Infinite Regress
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Infinite Regress
Is time as straightforward as we think it is? We already know time actually speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one observer is moving with respect to another. Time is also changed by gravitational fields. Essentially time as we know it is a function of matter, energy and space.

The question of what happened before anything existed is like asking somebody who doesn't understand gravity what is below the Earth. Without gravity there is no up and down. Maybe without matter and energy there is no time.

It's also possible that the passage of time is an illusion. Maybe it is just another dimension, and what we perceive as three dimensional space changing with time is actually an unchanging 4 (or higher) dimensional vector space. If sets can be bounded or finite, then time can have a beginning.

The most honest answer to the question of whether or not something always existed is "I don't know". "I don't know- therefore God" is a non sequitur. Not understanding time does not mean an eternal God any more than not understanding gravity means the Earth is on the back of a turtle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There was an Old Lady

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly

I don't know why she swallowed a fly
- perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,

That wriggled and wiggled and tiggled inside her;

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;

I don't know why she swallowed a fly
- Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;

How absurd to swallow a bird.

She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;

I don't know why she swallowed a fly
- Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a cat;

Fancy that to swallow a cat!

She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,

She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;

I don't know why she swallowed a fly
- Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady that swallowed a dog;

What a hog, to swallow a dog;

She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,

She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,

She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;

I don't know why she swallowed a fly
- Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a cow,

I don't know how she swallowed a cow;

She swallowed the cow to catch the dog,

She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,

She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,

She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;

I don't know why she swallowed a fly
- Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a horse...

She's dead, of course!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like FlyingPizzaMonster's post
30-01-2013, 12:32 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
Hey, Asceptic.

Why do I feel like you're trying to convert me?

I'm just asking a question about whether or not a creator necessarily requires a creator.

As for always existed, I don't share that belief. Existence, fundamentally, makes no sense to me. I'm cool with that. Both infinite time and finite time make zero sense to me. But I have no reason to believe that something has always existed.

Hey, Chas.

OK. That makes sense. But what if someone is not saying that everything requires a creator? Does a creator still require a creator? Ie, does that position shift nullify the infinite regress argument?

Hey, Vosur.

All right. I seem to have inadvertently walked into a minefield with all this ex-nilho business. I thought I was saying something pretty straightforward. Space-time came into existence during the Big Bang as a result of a natural process as opposed to a supernatural one and wasn't there prior to that moment. Something I'm missing?

So are you saying that infinite regress is something that applies to everything?

I'm not making the argument that everything requires a creator, so I'm just not in that camp. I'm just asking the question, if there is a creator of the universe, does shklee necessarily require a creator (which, from what I gather from your response, could also be asked of the natural universe)?

Hey, Impulse.

I think it's difficult to imagine too.

I'm cool with your two premises.

2 is possible. The creator of our universe would require powers beyond that which is capable within the rules of our universe. So in respect to our universe, that God would be supernatural. But it could be just as constrained as we are by the rules of wherever it came from. So in respect to it's place, it would be a "natural" phenomenon. Unless God is so stupid powerful that it willed itself into existence from nothing; which I suppose is powerful if you don't care about paradoxes. Either way, it could have come from nothing.

I'm not claiming that anything is indicating anything. I'm just curious if a God requires a creator.

So my question is, what is the life of the infinite regress argument outside of it being a counter argument to the Theist claim that everything requires a creator?

Hey, FPM.

Time is messed up Cool

We also know that there is no such thing as "now" in any absolute sense.

I think it's entirely possible that time doesn't exist outside of space-time. Meaning what ever lies beyond space-time (if such a "place" exists) and that which existed before space-time might be devoid of anything resembling time.

Watch the PBS Brian Greene "Fabric of the Cosmos". It'll blow yer frickin mind, maaaaaaaan.

As an Agnositic, I'm a big fan of I don't know Cool

And I agree with your non-sequitur.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 12:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Asceptic.

Why do I feel like you're trying to convert me?

I'm just asking a question about whether or not a creator necessarily requires a creator.

