An infinite series of finite causes.

[JimL]

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...

Really seer, so you believe god only had one thought, one act of creation, and that's all he's ever done, eh? Even your bible says he created in time. Took him 6 days to create the universe, which most of you now argue took him thousands of years. If you think that time isn't required for god to think or act, which would mean the requirment of an infinite regression, then explain what you do think. If you have no logical explanation for that, then you have no argument against an infinite universe either.

[mattbballman31]

Oh . . . my . . . gosh. I'm about to give up.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DISAGREE WITH UNTIL YOU SPECIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY 'SHOW'. For goodness sake, Tass. It's not a semantic argument to ASK what you mean by a darn verb! It's BY DEFINITION 'not' evasive to ask a person what the heck they mean by a term . . .

I said I'm not gonna write the umpteen paragraphs because the two neurons you have to rub together wouldn't able to follow it.

I'm about done beating this beat-to-death horse. If you can't answer a simple question, I'll just take that as you being a dumb moron and move on. I'm not gonna waste my time on a freaking idiot.

[mattbballman31]

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.

No, Jim. When 'infinity' is predicated of God, it's not in the mathematical sense. Craig has already addressed this:

. . . you should abandon the mathematical definition of the infinite when you're describing God as infinite. Why do I say that? Well, because the mathematical concept of infinity is a quantitative concept that is inapplicable to God. In Cantor's set theory sets are collections of a number of definite and discrete particulars into a whole, and as such it's a definition which is inapplicable to God. God is not a collection of an actually or potentially infinite number of definite and discrete particulars into a whole. So the mathematical concept of infinity really When theologians speak of God as infinite they are using a qualitative concept, not a quantitative concept. They mean that God possesses these superlative attributes, like moral perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternity, necessity, aseity, and so on and so forth. And none of those attributes involves an actually infinite number of definite and discrete particulars which are gathered into some sort of a whole. These are qualitative notions, not quantitative notions. . . . I would say with respect to God there really isn't a separate attribute of God called the infinity of God. I suspect that when we say God is infinite this is just a catch all or an umbrella term meaning he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, necessary, and so on and so forth. But if you were to abstract from the concept of God those specific attributes it's not as though there would be some attribute left over called God's infinity. There really isn't any such attribute, that's just a collective term for all of these superlative attributes of God. So the concept of a mathematical infinite is simply inapplicable to God. When we talk about God as infinite we mean it in a qualitative sense; we mean that he has all of these superlative attributes that I mentioned.

[Tassman]

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...

You have no reason to think God has been engaged in anything at all, or that he even exists. You also have no reason to rule out the existence of an infinite universe. Aquinas' argument (based upon Aristotle) that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past is merely an assumption unsupported by evidence. So, despite your favourite oft-repeated quote mine from Vilenkin arguing against a past infinite universe, most cosmologists say that we just don't know at this point whether it's finite or infinite.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astro...-big-universe/

[Tassman]

Oh . . . my . . . gosh. I'm about to give up.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DISAGREE WITH UNTIL YOU SPECIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY 'SHOW'. For goodness sake, Tass. It's not a semantic argument to ASK what you mean by a darn verb! It's BY DEFINITION 'not' evasive to ask a person what the heck they mean by a term . . .

I said I'm not gonna write the umpteen paragraphs because the two neurons you have to rub together wouldn't able to follow it.

I'm about done beating this beat-to-death horse. If you can't answer a simple question, I'll just take that as you being a dumb moron and move on. I'm not gonna waste my time on a freaking idiot.

[mattbballman31]

You can sneer all you want.

Projection.

Gotchya. Now, I can go in one of three directions, since you're not willing to digest prolonged ratiocination. Sorry I can't draw pictures for you and let you color inside the lines. So, this is your thesis:

T: All metaphysical arguments are based on self-evident truths.

Would you like for me to,

1. Refute T.

2. Show that T isn't a problem.

3. Ask you to provide an argument that does NOT use metaphysical premises to 'SHOW' T.

I'm taking this a step at a time. Read these posts like I'm talking ttoooo yyoooouuuuu veeeeeeerrrrryyy sloooooowwwwwwlllyyyyyy.

This is what led Aristotle astray.

