For fucks sake! This asshat got my cat already so now he gets this one:

I'm guessing at this point The Not This Shit Again cat would be Darth Approved, but I don't see her as sufficient. Maybe a NTSA Dragon flaming a church?

Infinite regression. Mover's mover and that mover etc.

 

Presupposition is illogical. Using double negatives is illogical =  doesn't not

The decision to believe is neither based upon logic nor data since it functions without regard to the two.

The decision to not believe is based upon logic and the absence of data supporting the premise.

 

Which god?

 

Why can't everything just have an uncaused cause? If this unmoved mover can be the effect of no cause then  the 'beginning' could also be the effect of no cause?

 

Yes, thank you. I have them. Would you like some?

It isn't your fault that you have this presupposition of a prime mover. We've all had stages in our lives where we've cried out in woe to the empty air hoping for an answer. When none came, we had to rationalize in one way or another why such a travesty of life could be permitted.

However, in rationalizing that cause and effect are applicable to non-sentient matter, we forced our anthropomorphic principle into the gaps of our understanding. In other words, we made god(s) to thrust the responsibility of our care onto when we could not manage the consequences of our actions.

We searched the causes going back as far as we could to find out the answer as to why things happen and when we finally surrendered the search we got lazy and threw up our hands with an exasperated cry of "god did it."

When those around us heard the lamentation and helped us examine the situation only to discover that it was indeed our own fault for the travail, we spent countless hours in denial. After which, we held onto the last thing that comforted us in our darkest moment and tried to force everyone else to follow along with the story so as not to damage our sensitive natures with an idle folly called TRUTH.

Now, thousands of years later we are yet again faced with the examination of facts that show us that it is only the echo of our cries that speaks to us from the depths of the still black night.

A realization that it is foolish, not just illogical, to hold the empty air accountable for what we have wrought creeps into our thoughts and we are granted yet another chance to face ourselves or scream "No fair!" into the bleak nightscape again.

How's that for thinking?

Yep. It's been a week. That's all that I ask for in reference to new posters. So long as you keep the 'one week' rule in mind then I have nothing to bitch about, Matt.

I'm glad you're making the effort.

A supernatural God does not explain anything, never mind how the universe started.  An explanation is "a statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances etc." 

In what way does invoking God make the origin of the universe more comprehensible? Are we given a clearer understanding of how God does the things God does when we speak of an unmoved mover? Can we replicate or model the causes and effects of supernatural abilities, either in the lab or in simulations? Does the postulation of God as the first cause allow us to make any predictions about the state of the universe now or in the future? Can we test the God hypothesis by examining the universe for supporting evidence?

"Goddidit" is a cop-out, an intellectual shrug, an abandonment of curiosity, reason, and the human imagination. It does not provide us with any information, any clarity, any insight into the nature or operations of the universe.  It's intellectual cowardice, the refusal to admit that you just don't know.  Dressing one's ignorance up in the clothes of religion is particularly bad, since any examination of the God(s) of religion leads to a defiant and proud proclamation of ignorance under the auspices of faith. 

God is not an explanation for anything; even theologians admit God is unknowable.

I see several illogical leaps involved in this uncaused cause.

Assumption 1. You assume that the cause was not natural.

Assumption 2. You assume the cause was intelligent.

Assumption 3. You assume that the intelligent cause survived, and somehow is now a part of the universe.

Assumption 4. You assume that your assumed intelligent, surviving cause is a god.

Assumption 5. You ( most likely, at any rate ) assume that your assumed, intelligent, surviving god is not just any god, but your particular god.

Can you not see the illogic of this? You are making one wild leap after another, with nothing to back up any of your assumptions.

Problem 1. While things do have causes, most of those causes are natural. A tornado has a cause, but that cause is not a supernatural djinn.

Lacking evidence that the cause was supernatural, you must abandon logic and reason to jump to the conclusion that it was not a natural occurance.

Problem 2. Related to problem 1. We understand meteorology enough to know that we do not attribute a tornado to a hostile intelligent wind spirit. We understand weather enough to know that snowflakes aren't sculpted by ice gnomes.

Having failed to establish evidence that the cause was supernatural, you charge blindly ahead by insisting that the still unestablished cause is intelligent. No evidence to back this up, but it is necessary for your delusion, so you ignore the need for logic.

