Infinite regress?

auckland, New Zealand

Mar 25, 2011 @ 11:56:49

Whenever the idea of life being created comes up it usually begs the question "who designed the designers?" as if this somehow negates the possibility?

It was Aristotle who said "life comes from life" this to me means "something existant comes from something existant"
so if that is true then infinite regress is also true?

0

bob_the_fisherman

Anatidaephobic

, Angola

#2

Mar 25, 2011 @ 12:46:19

@radharc Said

Whenever the idea of life being created comes up it usually begs the question "who designed the designers?" as if this somehow negates the possibility?

It was Aristotle who said "life comes from life" this to me means "something existant comes from something existant"
so if that is true then infinite regress is also true?

No. Because natural things generally require a cause for their existence, it does not follow that supernatural things are limited in this way. In fact, you could logically argue that supernatural things are not bound in the same way as natural things (it is kind of tautological to be honest).

0

radharc

auckland, New Zealand

#3

Mar 25, 2011 @ 12:47:42

@bob_the_fisherman Said

No. Because natural things generally require a cause for their existence, it does not follow that supernatural things are limited in this way. In fact, you could logically argue that supernatural things are not bound in the same way as natural things (it is kind of tautological to be honest).

Where do you get supernatural from that?

0

bob_the_fisherman

Anatidaephobic

, Angola

#4

Mar 25, 2011 @ 12:52:05

@radharc Said

Where do you get supernatural from that?

I thought that was what you were referring to when speaking of designers. However, if you are not arguing this, then... no, an infinite regress is a logical impossibility. An infinite number of events cannot have passed. An infinite number of events requires an infinite amount of time to pass, however this is an actual logical impossibility, not to mention the fact that the universe is clearly not infinitely old.

0

zisissgoot

Deleted

, Australia

#5

Mar 25, 2011 @ 12:53:54

It's first cause. What caused the first cause?

It's really a logical killer for the god hypothesis.

0

Demented

, Australia

#6

Mar 25, 2011 @ 12:57:57

@bob_the_fisherman Said

No. Because natural things generally require a cause for their existence, it does not follow that supernatural things are limited in this way. In fact, you could logically argue that supernatural things are not bound in the same way as natural things (it is kind of tautological to be honest).

Your on the right track there Bob,don't they say.....God the Father,Son and the Holy Ghost?,aren't ghosts part of the Supernatural??

0

Edited: March 25, 2011 @ 12:58

radharc

auckland, New Zealand

#7

Mar 25, 2011 @ 13:00:33

@radharc Said

Where do you get supernatural from that?

@bob_the_fisherman Said

I thought that was what you were referring to when speaking of designers. However, if you are not arguing this, then... no, an infinite regress is a logical impossibility. An infinite number of events cannot have passed. An infinite number of events requires an infinite amount of time to pass, however this is an actual logical impossibility, not to mention the fact that the universe is clearly not infinitely old.

Not supernatural at all.

as for the universe not being infinite, yeah sure.
if its finite it had a beginning and from what did this beginning come from? something from nothing is illogical... to exist it must be something.

0

radharc

auckland, New Zealand

#8

Mar 25, 2011 @ 13:03:16

@zisissgoot Said

It's first cause. What caused the first cause?

It's really a logical killer for the god hypothesis.

To me infinite regress kills god dead.

where in infinity can god reside?

1

bob_the_fisherman

Anatidaephobic

, Angola

#9

Mar 25, 2011 @ 21:36:45

@zisissgoot Said

It's first cause. What caused the first cause?

It's really a logical killer for the god hypothesis.

It is only a 'killer' for the god hypothesis for those that lack basic logic skills. Those people, on the other hand, that understand the basic fundamentals of logic, discount it immediately.

It is really quite simple: A supernatural being does not require a naturalistic explanation... it is axiomatic.

0

wirelessguru1

Somewhere in, California

#10

Mar 25, 2011 @ 21:45:40

Yet again, this problem has been solved!

Men made machines so that machines would then make men or vice versa, machines made men so that men would then make machines.

As such, it is a a cyclic and symbiotic relationship and, therefore, most definitely not an issue of "infinite regress"! Essentially my easy "digital" explanation breaks down this vicious cycle of infinte regress. Can you grasp that?

+1 (Neo)

0

wirelessguru1

Somewhere in, California

#11

Mar 25, 2011 @ 21:49:10

@bob_the_fisherman Said

No. Because natural things generally require a cause for their existence, it does not follow that supernatural things are limited in this way. In fact, you could logically argue that supernatural things are not bound in the same way as natural things (it is kind of tautological to be honest).

Look, instead of saying supernatural just call the other things "artificial" and the problem is immediately solved...

Meaning that artificial things are definitely not bound in the same way as natural things...or in other words, virtual reality is a lot more "creative", so to speak...

0

ssnot_me

big D, Texas

#12

Mar 25, 2011 @ 21:52:21

nothing like using magic to kill logic

0

wirelessguru1

Somewhere in, California

#13

Mar 25, 2011 @ 21:53:56

@bob_the_fisherman Said

An infinite number of events cannot have passed. An infinite number of events requires an infinite amount of time to pass, however this is an actual logical impossibility, not to mention the fact that the universe is clearly not infinitely old.

Look, time is just the inverse of frequency and infinity is one over zero. Also when one is over time (and in frequency) one is basically in timelessness (outside time)...and as such age does not apply!

+1 (Neo)

0

wirelessguru1

Somewhere in, California

#14

Mar 25, 2011 @ 21:55:14

@zisissgoot Said

It's first cause. What caused the first cause?

It's really a logical killer for the god hypothesis.

Cause and effect (or action reaction) is cyclical since space is just a wavelength...

You got to think in frequency and, therefore, outside time!!!

0

wirelessguru1

Somewhere in, California

#15

Mar 25, 2011 @ 21:58:00

@radharc Said

as for the universe not being infinite, yeah sure.
if its finite it had a beginning and from what did this beginning come from? something from nothing is illogical... to exist it must be something.

Correct. It is the one (1) that creates the zero (0) by negating itself...

1 - 1 = 0

and

1 / 0 = infinity

Therefore it must be one that/who "creates" and not the zero (nothing).

+1 (Neo)

0

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	Jokes & Humor	"Man has 17 things that wont work" (risque)	Thu Dec 23, 2010 @ 10:14	1	1043
	Is it true?	"It's so true" things you do (need your ideas!)	Mon Feb 22, 2010 @ 08:51	9	1679
	US Elections	"War", "Military", "Victory", "Fight"! O	Fri Jul 24, 2020 @ 23:24	77	25339
	Jokes & Humor	"Favorite Things", The AARP version	Wed Jun 11, 2008 @ 02:35	0	1070
	Man Talk	Things women do that "give you the horn"	Thu Jun 08, 2006 @ 22:21	63	9555

Religion & Philosophy