

Why ?
Because it is impossible to collect all the water in existence and separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Humans would need to do it and in the process they would die due to lack of oxygen and not have separated all the oxygen and hydrogen anyway.
You're assuming that nature has never or will never do what it obviously did in the first place. Unless you argue creation, then water didn't form through natural processes.

NO, its quite the opposite. I am assuming that what we observe Nature doing today is what it has always done due to all its atoms having always existed. The energy in them cannot be created or destroyed but merely change form or change combinations.
When humans do experiments they are simply performing scenarios which change things by combining them or separating them with various methods. We learn from nature itself that things like sand can be changed into glass with enough heat because humans have observed lightning striking sand and forming glass sculptures.
Look up fulgurite or petrified lightning.

It doesn't happen naturally to my knowledge. If it does please educate me and provide an example of it happening naturally.


No educational information? Can't you find an example of how hydrogen and oxygen atoms in separate forms combine naturally to create water?

Humans might be able to extract those chemical elements from water but they will never destroy the whole water cycle for the reasons I explained above.
Assuming you think I mean just because humans can than that's the only way possible, I didn't say that.

Then explain how nature does it.

Therefore your speculation does not work in reality to destroy the water cycle even if you manage to destroy a small amount of water
Law of entropy seems to disagree.

The law of entropy is an abstract concept so it is irrelevant as to what it agrees with and what it doesn't agree with.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:42:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:27:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:

If you want to claim water comes from combing hydrogen and oxygen, please give an example of how nature combines the separate chemicals and ends up with water.
Lol, do you pay attention to what you say. Hydrogen exists separate from oxygen, right? You don't seem to understand the nature of explanation. If I found a flint rock shaped into a arrowhead , its safe to say someone made it. But you then want the direct answer to who their parents were as in their names etc....,you're using infinite regression.

Objects created by humans are still created from other existing things. Human inventions do not reproduce themselves.
Living things in nature do reproduce themselves. The natural cycles of life are not human inventions. They are all a paradox if infinite regress.
The paradox always ends in infinite regression because something natural that existed has always caused other natural things to exist, which leads to the conclusion that something natural must have always existed before whatever object is being discussed regardless of what the object might be.
Hydrogen and oxygen exist but where did they come from? The BB? What chemical process caused the BB? Chemicals cannot have been caused in the BB if they existed to create the BB. It takes chemicals to make chemicals

Then please explain where the hydrogen and oxygen originated, because if water does come from a natural combination of the chemicals, you either need to accept that the chemicals have always existed naturally or explain logically where each of the chemicals came from. If you have no evidence that nature produces water by combining the chemicals, you are basing your theory on a speculation.
This is changing the goal posts.....You're now arguing infinite regression , homunculus fallacy.

That is the topic we were discussing in the first place. Look at the thread title.
I am not changing goal posts. I am merely pointing out that something perfectly natural must have always existed and there can never be a beginning point to space and time because something needs to have existed to cause any beginning of anything else at all.

You do realize that because oxygen exists separate from hydrogen and it takes the combining of the 2 then they had to have combined right?

I am suggesting that atoms have always existed in many different combinations and life forms and cycles. Are you suggesting that once upon a time the chemicals in the universe were all uncombined ?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:59:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:27:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:08:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/11/2016 6:44:24 AM, Skyangel wrote:

The same with any cycle. You can claim a cycle begins anywhere along the cycle but it still remains a cycle regardless of where you put the beginning point.
Completely wrong.

Please explain why it's completely wrong. Just telling me it's completely wrong is not informative or educational.
You keep saying that everything IS a cycle and has always BEEN a cycle. That's why youre wrong, you don't know that. Its not a bad belief, but it is creationism so you are arguing the existence of a God, logically speaking.

Yes I am presuming the cycles of nature have always existed. We don't know for sure that they have or have not. We do know for sure that nature does work in cycles because we can observe those cycles daily. We do know for sure that it takes life to make life. It is not creationism that I am arguig or suggesting at all because creationism says once upon a time there was no space or stars or sun or Earth etc and no humans at all existed on planet Earth. Creationism suggests some supernatural God invented all of it from nothing but his own imagination and spoke it all into existence. The BB theory is not much better. It also suggests space and time began at the BB which is illogical since space and time needed to exist before any phenomenon in space. A physical phenomenon cannot happen without space and time and physical things involved. Therefore I suggest time and space did not begin at any BB but existed before any BB if such a phenomenon happened in the first place. Personally I cannot believe our universe had any beginning. I think it makes more sense to understand space and time and all atoms and energy within it as being infinitely regressive.
I am not arguing the existence of a God if you define God as a supernatural character who created something out of nothing. If you define God as Life in general, I am indeed arguing the eternal existence of Life in general. However, Life is not a supernatural character. Supernatural characters are myths.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 12:28:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:27:03 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:24:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:08:18 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

You don't understand the difference between where something comes from and where did it originate from. Frogs come from frogs is not evolution. So its not like I'm disagreeing with that. But the cycle of reproduction isn't infinite regression.

Where something comes from and where it originated are the same thing. I came from my mothers womb and I originated in my mothers womb. She went through the same process and so did her mother etc... etc ... infinite regress...

See, this is called equivocation fallacy. You didn't originate from your mothers womb. You originated from a sperm cell and ovum combining to start a chemical reaction , cell division. You say originate meaning a place, But originate is used in your argument as to how something began, not WHERE it began.

I did not say I originated from my mothers womb I said I originated IN her womb.
I understand the chemical process which goes on the womb to create an embryo. I had 4 of my own children and I understand it from experience as well as from theory.
I am saying a human cannot be naturally created by nature outside the environment of the human womb. You need that perfect environment for the embryo to form into a baby and for the child to grow to full term ans be born. If anything goes wrong in that environment, the baby is either naturally aborted or ends up disabled in some way.
I understand your point about how something began and where it began but I am saying that human beginnings need the environment of the human womb to begin the formation of any child. Now don't go throwing the example of test tube babies at me because I am not talking about human intervention I am talking about the natural cycles of nature without human intervention.
The place we all began is in our own mothers womb if we were conceived and formed naturally without human intervention. That place is our beginning as well as being the origin of the egg which was fertilized to begin our development.
None of us ever originated outside the womb in some primordial pond scum. That is science fiction.
None of us ever were formed from literal dust as in the biblical creation story. That is religious fiction.
Biogenesis says we come from the natural human life cycle. That makes sense to me. However it implies that humans have always existed due to the paradox if infinite regress which many seem to want to deny is perfectly logical.

I am not talking about evolution. I am talking about reproduction and its infinite regress.
Why do you think life cycles are not infinitely regressive ? What causes you to believe it is not? Speculation that there MUST be a beginning to the cycle somewhere? Brainwashing that all life evolved from some pond scum ?

Wow, why do you not understand the difference between infinite regress and cycle?

I do. I am trying to explain it to you and you seem to not be listening.

Where is any evidence that any reproduction CYCLE has an ultimate beginning to the cycle?
Umm, humans haven't been alive forever...

I understand individuals do not live forever in a physical sense but I am suggesting human life in general must have always existed and there was never a time when there were no humans at all. I am suggesting that the creation story in the bible is a myth and the evolution theory which claims all life originated from the same primordial pond scum is science fiction.

Everything was created by God. The spirit is pure but lacks wisdo

What is your definition of your God? Some abstract superhuman intelligence which is not physical?

Everything physical was logically and realistically created by something physical before it. That fact implies that something physical has always existed. Otherwise you need to claim that physical things arise from nonphysical things.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 12:41:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:22:38 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Are you asking if infinite regress is a paradox?

No, I presume everyone understands infinite regress is a paradox. I am asking if the paradox is a fallacy. In other words I am asking if it is faulty reasoning as some people suggest. If you think it is, or is not, I would like to know why you think it is or is not.

Infinite regress is also known as the homunculus fallacy which by its very label implies it is illogical and faulty reasoning. However, I don't see anything illogical or unreasonable about it.

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

If it is well founded and true, it is not illogical reasoning or absurd, is it?

So I am looking for explanations as to why some people think infinite regress is a fallacy of any kind.

I happen to believe the paradox of infinite regress is perfectly logical and true.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 12:54:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/13/2016 9:40:33 PM, Betaomega00 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:00:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:

If life has always existed, that logically makes life eternal which means there is no ultimate beginning to life in general in spite of all life beginning from life itself. It makes the overall process of life coming from life an infinite regress. There is no "once upon a time" when there was no life in general and some phenomenon or someone created life in general.
Life is all made of atoms which must have logically always existed.
If atoms have always existed, there is no reason to believe they have not always existed in innumerable forms and combinations which include all forms of life.