Problem 3. The start of the universe was an incredibly violent event, especially in terms of radiation/heat. We know of nothing material that could possibly have survived this event. We cannot imagine any form of information, and therefore intelligence, that could have been processed in the universe for at least the first 300,000 years.

Since you have haven't bothered demonstrating a reason for problems 1 & 2, it stands to lack of reason that you will even try to demonstrate how intelligence could survive in radioactive plasma.

Problem 4. We have intelligent, natural beings create things all the time. If I build an aquarium, fill it with water, add fish, and sit in the center of it reveling in my creation, I am still only a human being.

Picking up speed on the road to illiogic, you now proclaim victory by having proven without resorting to reason or proof that a god exists.

Problem 5. On the unthinkably slim odds of there actually being a god or gods, our two main contenders for godhood today, Yahweh and Allah, can almost conclusively be demonstrated to be composites of older, pagan gods. Yahweh was originally called EL, which just happens to be the name of the High god of the Canaanites. We can find bits and pieces of Baal embedded in the current Yahweh. If you actually bother to look hard enough you can find all the elements of the polytheistic Canaanite religion in the Bible, from Asherah to high places. Judaism, and later Christianity, is nothing but a splinter religion of a long dead fertility cult from the Canaanites. And Allah? Allah is nothing more than a linguistic variant of El, and just a splinter of the splinter that is the myth Christians pretend is their god.

And now we come to your true folly of the day, because you have achieved the exact opposite of what you sat out to do.  In your effort to prove god, you have used absolutely nothing by way of evidence. You have only managed to create the illusion of defending your belief in your own mind. The only problem here is that you have also shown us atheists how something can indeed be created from nothing.

 

 

Jeez, your argument is inconsistent. 

You stated that the first principle or uncaused cause could be the universe itself, that it could be something natural. At the same time, you're referring to the Judeo-Christian Creator.  

You must consider other infinities that apply in this context. How can something exist forever, and why can't there be an infinite series of cause and effect? 

 

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." -Marcus Aurelius

Legend Butterbattle

Yes actually, look up and read all about 'logic' the root word in illogical, and do not post any word stemming from logic until you have.

 

 

OK, I find no fault with your words up to this point. After that, you are heading out on a limb.

 

 

Well, that is something that you are asserting. But what is your back-up that this is necessarily so? Is it possible for the universe to have existed for an infinite amount of time? If not, do please tell us why.

 

 

OK, granting that the universe may have started a finite time in the past, then I would see that something had to have happened first. However, the problem here is that says nothing about the existence of any divine being. The first thing could be a vacuum fluctuation, the collision of two branes, a supercooled Higgs field collapsing or any of several other suggested explanations (or even one that nobody has thought up just yet but whatever on that).

 

I see no reason to add “god did it” to the general list. First, because it just gives one more explanation and second, because it doesn't really say anything about the matter. Even if “god did it” makes any sense, what was it that god did? Did god push the branes together? Did god kick the Higgs field out of an earlier unstable state? Really, if the big bang is right, the question of what went bang is fully separate from who lit the fuse. So that still does not get you any closer to god being real in any meaningful sense.

 

 

Well, you are the one claiming that there must have been a beginning thing that happened. As the claimant, the responsibility falls to you to provide the details. Not that I expect that you can, after all, the scientific community has only offered a stack of possible suggestions on what those details might be. To date, they have been able to eliminate some possible sets of details but they have found others in the process.

 

As I said above, there may even be other ways of considering the origin of the universe that we just have not come across yet. Adding god to the list doesn't really explain anything. At least not like, oh say, the real correct answer would should we stick around long enough to figure out what that answer actually is.

 

 

Or perhaps there is not. The universe may have just arisen spontaneously from some earlier structure that underlies many other universes. However, while some in the physics community have entertained such ideas, it seems to me that they probably don't take us anywhere really. They do embed the universe in the earlier structure but unless that happens to be eternal, we just have to account for where that came from.

 

 

That sounds like just another restatement of Pascal's wager to me. Believe because it is the safe alternative. Sorry but that is just intellectual terrorism with about as much real force as being made to sit in the comfy chair until tea time.

 

 

Thoughts? Sure, you are a theist and have tried the cosmological argument on us. You are certainly not the first to do so. Nor is the world in any danger of running out of theists in the foreseeable future. So you are also not likely to be the last to try this line of reasoning.

 

It never goes anywhere really. It is kind of tiring to have the same 6~8 lines of illogic tried on us over and over, each time presented as if it was a new line of thought that we have never seen before and therefore a killer argument that we cannot just step around or over at will.

 

And Mattshizzle invents the "Argument from retardation" fallacy.

 

Ugh, most of you here are not understanding what I am trying to say. I am not asking you to believe in god or saying that god "definitely exists". All I am trying to say is that my belief in god is based upon LOGIC. The data I've been presented logically should lead one to believe in an all powerful entity.

 

I'm saying that there can't be an infinite series of movers. It has to stop somewhere. But where?

The Universe - it is a non-sentient object.  Therefore, I find it illogical that it can be the end of the line. Other people are okay with the universe "just existing".

"God is the intelligence with the initiative and the power to create the universe".

You have to pick whichever end you want. The only reason we're filling in holes though, is because this is a hole that needs to be filled.

Now some of you in your responces have questions whether or not the conclusion I arrive at is logical or not. While that conclusion (that there must be a prime mover and that primve mover is an intelligent being) might be illogical as well, the process of arriving at that conclusion is not.

 

If the creator of the universe is going to have complete mastery over this reality and is powerful enough to create it, he better damn well be infinite, beyond and not part of the universe. I'd have no problem with assigning these qualities to the universe, but I can't, as the universe is not sentient - it's an unthinking, ordinary, object.

 

Now some of you responded whining that I am "falsely asserting" that there "must be a prime mover". Well then... what about the big bang? Explain to me how the universe transformed from whatever it was before the big bang to a giant explosion that created the universe?

Point is... there is plenty of evidence of a beginning as far as this universe is concerned, including stellar drift, the afterglow of radiant heat from the early stages of the universe and the presence of primordial deuterium that have been detected in the far reaches of the universe. Hence evidence pointing towards a prime mover.

The problem with "infinite regress" is that you can't explain the existence of the universe by saying that it always existed. That doesn't make any sense. Saying "I don't know" is also fine. But it's not illogical for me to take it all a step further by looking at the data which points to the existence of a prime mover.

Now some of you are saying that I am "asserting" too many things. Well the problem with that argument is, so are you and so are the scientists. Science itsself makes too many assertions.

For example" It's worth noting that the laws of physics and energy conservation basically didn't exist in their current form during the first few nanoseconds of the universe's creation or that they break down in a singularity according to modern physics. And maybe if you guys are going to keep bringing up the "god of the gaps" you should keep in mind that scientists don't know what happened 10^-43 seconds before the universe was created and are using this gap of knowledge to assert that there could be an infinite series of universes.

And many scientists assume that the energy for the big bang was built up from nothing, despite the fact that doing so would violate the law of entropy (having the universe become more ordered & organized with time).

Science makes assumptions all the time, and puts them forth as a fact that everybody has to accept, and I don't see you creating a fuss about that. Yet you seem comfortable denying theist people the ability to make educated assumptions about the universe's creation for themselves (calling them "irrational" and "illogical" ), which is not a whole lot to ask. That's what I like to call hypocrisy.

For all we know, if a god exists, the universe can just be an extension of himself. I'm simply saying that if the evidence points to a creator, then logically he should be endowed with whatever the fuck kind of powers he needs, hence his ability to not follow the laws of physics.

 

Now some other of you where whining about how I "assert" that the prime mover must be a sentient being (we all agree at this point that there must've been a prime mover, regardless of whether he's sentient or not, correct?).

My answer is that a non-sentient object can't be the instrument of its own creation - those objects are used for certain ends, and it takes an intelligence to "create/transform" something for that end.

 

HAH! take that ya'll! My money says you won't be able to refute all of that.

It would benefit you greatly if you actually read and understood our responses. You've already understood that the mathematical concept of infinity, when applied to the real world, is just not very nice. However, where your inquiry stopped is the necessity to confront the realization that the existence of the universe implies at least three possible infinities: space, time, and cause. When you contend that it's impossible to have an infinite series of causes, you are, as a consequence, violating time. If there was a first cause, this cause would have had to exist for an infinity. This reaches the same philosophical problem as having an infinite series of cause and effect.  

Bingo! You've just defined religion perfectly. There is a gap in knowledge, and it needs to be filled. Thus, your belief system fills it.  

By studying the redshifts of galaxies, scientists have supposedly traced the movements of all celestial objects back to a single point. The Big Bang didn't create the universe, per se, it was simply the expansion of space from this original point. What happened before that? Nobody really knows. In fact, if any "scientist" professes to know, you better check their credentials, since they probably bought their degree from some Creationist bullshit source.    

Well, duh! If you start with the presupposition that God exists, you can rationalize anything. 

Are you implying what I think you're implying? Please explain how a sentient entity can create itself.  

You're not a very responsible gambler, are you?  

Yes we do understand what you are saying. However it isn't logic, it is presupposition no matter how many times you try to tell yourself that.

Your argument fails because of the word 'must'. "Must have been a prime mover", "Must have a beginning", "Must be a god": You're throwing those around as 'necessary truths' despite the fact that every responder has given you alternative contingencies.

 

 

I don't propose to know. Remember this from the other thread? You're the one stopping at an allegedly infinite 'god(s)' that cannot be proven.

So it's easier for you to believe that a complex sentient 'being' came first???? With nothing creating it??? What part of that makes sense in your 'just existing' model?

No matter how many times you say it, someone will point out that you will need to "PROVE IT!"

If you want to be referred to as a 'blithering idiot' then simply spout the "Prove it NOT!" stock catchphrase of modern theism.

Why? I don't even see a hole. If you have filled this 'hole' already then why do you feel it necessary for us to validate it for you?

And some of the responses had questions for you, which you have chosen to ignore by simply reiterating your OP.

 

No part of it, but part of its 'creation'???

Once again, you presuppose a 'creator'.

 

And if we did that, would it kill this 'god' thing once and for all? Of course not. Thus the 'infinite regression' problem.

WHAT???!!! How do you get that as evidence pointing toward a 'prime mover'???

'after glow of radiant heat'???? Do you mean the cosmic background radiation in the WMAP images?

'stellar drift'??? Do you mean physics?

'primordial deuterium'??? A phase after the big bang?

 

Unfortunately, it is not only illogical; it is irrational.

Wanting something to be there underneath all of the turtles doesn't mean that there is.

This is called  'tu quoque' fallacy and has no bearing on your argument or lack thereof.

No. That is called Planck time. That is the time needed to establish space which in itself establishes time. Space-time.

One Planck length is the distance-time that a photon travels in a vacuum.

Oh for fuck's sake I don't know why I'm taking the time(pun intended) if your hands are on your ears.

Google it or go back to second semester high school Physics class. Shit. Even plugging the numbers into google gives results that will explain it better than any of us.

Dammit. Thermodynamics = first semester. Systems, Systems, Systems. Open. closed. Open. Closed. Enthalpy. Entropy. Enthalpy. Entropy.

[Side note: Kids, stay in school and don't do drugs or you'll wind up as clueless as desertwolf.]

 

You're going for the most fallacies in a post aren't you?

'Straw man fallacy'. Your education continues

Science puts forth hypotheses offering testable criteria for everyone to try to verify.

I have not witnessed, in my entire life, a theist making an 'educated assumption'. I can only guess at what you mean by the phrase anyway. lol. (punny again)

 

Disappointed again. You went from presupposing to assuming and not even in an educated manner.

Logically, if a god existed then he/she/it would be evident and the powers of said deity could be testable. No need for assumptions.

 

There you go with 'must've' again. We do not 'all agree' in a prime mover. Have you not read the responses?

It does not take an 'intelligence' to transform something to be usable.

 

I'm sure the RRS is grateful for your contribution of your money. You will find the 'Donate Now' button along the left hand side of the window for the main page.

 

I believe that the cosmological argument for the existence of God stands the test of time. It is valid today, even in a world of quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry, mathematics etc. This is because NO scientist has ever been able to prove that something can give existence to itself. In fact, the idea is inconceivable and contradictory: Wouldn't you have to pre-exist in some form in order to give existence to yourself?

1.) Joe brought himself into existence (A) AP

2.) If Joe brought himself into existence, then Joe existed prior to bringing himself into existence (B). A-->B

3.) If Joe brought himself into existence, then Joe didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence (~B). A--->~B

4.) Joe existed prior to bringing himself into existence. 1,2; MP

5.) Joe didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence. 1,3: MP

6.) Joe existed and didn't exist prior to bringing himself into existence (B & ~B). 4,5; Conj

NOT WITHIN SCOPE OF AP: 7.) Joe did not bring himself into existence. ~A

==============

Do you disagree with any of the above premises? Now you could replace "Joe" with any existing thing ( including "God" ) and you would come to the same conclusion.  No scientist has ever been able to show that something could give existence to itself.

Now given the truth of that, you have two choices:

(1) There is an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence by something other than them.

OR

(2) There is at least one infinite being from which the chain of finite things begins.

Now it is your turn. Here is your task:

Tell me if you agree or disagree with my conclusion that nothing can give existence to itself. If you disagree, then tell me which premises I have wrong or why the form of my argument is invalid.

If you agree with my conclusion that nothing can give existence to itself, then tell me why the choice of an infinite regress is better.

I can tell you why I don't think that it is better:  If that was true, then you wouldn't exist.  If in fact there was an infinite regress of finite things being brought into existence, then you would have to agree that your existence could be attributed to an infinite chain of cause and effect that preceded you.  But how could you possibly be existing right now if the chain of cause/effect that preceded you was infinite? 

Think of it this way:  If I told you that I would give you a cookie after I stomped my foot on the ground an infinite amount of times, would you ever end up getting the cookie?  No.  Infinitude never has an ending and therefore nothing could theoretically come AFTER infinity. 

So from your existence, you could infer that the chain of causation that preceded you was finite.  It had a beginning.  And it had to have a beginning to a being that is itself uncaused. 

Now if someone chooses to take up my challenge by arguing that an infinite being is impossible, just keep in mind that the following justifications for your belief are lame:  (1) We can't observe it, (2) We can't imagine it, (3) We can't prove it scientifically, etc. etc. etc.

God is NOT an exception to this.

I never proposed that God could bring himself into existence.  That would mean that there was a point in time when God didn't exist, and that's not what I'm trying to put forth.

My premise is that God never did NOT EXIST.  Theoretically, his existence is NOT contingent. 

IF God did not pre-exist, then God could not have brought himself into existence.  So there is no exception to that rule, just as there is no exception to anything involving the principle of contradiction.

Atheists make the mistake of assuming that theists are proposing that God can do anything and that is NOT the case.  God cannot supersede the realm of possibility in general.  If it's not possible to do, then not even God can do it. 

I've given a thorough explanation of why the infinite regress is not possible and you have yet to do the same re: an infinite being.  WHY is an infinite being impossible?   What contradictions would we be presupposing if we agreed that an infinite being exists?

Give me several premises and a conclusion showing why the assumption of an infinite being leads to a contradiction.

 

There are a few ways to respond to your rebuttal.

(1) You seem to be assuming that a change in state has to be attributed to an external cause.  But I would disagree.  God making a decision is something that would be attributed to his own free will, which is by definition, free.  So yes, there's a "cause" per se, but something like that wouldn't contradict the concept of God.  When you act in accordance with your own free will, you are not deferring to something greater than yourself.  Its ultimate basis is on you.   In fact, you ARE your will.

(2) By talking about things like change in relation to God, you are making the assumption that God exists in time.  You are forgetting that time is something we learn about a posteriori from the universe and therefore we cannot assume that time exists outside of the universe.  And therefore, if there is a creator of the universe, then we cannot assume that this creator exists in time or that time even exists independently of our perception.

One story goes that a student asked St. Augustine, "What was God doing before he created the universe?"  Augustine's answer was, "Creating a Hell for people who ask those kinds of questions."

That's my explanation for why an infinite regress is impossible.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that even though 1 through 10, for example, exist within an infinite set of numbers... we can still arrive at a number even though there is an infinite regress. 

But I don't think it is analogous to what I'm saying.  Counting from 1 to 10 is not an example of infinitude.  Yes, there is an infinite set of numbers prior to the 1, but in your example, I have not counted them.  I've only counted from 1 to 10.  Thus, I would have not arrived at the 1 or any number thereafter if I decided one day that I was going to infinitely count every number before the 1.  To what degree do numbers exist anyway?  They certainly do not exist in the same way that sentient beings exist.

I wouldn't say that evolution or the Big Bang occurs within an infinite chain of events.  I would say that the only intelligible position is to say that there was something that's infinite.  You don't even have to call it "God".  Call it whatever you want.  But something has to be infinite.

 

Why don't you register? Nobody cares what you say if you don't bother even to register so your bullshit at least shows up right away. If you can't even bother with that fuck you you stupid cocksucker.

It sounds like you are espousing the position that the existence of particular things is illusory and that there is only one singular entity that constantly changes.

Okay, fine.  But then you have some explaining to do:

You acknowledge that there is change.  But in order for change to be possible, you must have something static which survives the change.  For example, if an apple turns from green to red, you do not recognize it as a change unless the other parts of the apple remain in tact throughout the change.  If the other parts of the apple do not remain in tact, then we don't say that the apple has changed, we say that it has been destroyed and no longer exists.

So what is this static entity that underlies all of this change that we experience?  You say that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but can you account for this static entity other than saying that it is just matter/energy? 

And would it then be possible for us to break down every single material thing in this world and come to some common element?

And does this world that you are speaking of randomly change or does the change have to be attributed to something prior?  Does the rule of cause/effect apply?  You say that FORMS constantly change, well can these forms give such changes to themselves?  It seems like you really can't avoid the problem of the infinite regress, even if you change the terminology.

I've said explicitly that SOMETHING has to be infinite, and you apparently believe that it is some element within the universe.  The universe doesn't appear to be an entity in itself as much as it is the sum of a lot of different entities.  But you seem to be saying that there is only one thing undergoing many different changes.

So yes, you are stuck within the scope of my two options.  Either there is an infinite being to which the chain begins or there is an infinite regress. 

I believe claims like that are faith based.  I don't believe we can prove that God is a nice guy or that everything in the bible is true.  That's what we have to take on faith.

My example with the foot stomping was just to give you an idea of what I was arguing but it is in no way analogous.  In fact, the foot stomping isn't really infinite because it had a beginning.  True infinity does not have a beginning.  If my coming to be was attributed to an infinite series of cause/effect, then you would never get to my coming to be. 

So yes, I'm going to say that my argument was sound.

I was talking to that "ghost" fucktard.

I think I need you to define what you mean by the word being.  For now I will assume you mean some sort of conscious entity.

In regards to your comments, first I did not say that matter/energy stays the same, what I said was mass/energy stay the same.  There is no law of conservation of matter, only mass.  Second I do not need to account for this static entity other than to define it as mass/energy anymore than you have to account for the exact composition of a creature you believe created the universe.   All this part of my argument was my trying to do was show that there are many if not infinite possible explanations which do not require a conscious entity, just as there are many if not infinite that do.  There are many things about the universe that are unknown, that doesn’t mean you can assume that they were done by a conscious entity. 

Your main argument seems to be that something has to have existed for eternity remaining unchanged.  I’m not sure if that’s true or not but for the sake of this discussion I’m assuming it is.  

You completely ignored this part.  A “permanent none sentient process or series of processes” would seem to meet your qualifications of what you are arguing for.


It’s is not necessary to have a common element mass and energy can exist in different forms as long as the sum of these forms remains constant the law of conservation of mass and energy is unbroken.   

Obviously the world doesn’t randomly change.  Thing change according to some set of rules.  These rules that govern the universe seem not to be subject to cause and effect.  Exactly what determines these rules is currently unknown, but they seem to be independent of the things they govern.  I do not see how an unchanging set of rules are subject to infinite regress as you have defined it.

Yes I do.

Again I’m not talking about the universe what I’m talking about are the laws of physics.  I’m saying that there are some unchanging principles or principle that governs the universe and that a conscious entity is not required.

No, I’m saying there are one or more unchanging things that govern other things that change.  Things in this universe change, something has to govern those changes or life would be chaos.  If you believe in god you probably believe god governs these changes, if you don’t believe in god you probably believe that this is done by the laws of physics.   

I think you are ignoring multiple possible alternatives to your two options.

My point wasn’t whether or not god is a nice guy.  My point is that you should not define all the possibilities of the universe into two options.  As for God there are so many ways word is defined it’s ridicules.  I think the word should be broken down into multiple words defining exactly what is meant by it.  For instance God A could be Deist God.  God B could be the Christian god.  God C could be the Muslim god. Maybe God B1 could be the catholic versions of the Christian god, you get the idea.  That way it would be much less confusing understanding what people are trying to say when they use the term.

Let’s say the foot stomping has no Beginning, or ending, that it truly is infinite.  You’re saying that no individual stomp of the foot can happen because before it did and infinite amounts of stomps would have to happen beforehand.  If what you’re saying is the case an infinite foot stomping could not exist, because any individual stomp could never have happened.  If what you are saying is true than an infinite God can not exist. To exist in any time he would have had to existed an infinite period of time before that.  Because and infinite period of time can not pass, at no point in time can god exist.  If what you are saying is true there can not be an infinite god.

 

A being is anything that exists.  Inanimate objects are beings just as much as humans are.  If you couldn't wrap your head around something as simple as that, then you are not qualified to be in this discussion.

Oh yes you do and here's why:  An infinite being outside the universe cannot be accounted for in positive scientific terms.  You even stated that you believe this infinite entity is WITHIN the universe so therefore you will have to speak of it spatially and/or temporally and in terms that can be understood within the context of a lab.

You put that burden on yourself the minute you said that this entity existed within the universe.  Now you want to escape it.

Once again, you didn't even realize the meaning of "being" and that opened up a can of worms for you.  You continue to bound up the word "being" with a conscious entity.

This is why scientists should not be allowed to leave the lab.  Stick to your field of study because you have no business making claims about God.

I'm saying that if you are proposing that there is an infinite entity within the universe, then this entity has to be static or else it wouldn't survive the constant change taking place.

Because I have no clue what you mean.  What is a "none sentient process"?  I think I've already precluded the possibility of an infinite regress.

That argument is flawed in so many ways.  First of all, you are comparing the existence of a thing to the progression of a sequence of events, like they are the same thing and they are not.  Second of all, you are assuming that God exists in a temporal setting and he doesn't.  Once again, you presupposed that by "being", I was referring to some intelligent living thing and that has thrown a monkey wrench on your entire rebuttal, so much that it is not even worth responding to.  When every single paragraph you write is based on a false assumption, there is just not enough time to refute.

I think if students of science really want to be qualified to make claims about God, they should study philosophy along with science.  Otherwise, you really have no idea what you are talking about.  I can't argue with you because you'll misunderstand the most basic of terms and your preconceived biases will just come through on even the most rudimentary things.

 

At least I can us a dictionary.  There are multiple definitions for this word one of which is God.  You should have stated clearly which definition you were using from the beginning.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being
    

So I need to prove the law of conservation of  mass and energy in scientific terms.  I think a number of people already done so but to be sure we should do a test.  Put all of you money in a completely sealed container.  Weigh that container.  Now burn all of your money and weigh the container again. I think you’ll find even though the form of you money has changed the mass of the system remains the same. 

I think it’s understandable that I assumed you were using the word “being” to describe God given the nature of your posts.

You’re making a lot of assumptions because I know something you can find in a high school text book.

The laws of physics are the static entity which survives constant change.  I’ve met you’re requirements so what is the problem here.

Within the context of my example there is a rule “foot stomping has no Beginning, or ending, that it truly is infinite.”  By your definition a rule exists and therefore is a being.  It is unchanging therefore it is static.  If Infinite regression disproves a static being which is a rule then why doesn’t it disprove static being which is a God? 

By the way is the name Ghost based of the John Ringo book?
 

 

A HA I love it.

You see the concept of a loving god and a eternal + prime mover  is impossible and disproves your god !

 

Our existence is contradictory to a god existing or creating the universe. It makes absolutely no sense and is illogical.

1)      god existed for ever.

2)      God did have no problem existing for a infinity without us.

3)      God is perfect/coherent/rational (Axiomatic to believe or accept god)

4)      God did have no problem with us not existing because he would create us/universe faster.

5)      God decides to create the universe , and this contradicts 1 , 2 , 3 and 4.

6)  Why didn’t god create us instantaneously if he needed us so moth loved us or something ? Again contradiction

And this is why a creator god disproves himself.

 

Of course this model disproves a all powerful loving god that possesses some little intelligence not a infinitely evil , crazy or stupid god however I don’t think you would like to worship a infinitely evil creature.