Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

God and infinite regress

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 8:19:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In standard theism, God is used to solve the infinite regress problem.

If God is accepted as an exception to the rule, the rule being that everything that exists has a cause (except God).

But if some one accepts an exception to this causation rule, why not make another exception ? why not 2 gods ? or at least 2 things that exist uncaused, why not 3 ? why not 4.........unto infinity ?

If some one makes the claim ONLY God exists uncaused, without any reason, this is just ad hoc, special pleading and maybe just religious dogma.

So my question is.......

If some one accepts that something can exist that is uncaused, eg God, Is it logically possible that their can be more than 1 uncaused thing ? If not why not ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 8:35:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In standard theism, God is used to solve the infinite regress problem.

If God is accepted as an exception to the rule, the rule being that everything that exists has a cause (except God).

But if some one accepts an exception to this causation rule, why not make another exception ? why not 2 gods ? or at least 2 things that exist uncaused, why not 3 ? why not 4.........unto infinity ?

If some one makes the claim ONLY God exists uncaused, without any reason, this is just ad hoc, special pleading and maybe just religious dogma.

So my question is.......

If some one accepts that something can exist that is uncaused, eg God, Is it logically possible that their can be more than 1 uncaused thing ? If not why not ?

Evolution from a big bang has the same difficulty. Either we say evolution has always been happening, and is therefore eternal and uncaused, or that there is an causeless Cause which first kicked off evolution.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 8:38:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:35:54 AM, Ogan wrote:
Evolution from a big bang has the same difficulty. Either we say evolution has always been happening, and is therefore eternal and uncaused, or that there is an causeless Cause which first kicked off evolution.

Do you mean the cosmic inflation of the universe?

It's not necessarily a problem - one could always postulate the B theory of time (block universe).
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:13:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

If God is accepted as an exception to the rule, the rule being that everything that exists has a cause (except God).

No one (except the uninformed) say that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:05:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 9:13:24 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/16/2011 8:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

If God is accepted as an exception to the rule, the rule being that everything that exists has a cause (except God).

No one (except the uninformed) say that.

True, but there are a lot of uninformed people out there... ;-p

Seriously though, I think that IC might argue that the following is special pleading:
Anything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
That cause is god (who presumably did not begin to exist)

Maybe he would argue it because God is being presumed not to exist. I've seen this argued before, however I can't recall the precise argument.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:09:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In standard theism, God is used to solve the infinite regress problem.

If God is accepted as an exception to the rule, the rule being that everything that exists has a cause (except God).

But if some one accepts an exception to this causation rule, why not make another exception ? why not 2 gods ? or at least 2 things that exist uncaused, why not 3 ? why not 4.........unto infinity ?

If some one makes the claim ONLY God exists uncaused, without any reason, this is just ad hoc, special pleading and maybe just religious dogma.

So my question is.......

If some one accepts that something can exist that is uncaused, eg God, Is it logically possible that their can be more than 1 uncaused thing ? If not why not ?

The word Holy simply means 'One' or 'separate' and God continually refers to Himself as Holy..
If He's lying then all is lost.. He is NOT lying!
The Cross.. the Cross.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:22:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Take it back one step further and say that existence has always been here in one for more or another.

If something is outside existence, it doesn't exist, and is absurd.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:42:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:22:24 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Take it back one step further and say that existence has always been here in one for more or another.

If something is outside existence, it doesn't exist, and is absurd.

God exists so is not outside of existence; He is outside of His creation: time, space and matter!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:24:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So is anyone going to answer my question ?

If you accept it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (eg: God)

Isn't it possible that their are other things that exist that are uncaused ?

If you claim that ONLY God exists uncaused, can you back this up ?.....back it up with reason that is.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:28:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In standard theism, God is used to solve the infinite regress problem.

If God is accepted as an exception to the rule, the rule being that everything that exists has a cause (except God).

But if some one accepts an exception to this causation rule, why not make another exception ? why not 2 gods ? or at least 2 things that exist uncaused, why not 3 ? why not 4.........unto infinity ?

If some one makes the claim ONLY God exists uncaused, without any reason, this is just ad hoc, special pleading and maybe just religious dogma.

So my question is.......

If some one accepts that something can exist that is uncaused, eg God, Is it logically possible that their can be more than 1 uncaused thing ? If not why not ?

A theist would say that god lies outside of time and thus it does not need a cause as it is not finite or infinite but above time. You could say the same thing about the universe. Space and time are interconnected and make up the fabric of the universe. Before the big bang this fabric was not formed so the universe does not really need a cause in the traditional sense.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 9:38:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

A theist would say that god lies outside of time and thus it does not need a cause as it is not finite or infinite but above time. You could say the same thing about the universe. Space and time are interconnected and make up the fabric of the universe. Before the big bang this fabric was not formed so the universe does not really need a cause in the traditional sense.

Even if that is accepted, the question still is, ok fine, God is above time, so why can't there be other things that are outside of time ?

From the responses given, I think people are mis understanding my question.

Lets concede that God exists, as an uncaused thing. This establishes that it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (no theist is going to argue with this)

So why can't some one argue from this principle the POSSIBILITY that their are other things other than "God" that exist uncaused.

Once again if someone claims that God is the ONLY uncaused thing that exists, on what basis are they claiming thats its impossible for any other things to exist that is uncaused ?

Arguments please...... :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:06:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 8:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

If some one accepts that something can exist that is uncaused, eg God, Is it logically possible that their can be more than 1 uncaused thing ? If not why not ?

There are lots of uncaused things, there can not be more than one God as God is not countable due to omni-excellence and definitional status.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:07:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 9:38:39 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

A theist would say that god lies outside of time and thus it does not need a cause as it is not finite or infinite but above time. You could say the same thing about the universe. Space and time are interconnected and make up the fabric of the universe. Before the big bang this fabric was not formed so the universe does not really need a cause in the traditional sense.

Even if that is accepted, the question still is, ok fine, God is above time, so why can't there be other things that are outside of time ?

From the responses given, I think people are mis understanding my question.

Lets concede that God exists, as an uncaused thing. This establishes that it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (no theist is going to argue with this)

So why can't some one argue from this principle the POSSIBILITY that their are other things other than "God" that exist uncaused.

Once again if someone claims that God is the ONLY uncaused thing that exists, on what basis are they claiming thats its impossible for any other things to exist that is uncaused ?

Arguments please...... :)

That is why you shouldn't take anything on blind faith. Okay so we accept that god doesn't need a cause but if we take that without evidence why don't we believe in unicorns and talking frogs. I don't see the difference. I see what you mean.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 5:59:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 9:24:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So is anyone going to answer my question ?

If you accept it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (eg: God)

Isn't it possible that their are other things that exist that are uncaused ?

If you claim that ONLY God exists uncaused, can you back this up ?.....back it up with reason that is.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:51:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 5:59:40 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 9:24:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So is anyone going to answer my question ?

If you accept it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (eg: God)

Isn't it possible that their are other things that exist that are uncaused ?

If you claim that ONLY God exists uncaused, can you back this up ?.....back it up with reason that is.


John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


It must be true then. What have I been doing with my life.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 1:44:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 5:59:40 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 9:24:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So is anyone going to answer my question ?

If you accept it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (eg: God)

Isn't it possible that their are other things that exist that are uncaused ?

If you claim that ONLY God exists uncaused, can you back this up ?.....back it up with reason that is.


John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


Take this, and compare it with my understanding of God, and you realize they don't conflict.

Everything is a word of God. God is God. God can only express God through God. God's word is God.

It is stupid to consider a MAN to be the word of God. It is STUPID to consider a text to be the word of God. GOD is the word of GOD. Anyone who thinks otherwise is practicing idolatry.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 1:45:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
god god god god god
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
eball45
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:32:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know when asserting something exists, the sceptic has leverage in the form of asking for evidence. That being said I really don't understand the argument that anything could exist. This includes unicorns, santaclause, and flying turds.

The reasonable argument for god is this regress issue. It seems, with our limited logical abilities, that every effect has a cause. Or, everything moved has a mover.
So, the initial mover must be outside of these laws, and must be uncaused. Otherwise, regress would be infinite.

Now, if you want to say a unicorn or flying turd is the initial mover, then fine. It's an unusual name for god, but names are arbitrary. My point is, the assertion of god, in logical discussions, is to fill a need. Whether one feels there is a need or not for the initial mover, well, thats their perrogative. But, we don't discuss santa clause and flying turds because there is no need for their existence.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:47:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 9:24:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So is anyone going to answer my question ?

If you accept it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (eg: God)

Isn't it possible that their are other things that exist that are uncaused ?

If you claim that ONLY God exists uncaused, can you back this up ?.....back it up with reason that is.

There are no words in the dictionary that we have that describe properties of God.
When you thing about something existing it is limited to your experience.
To use words that we understand to describe God is like saying a blue idea or the number 7 is red.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 5:50:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 2:47:08 PM, sal wrote:

There are no words in the dictionary that we have that describe properties of God.

You just did.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 9:55:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 2:47:08 PM, sal wrote:
At 3/16/2011 9:24:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So is anyone going to answer my question ?

If you accept it is possible for something to exist that is uncaused (eg: God)

Isn't it possible that their are other things that exist that are uncaused ?

If you claim that ONLY God exists uncaused, can you back this up ?.....back it up with reason that is.

There are no words in the dictionary that we have that describe properties of God.
When you thing about something existing it is limited to your experience.
To use words that we understand to describe God is like saying a blue idea or the number 7 is red.

So what the **** is the Bible about then?

In my experience, the statement "God is beyond our understanding", or variations thereof is only invoked when the theistic argument gets too self-contradictory, or illogical.
eball45
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 4:33:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you know nothing of god, then how would you know that there aren't any words in the dictionary to describe god?
For believers in god, there are probably plenty of words in the dictionary that describe whatever portrait of god they have.
God isn't an objective truth. If you say god doesn't exist, then your not going to find words to describe god. But, this is merely relative to your world view, which isn't objective either.