As for always existed, I don't share that belief. Existence, fundamentally, makes no sense to me. I'm cool with that. Both infinite time and finite time make zero sense to me. But I have no reason to believe that something has always existed.
Excellent. Debate, convert, tomayto, tomahto.

But then, if both the universe AND god did not "always exist", that means that, at some point long ago, we had no universe and no god. If that's the case, then one or the other seems to have inexplicably sprung into existence "uncreated".

In which case, it still seems to me to be more likely, perhaps infinitely more likely, that simple particles might spring into existence than that a fully formed, omniscient (what knowledge did he possess when there was nothing yet in existence to be known), omnipotent god.

So whether we assume something (particles or god) always existed, or we assume nothing always existed but something (particles or god) sprang uncreated into existence, either way, I'm hard pressed to accept that the infinitely complex god was more likely than the ultimately simple particle.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 12:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

OK. That makes sense. But what if someone is not saying that everything requires a creator? Does a creator still require a creator? Ie, does that position shift nullify the infinite regress argument?

Once a Creator is proposed, then either the Creator always existed or the Creator was created or the Creator appeared ex nihilo.

All of the same possibilities apply to the universe.

The position shift in no way nullifies the argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2013 12:50 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 12:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

All right. I seem to have inadvertently walked into a minefield with all this ex-nilho business. I thought I was saying something pretty straightforward. Space-time came into existence during the Big Bang as a result of a natural process as opposed to a supernatural one and wasn't there prior to that moment. Something I'm missing?
As far as my understanding of the Big Bang theory goes (which is layman at best), the exact cause of the Big Bang is still disputed. There really is no way of telling whether it was the result of a natural or a supernatural process at this point.

(30-01-2013 12:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  So are you saying that infinite regress is something that applies to everything?
Yes. It all goes back to the M√ľnchhausen trilemma.

(30-01-2013 12:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm not making the argument that everything requires a creator, so I'm just not in that camp. I'm just asking the question, if there is a creator of the universe, does shklee necessarily require a creator (which, from what I gather from your response, could also be asked of the natural universe)?
All right. In that case, my answer to your question is: No, I don't think that the Creator of the Universe necessarily requires a Creator himself.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 12:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 12:32 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm not making the argument that everything requires a creator, so I'm just not in that camp. I'm just asking the question, if there is a creator of the universe, does shklee necessarily require a creator (which, from what I gather from your response, could also be asked of the natural universe)?
All right. In that case, my answer to your question is: No, I don't think that the Creator of the Universe necessarily requires a Creator himself.

Then just where the fuck did your Creator come from? Occam's Razor, laddie.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-01-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 12:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  All right. In that case, my answer to your question is: No, I don't think that the Creator of the Universe necessarily requires a Creator himself.

In that case, I'd like to ask you for your thoughts on my two previous posts. Why does it seem to you that there could be a god, the most complex thing in the universe, but that there couldn't be subatomic particles, the simplest thing in the universe - why is the infinitely complex god more likely to you than the ultimately simple particle?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 01:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Then just where the fuck did your Creator come from? Occam's Razor, laddie.
I don't believe in a Creator, so I can't answer that question.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 01:27 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  In that case, I'd like to ask you for your thoughts on my two previous posts. Why does it seem to you that there could be a god, the most complex thing in the universe, but that there couldn't be subatomic particles, the simplest thing in the universe - why is the infinitely complex god more likely to you than the ultimately simple particle?
What the actual fuck are you and Chas going on about? I never said any of that.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Infinite Regress
(30-01-2013 01:30 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 01:27 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  In that case, I'd like to ask you for your thoughts on my two previous posts. Why does it seem to you that there could be a god, the most complex thing in the universe, but that there couldn't be subatomic particles, the simplest thing in the universe - why is the infinitely complex god more likely to you than the ultimately simple particle?
What the actual fuck are you and Chas going on about? I never said any of that.


You said: "No, I don't think that the Creator of the Universe necessarily requires a Creator himself."

I'm not saying you believe there is one, just that if there is one then where did it come from? Your answer to Matt doesn't make sense.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: