An infinite series of finite causes.

[JimL]

Metaphysical arguments like that there was an infinite number of past causes and effects that lead to this universe?

Yes, like your metaphysical argument for the existence of an infinitely acting creator. Can't have it both ways seer. If an infinite regression is the problem, then its a problem no matter what the infinite existence is, be it universe or god.

[seer]

Yes, like your metaphysical argument for the existence of an infinitely acting creator. Can't have it both ways seer. If an infinite regression is the problem, then its a problem no matter what the infinite existence is, be it universe or god.

Jim, again, I never said that God was infinitely acting, and my point was that even if there was an infinite series of causes and effects it could never be proven scientifically....

[shunyadragon]

Jim, again, I never said that God was infinitely acting, . . .

The Baha'i Faith as well as my belief considers God eternally acting.

. . . and my point was that even if there was an infinite series of causes and effects it could never be proven scientifically....

Science is indifferent to such considerations. Math, potential and actual infinities are part of the science tool box, and not proven as far as science is concerned. Any proofs are left up to the philosophy of math.

[JimL]

Jim, again, I never said that God was infinitely acting, and my point was that even if there was an infinite series of causes and effects it could never be proven scientifically....

Doesn't matter. That would be like me complaining that "I never said the universe was infinitely acting." But my point was that the same objection you have with respect to an infinite universe, i.e. infinite regression, applies to an infinite god as well, so basically its a moot point.

[shunyadragon]

What does he claim is physical evidence for?

Have read Craig's arguments? Before I go into long citations of Craig actual infinities and the Cosmological arguments it would help if you were familiar. Based on the statement above you are not.




Infinite and eternal are metaphysical arguments. That there are infinite possibilities is a matter of the quantum world. The mathematics of quantum physics.[/QUOTE]

As far as science is concerned our physical existence is possibly eternal, and there is not likely any falsifiable hypothesis that could be determine either way.

[seer]

The Baha'i Faith as well as my belief considers God eternally acting.

Right...

Science is indifferent to such considerations. Math, potential and actual infinities are part of the science tool box, and not proven as far as science is concerned. Any proofs are left up to the philosophy of math.

Not the point, one still could not prove an infinite number of past events.

[seer]

Doesn't matter. That would be like me complaining that "I never said the universe was infinitely acting." But my point was that the same objection you have with respect to an infinite universe, i.e. infinite regression, applies to an infinite god as well, so basically its a moot point.

Nonsense Jim, Shuny, not me, believes that God has been acting infinitely in the past. I don't necessarily hold to that.

[JimL]

Nonsense Jim, Shuny, not me, believes that God has been acting infinitely in the past. I don't necessarily hold to that.

Okay, what do you hold to then in that regard ?

[mattbballman31]

I asked a simple question: Tell me what you mean by 'show', when you say that the premise of a metaphysical argument cannot be 'shown' to be true.

It's a SIMPLE question. I need to know WHAT YOU MEAN by 'show'. Did you answer it? Nope.

Great. You don't believe it. TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY 'ESTABLISH'OR 'SHOWN!

Can you answer a simple question?

Hence, no matter how valid the argument, its conclusion cannot be demonstrated (or shown) to be true.

TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY 'DEMONSTRATE', 'SHOWN', or 'ESTABLISH'?

OTOH, you apparently DO believe things can be established (or shown) as true or false in a deductive metaphysical argument.

I do. And I'm asking a simple question. It's so SIMPLE.

TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY 'DEMONSTRATE', 'SHOWN', or 'ESTABLISH'?

And I will! I mean, I already have. But you can't read. So, I'm trying to go one step at a time.

Will you answer my question?!?!? My SIMPLE question. Answer this simple, simple, simple question, and I will proceed with my 'justification'.

Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question.

[seer]

Okay, what do you hold to then in that regard ?

I don't know.

[seer]

I asked a simple question: Tell me what you mean by 'show', when you say that the premise of a metaphysical argument cannot be 'shown' to be true.

Great. You don't believe it. TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY 'ESTABLISH'OR 'SHOWN!

It is amazing that he can't or won't answer this question.

[JimL]

I don't know.

Well then your argument against the impossibility of an infinite regress is not really a legit argument against the universe being necessarily existent, rather than created, if you have no explanation as to how god being the necessary existent gets around that same problem. On top of that the necessary god premise, unlike the necessary universe premise, has the added problem of needing explanation to another impossibility which is how something is created out of nothing.

[Tassman]

Metaphysical arguments like that there was an infinite number of past causes and effects that lead to this universe?

The question our verbose friend is avoiding is NOT what a deductive metaphysical argument is, but how one establishes a true premise for such an argument. In fact one cannot. Even he knows that a deductive argument is true if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, the conclusion of a deductive argument is cannot be claimed to be true or sound. This is why he's squirming and trying to throw it all on to me with his evasive tactics.

[Tassman]

I asked a simple question: Tell me what you mean by 'show', when you say that the premise of a metaphysical argument cannot be 'shown' to be true.

[seer]

Well then your argument against the impossibility of an infinite regress is not really a legit argument against the universe being necessarily existent, rather than created, if you have no explanation as to how god being the necessary existent gets around that same problem. On top of that the necessary god premise, unlike the necessary universe premise, has the added problem of needing explanation to another impossibility which is how something is created out of nothing.

Nonsense Jim, I have no reason to believe that God has been engaged in an infinite series of past acts. You however need that infinite regression...