If you think there's been no progress in metaphysics since Aristotle, you're a bigger idiot than I thought you were.

Nearly every metaphysical argument and conclusion he made about the physical universe was wrong, because metaphysics cannot, generate new truths.

Nearly? So SOME metaphysical arguments have GENERATED new truths about the physical universe? Really? Was that a slip of the finger?

But it doesn't matter anyway. Your odd fixation on ONE, solitary footnote to Plato is laughably incomplete.

It can only reformulate the truths contained in our existing models, theories and laws.

Can? Hmmm. Is this a modal claim? How does the genius, Tassman, go about SHOWING this . . . . MODAL claim? What scientific methodology allows you to SHOW a MODAL claim to be true?

Hmmm. All it can do is reformulate a truth in a model . . . Sure. Throwing around a lot of controversial vocabulary. You still haven't told me what you mean by 'truth'. This a HUGE issue in philosophy of science. Another thing. Do you think modeling is necessary for science? Sufficient? Another thing. Do you know data underdetermine theories? How do scientists decide on which theories to cling onto if data doesn't determine the truth of a theory? Predictive success isn't always applicable. I could go on, but you're incompetent and the factory blows up and your neurons go on strike. Oh, and laws. Another biggie you just toss out there like it's no biggie. Tell me. Why were logicians trying so hard to express laws of nature in formal logic? Did the logicians call the physicists to ask how to do this? What about when the philosophers were working on a logic of confirmation theory, while attempting to quantify degrees of confirmation according to a logic of probability theory? Such logics were probably just reformulating truths . . . . in . . . . which physical theory? Which law of nature? What model?

Needless to say, the "existing models, theories and laws" in Aristotle's day were nonscientific.

So you said. And so you've said twenty thousand times. Remember that pesky demarcation problem I keep bringing up? Yea . . . that one. That thing you keep ignoring. Gonna give me an answer yet? Until you do, your 'assertion' that something is 'unscientific' is about as valuable as that white stuff in the corner of your mouth that accumulates when you're stuttering out those sweepingly idiotic claims about science like we're talking about the darn weather.

[mattbballman31]

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

He's worthless. I honestly am pretty close to giving up on this idiot. He's a waste of time.

[seer]

He's worthless. I honestly am pretty close to giving up on this idiot. He's a waste of time.

Just keep in mind Matt, there are a lot of lurkers watching, and exposing Tass is priceless!

[seer]

You have no reason to think God has been engaged in anything at all, or that he even exists. You also have no reason to rule out the existence of an infinite universe. Aquinas' argument (based upon Aristotle) that nothing (e.g. a sequence of motion) can extend infinitely into the past is merely an assumption unsupported by evidence. So, despite your favourite oft-repeated quote mine from Vilenkin arguing against a past infinite universe, most cosmologists say that we just don't know at this point whether it's finite or infinite.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astro...-big-universe/

Tass, it is not that I just quote Vilenkin it is that he has done the math showing why no theory get you to an eternal past. But that was not my point in this discussion, which was that you could never scientifically prove a past number of infinite events. You could never go back and demonstrate that somewhere along the line there wasn't a starting point. It will forever remain a metaphysical question.

[JimL]

No, Jim. When 'infinity' is predicated of God, it's not in the mathematical sense. Craig has already addressed this:

. . . you should abandon the mathematical definition of the infinite when you're describing God as infinite. Why do I say that? Well, because the mathematical concept of infinity is a quantitative concept that is inapplicable to God. In Cantor's set theory sets are collections of a number of definite and discrete particulars into a whole, and as such it's a definition which is inapplicable to God. God is not a collection of an actually or potentially infinite number of definite and discrete particulars into a whole. So the mathematical concept of infinity really When theologians speak of God as infinite they are using a qualitative concept, not a quantitative concept. They mean that God possesses these superlative attributes, like moral perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternity, necessity, aseity, and so on and so forth. And none of those attributes involves an actually infinite number of definite and discrete particulars which are gathered into some sort of a whole. These are qualitative notions, not quantitative notions. . . . I would say with respect to God there really isn't a separate attribute of God called the infinity of God. I suspect that when we say God is infinite this is just a catch all or an umbrella term meaning he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, necessary, and so on and so forth. But if you were to abstract from the concept of God those specific attributes it's not as though there would be some attribute left over called God's infinity. There really isn't any such attribute, that's just a collective term for all of these superlative attributes of God. So the concept of a mathematical infinite is simply inapplicable to God. When we talk about God as infinite we mean it in a qualitative sense; we mean that he has all of these superlative attributes that I mentioned.

Matt, all that definition is, is an assertion by Craig regarding how he and the theologians want to define god. In other words, it's just made up out of whole cloth with no underlying logic to support it. Minds, which is basically how theists tend to describe god, function in time, and actions, such as creation, also take place in time, so an infinite regression would be just as necessary for an eternal and infinite god, as it would be for an eternal and infinite universe.

[mattbballman31]

Oh, please, please, Jim, don't be like Tass. You're better than that!

Matt, all that definition is, is an assertion by Craig regarding how he and the theologians want to define god.

Yea, so? What's the point? Do you really think that God, as Christian theism spells it out, is a collection of an actually or potentially infinite number of definite and discrete particulars into a whole? That's not how theology construes God, Jim. Now, demonstrating this is a separate question. But accusing the Christian concept of God as being subject to the same metaphysical arguments against an actual infinite is just totally misconceived. The attribute of 'infinity' as applied to God has to have some meaning, and if it means being constituted by an actually infinite number of definite and discrete particulars, that's just not how God is conceived per traditional, Christian theism. God is simple, and has no parts. Again, demonstrating that this is true is a separate question; you first have to get a hold on what the Christians mean by the concept 'God' before demonstration gets underway.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because I don't have a reason to denounce you as close-minded yet.
Can we have a conversation and drop this rather elementary point?

In other words, it's just made up out of whole cloth with no underlying logic to support it.

Sigh, ok. "Made up" is ambiguous. Does it mean 'hasn't been demonstrated to be true', where 'true' means 'actually existent'? I'm not there yet. Whether or not this God exists, you have to get straight on what Christian theism means by the concept of God. If I said that the concept 'Sherlock Holmes' involves the concept of a fallen-Jedi Sith Lord, who wears all black, talks in a deep, bellowing voice, and has to be sustained by a built-in respirator, I wouldn't be talking about what literary critics mean by 'Sherlock Holmes'; I'd be talking about Darth Vader. It's the same here. This is the whole strategy behind atheist philosophers that critique the concept of God. They get at what we mean by the concept 'God', and try to draw out contradictions: for example, between omnipotence and omniscience. Worthy atheist philosophers don't say crap about the idea that 'omnipotence' is 'made up out of whole cloth', because that's not the point.

Minds, which is basically how theists tend to describe god, function in time, and actions, such as creation, also take place in time, so an infinite regression would be just as necessary for an eternal and infinite god, as it would be for an eternal and infinite universe.

Obviously, I disagree with that bald assertion, and it's controversial in the metaphysics involved in philosophy of religion. Have you ever even heard of a position called 'relative timelessness'? Have you heard of a concept called 'amorphous time' which doesn't involve temporal succession or intrinsic metrics?

And I don't know if you noticed, but you're shifting the meaning of this attribute of 'infinity' you say applies to God. So, it's not supposed to mean that God is constituted by an actual infinite number of parts? Now, you mean that 'infinity' is the idea that God experienced an infinite duration just prior to God's decision to create? Well, not if timelessness is a coherent concept, which I think it is. Have you read any books on the topic?

[37818]

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.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...-the-universe/

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.

The possibility of an eternal universe is not a matter of [physical] science. It is metaphysics.

[shunyadragon]

The possibility of an eternal universe is not a matter of [physical] science. It is metaphysics.

Regardless of whether you consider it a matter of science, because we are considering whether our physical existence is eternal. or metaphysical, it is possible that our physical existence and natural law are possible.

[37818]

Regardless of whether you consider it a matter of science, because we are considering whether our physical existence is eternal. or metaphysical, it is possible that our physical existence and natural law are possible.

You suppose the universe is possibly eternal. How do you define the term "universe?"

[Tassman]

The possibility of an eternal universe is not a matter of [physical] science. It is metaphysics.

It's science, NOT metaphysics. Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical world gained through observation and experimentation, whereas metaphysics deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts. Unlike science it has no means of testing such concepts except as a purely academic discipline.