If this isn't proof for an intelligent designer (not saying God or any religions specifically, just intelligent design) who is the final truth of proposition that started all "infinite regress"

It is proof of nothing but itself. All things are evidence of nothing but themselves. If infinite regress is eternal it has always existed. Something that has always existed has no outside creator otherwise we can apply the same principle to any creator and claim it also needs a creator which also ends in infinite regress where one creator needs a creator who needs a creator etc...etc.etc. .
Infinite regress is a process which is eternal and therefore uncreated because if it had a beginning and end it would not be eternal or infinite. That process or many processes of Life IS/ ARE the creator of life. Life comes only from life. Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life."
https://en.wikipedia.org...

That makes LIFE itself God if you wish to personify it as some super intelligent supernatural character. It is no different to personifying Nature as Mother Nature.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 2:35:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 12:41:58 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:22:38 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Are you asking if infinite regress is a paradox?

No, I presume everyone understands infinite regress is a paradox. I am asking if the paradox is a fallacy. In other words I am asking if it is faulty reasoning as some people suggest. If you think it is, or is not, I would like to know why you think it is or is not.

Infinite regress is also known as the homunculus fallacy which by its very label implies it is illogical and faulty reasoning. However, I don't see anything illogical or unreasonable about it.

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

If it is well founded and true, it is not illogical reasoning or absurd, is it?

So I am looking for explanations as to why some people think infinite regress is a fallacy of any kind.

I happen to believe the paradox of infinite regress is perfectly logical and true.

Infinite regress is not a paradox though. Zeno's paradox, Hilbert's hotel, Russell's paradox. Those are paradoxes.

Infinite regress neglects that there are innate truths. For example, "a circle is round" is a self evident truth. Asking "why?" means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of language not that you are attempting to ascertain truth.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 2:35:31 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 12:41:58 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:22:38 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Are you asking if infinite regress is a paradox?

No, I presume everyone understands infinite regress is a paradox. I am asking if the paradox is a fallacy. In other words I am asking if it is faulty reasoning as some people suggest. If you think it is, or is not, I would like to know why you think it is or is not.

Infinite regress is also known as the homunculus fallacy which by its very label implies it is illogical and faulty reasoning. However, I don't see anything illogical or unreasonable about it.

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

If it is well founded and true, it is not illogical reasoning or absurd, is it?

So I am looking for explanations as to why some people think infinite regress is a fallacy of any kind.

I happen to believe the paradox of infinite regress is perfectly logical and true.

Infinite regress is not a paradox though. Zeno's paradox, Hilbert's hotel, Russell's paradox. Those are paradoxes.

Infinite regress is a result of the paradox of causality which is commonly known as the chicken and egg paradox. It is referring to "which came first, the mature life form or the immature life form?"

Infinite regress neglects that there are innate truths. For example, "a circle is round" is a self evident truth. Asking "why?" means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of language not that you are attempting to ascertain truth.

It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 11:17:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:35:31 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 12:41:58 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:22:38 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:09:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
Well is it?
Please explain why you say yes or no.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Are you asking if infinite regress is a paradox?

No, I presume everyone understands infinite regress is a paradox. I am asking if the paradox is a fallacy. In other words I am asking if it is faulty reasoning as some people suggest. If you think it is, or is not, I would like to know why you think it is or is not.

Infinite regress is also known as the homunculus fallacy which by its very label implies it is illogical and faulty reasoning. However, I don't see anything illogical or unreasonable about it.

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

If it is well founded and true, it is not illogical reasoning or absurd, is it?

So I am looking for explanations as to why some people think infinite regress is a fallacy of any kind.

I happen to believe the paradox of infinite regress is perfectly logical and true.

Infinite regress is not a paradox though. Zeno's paradox, Hilbert's hotel, Russell's paradox. Those are paradoxes.

Infinite regress is a result of the paradox of causality which is commonly known as the chicken and egg paradox. It is referring to "which came first, the mature life form or the immature life form?"

There's no chicken and egg paradox once you define what a chicken is. The problem is everyone overlooks the fact that species have no clear limit and therefore we can reach the illogical conclussion that chickens have always existed. But once you put limits to what a chicken is, believe me there's no paradox.


Infinite regress neglects that there are innate truths. For example, "a circle is round" is a self evident truth. Asking "why?" means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of language not that you are attempting to ascertain truth.

It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

Immature? You mean larvae, puppies and stuff? To be different from the adult as an infant, is quite a recent eucaryotic strategy, so once upon a time mature life forms would always produce other mature life forms, not immature...
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 1:55:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

That's not a self evident truth. The mere fact that you used the words "It seems" means that it isn't.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 8:56:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 11:17:37 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:35:31 AM, stealspell wrote:

Infinite regress is not a paradox though. Zeno's paradox, Hilbert's hotel, Russell's paradox. Those are paradoxes.

Infinite regress is a result of the paradox of causality which is commonly known as the chicken and egg paradox. It is referring to "which came first, the mature life form or the immature life form?"

There's no chicken and egg paradox once you define what a chicken is. The problem is everyone overlooks the fact that species have no clear limit and therefore we can reach the illogical conclusion that chickens have always existed. But once you put limits to what a chicken is, believe me there's no paradox.

It is not about a literal chicken. It is about mature life forms reproducing immature life forms through the natural process of reproduction. Life come only from Life. See Biogenesis.
If that is the case, it implies the cycles of life in general are infinitely regressive and any story that once upon a time no life at all existed is a myth regardless of whether you believe the religious or scientific version of the myth.

Infinite regress neglects that there are innate truths. For example, "a circle is round" is a self evident truth. Asking "why?" means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of language not that you are attempting to ascertain truth.

It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

Immature? You mean larvae, puppies and stuff? To be different from the adult as an infant, is quite a recent eucaryotic strategy, so once upon a time mature life forms would always produce other mature life forms, not immature...

Yes I mean puppies and babies and larvae. etc.
Mature life forms once produced mature life forms? Are you suggesting that birds once gave birth to mature birds and never went through an egg stage? Are you suggesting plants reproduced mature plants without going through a seed state? Dream on. I find that idea to be totally ridiculous and unrealistic.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:01:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 1:55:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

That's not a self evident truth. The mere fact that you used the words "It seems" means that it isn't.

The fact that I used the words "it seems" means nothing of the sort. " It seems" refers to the fact that it can be observed to be happening. That is what I mean with the words anyway.

It is perfectly self evident to me that babies come from adults. The reproduction process can be observed in many life forms.
Why is that not self evident to you ?
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:28:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 9:01:28 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 1:55:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

That's not a self evident truth. The mere fact that you used the words "It seems" means that it isn't.

The fact that I used the words "it seems" means nothing of the sort. " It seems" refers to the fact that it can be observed to be happening. That is what I mean with the words anyway.

It is perfectly self evident to me that babies come from adults. The reproduction process can be observed in many life forms.
Why is that not self evident to you ?

Babies coming from adults is based on observable cause and effect. The word coming is the key difference between a self evident truth such as "A circle is round" and X comes from Y, or X is caused by Y. So, no. It isn't a self evident truth (or a priori truth) You're talking about a posteriori truths. There are no cause and effect statements are not self-evident. For example, it's perfectly possible to imagine a baby not having come from a parent. It's impossible to imagine a circle not being round.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 11:53:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:28:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:01:28 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 1:55:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

That's not a self evident truth. The mere fact that you used the words "It seems" means that it isn't.

The fact that I used the words "it seems" means nothing of the sort. " It seems" refers to the fact that it can be observed to be happening. That is what I mean with the words anyway.

It is perfectly self evident to me that babies come from adults. The reproduction process can be observed in many life forms.
Why is that not self evident to you ?

Babies coming from adults is based on observable cause and effect. The word coming is the key difference between a self evident truth such as "A circle is round" and X comes from Y, or X is caused by Y. So, no. It isn't a self evident truth (or a priori truth) You're talking about a posteriori truths. There are no cause and effect statements are not self-evident. For example, it's perfectly possible to imagine a baby not having come from a parent. It's impossible to imagine a circle not being round.

It is obviously possible for humans to dream up all kinds of scenarios like babies coming from storks or cabbage patches or from some primordial pond scum when they don't wish to face the reality that human babies can only be produced by a human egg fertilized by a human sperm.

Many tend to get lost in their imaginations as they try to escape from the observable reality which is what it is.

Observable cause and effect is self evident.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 12:31:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 11:53:31 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:28:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:01:28 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 1:55:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

That's not a self evident truth. The mere fact that you used the words "It seems" means that it isn't.

The fact that I used the words "it seems" means nothing of the sort. " It seems" refers to the fact that it can be observed to be happening. That is what I mean with the words anyway.

It is perfectly self evident to me that babies come from adults. The reproduction process can be observed in many life forms.
Why is that not self evident to you ?

Babies coming from adults is based on observable cause and effect. The word coming is the key difference between a self evident truth such as "A circle is round" and X comes from Y, or X is caused by Y. So, no. It isn't a self evident truth (or a priori truth) You're talking about a posteriori truths. There are no cause and effect statements are not self-evident. For example, it's perfectly possible to imagine a baby not having come from a parent. It's impossible to imagine a circle not being round.

It is obviously possible for humans to dream up all kinds of scenarios like babies coming from storks or cabbage patches or from some primordial pond scum

Which is exactly why the proposition "babies come from adults" is not self evident.

when they don't wish to face the reality that human babies can only be produced by a human egg fertilized by a human sperm.

That's only recent. For a long time people believed all sorts of things about life. Which only exemplifies my point that, no, it is not self-evident.

Many tend to get lost in their imaginations as they try to escape from the observable reality which is what it is.

Observable cause and effect is self evident.

You just contradicted yourself. If it's observable (requiring the senses) it isn't self evident (purely requiring an understanding of language, and reason)
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 11:29:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 12:31:42 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 11:53:31 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:28:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:01:28 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 1:55:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

That's not a self evident truth. The mere fact that you used the words "It seems" means that it isn't.

The fact that I used the words "it seems" means nothing of the sort. " It seems" refers to the fact that it can be observed to be happening. That is what I mean with the words anyway.

It is perfectly self evident to me that babies come from adults. The reproduction process can be observed in many life forms.
Why is that not self evident to you ?

Babies coming from adults is based on observable cause and effect. The word coming is the key difference between a self evident truth such as "A circle is round" and X comes from Y, or X is caused by Y. So, no. It isn't a self evident truth (or a priori truth) You're talking about a posteriori truths. There are no cause and effect statements are not self-evident. For example, it's perfectly possible to imagine a baby not having come from a parent. It's impossible to imagine a circle not being round.

It is obviously possible for humans to dream up all kinds of scenarios like babies coming from storks or cabbage patches or from some primordial pond scum

Which is exactly why the proposition "babies come from adults" is not self evident.

It is if you understand the natural process of human reproduction and understand the rest of the scenarios are merely fantasies and speculations.

when they don't wish to face the reality that human babies can only be produced by a human egg fertilized by a human sperm.

That's only recent. For a long time people believed all sorts of things about life. Which only exemplifies my point that, no, it is not self-evident.

Just because people believed myths in the past, does not mean human reproduction is not self evident today. There is evidence of every state of the process. It can be photographed inside the womb.

Surely its time the present generations threw away the childish myths of the past and stopped believing them?
How long should we believe and teach the same myths our superstitious ancestors believed?

Many tend to get lost in their imaginations as they try to escape from the observable reality which is what it is.

Observable cause and effect is self evident.

You just contradicted yourself. If it's observable (requiring the senses) it isn't self evident (purely requiring an understanding of language, and reason)

Any understanding of language and reason also requires use of the senses. Therefore your argument is illogical.
If humans could not sense anything they would be dead.
You even need senses to observe that a circle or round. If you did not understand the shape was called a circle, it would not be evident to you. You could call it whatever you wanted. You could even call it a square if you were unaware of what the word meant. After all, the words we use to label things are just sounds and symbols which are meaningless unless we apply meaning to them.
The fact is that all things that exist are self evident regardless of whether people observe them and understand what they are observing, hearing and feeling or not.
Life is self evident.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 11:05:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:28:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 9:01:28 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/14/2016 1:55:52 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/14/2016 7:31:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
It seems self evident that all immature life forms come from the mature life forms before them which in turn were also once immature. Therefore infinite regress is self evident and implies that life in general must have always existed. Therefore it is illogical to believe that once upon a time no life at all existed.

That's not a self evident truth. The mere fact that you used the words "It seems" means that it isn't.

The fact that I used the words "it seems" means nothing of the sort. " It seems" refers to the fact that it can be observed to be happening. That is what I mean with the words anyway.

It is perfectly self evident to me that babies come from adults. The reproduction process can be observed in many life forms.
Why is that not self evident to you ?

Babies coming from adults is based on observable cause and effect. The word coming is the key difference between a self evident truth such as "A circle is round" and X comes from Y, or X is caused by Y. So, no. It isn't a self evident truth (or a priori truth) You're talking about a posteriori truths. There are no cause and effect statements are not self-evident. For example, it's perfectly possible to imagine a baby not having come from a parent. It's impossible to imagine a circle not being round.
I can imagine a circle not being round. It's easy, you simply imagine the circle laying flat on a table and you imagine yourself looking at the circle with your eyes parallel to the table top the circle is laying flat on. The circle then would appear to be a straight line...well at least I imagine it would.