28 Jun '07 21:57>5 edits
Infinite regress is not a problem posed primarily by theists, but is a problem posed by Nature itself and its natural law.
If we trace phenomena backwards, we delineate a history of cause and effect. How far back do you go? If you have no first cause, then you are stuck with an infinite regress.
Atheists are fond of saying, "there is no reason to think that a creator might exist," and simply ignore the problem posed by the natural law of cause and effect. Tell me, how is that not disingenuous?
Furthermore, the typical atheist's question, "who created god?", shows either an inability or a refusal to conceptualize an eternal, self-existent God. No doubt, the majority of intelligent people are able to recognize that the absurd god of infinite regress is not the only possibility, so I have to conclude that that absurd god of infinite regress is merely a convenient strawman for the atheist.
-----------------------
Thomas Aquinas' first-cause argument:
1. Every thing is caused.
2. Therefore the universe is caused.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god
Instead of being self-refuting, Aquinas' argument simply underscores the eternal, self-existent nature of God, via the absurdity of infinite regress.
-----------------------
If God manages to be self-existent, why can't the universe? -- pawnokeyhole
If the universe can differ from itself in any way (evolve), then it cannot be self-existent. Only an immutable being can be self-existent. Why? Because change implies incompleteness. A self-existent reality is by definition complete in and of itself. Therefore, since the universe evolves, it cannot be self-existent.
Why does that stop the underlying stuff of the universe from being self-existent? -- pawnokeyhole
If you are positing 'underlying stuff' to the universe, you will be taking us back in time almost one hundred years, before Einstein entered the scene. Einstein proved that matter, energy and gravity are seamlessly interwoven as one whole (the time-space continuum), while the prevailing theory had formerly been that all phenomena existed within a universal medium called, 'ether'. The ether gave the universe its self-existence.
Thanks to Einstein, today we know that the 'underlying stuff' of the universe are just molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, and (possibly) multiple dimensional strings, etc.; all of which are mutable and contingent. That is, their existence has a starting point (i.e. the Big Bang).
A self-existent reality has no starting point.
If we trace phenomena backwards, we delineate a history of cause and effect. How far back do you go? If you have no first cause, then you are stuck with an infinite regress.
Atheists are fond of saying, "there is no reason to think that a creator might exist," and simply ignore the problem posed by the natural law of cause and effect. Tell me, how is that not disingenuous?
Furthermore, the typical atheist's question, "who created god?", shows either an inability or a refusal to conceptualize an eternal, self-existent God. No doubt, the majority of intelligent people are able to recognize that the absurd god of infinite regress is not the only possibility, so I have to conclude that that absurd god of infinite regress is merely a convenient strawman for the atheist.
-----------------------
Thomas Aquinas' first-cause argument:
1. Every thing is caused.
2. Therefore the universe is caused.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god
Instead of being self-refuting, Aquinas' argument simply underscores the eternal, self-existent nature of God, via the absurdity of infinite regress.
-----------------------
If God manages to be self-existent, why can't the universe? -- pawnokeyhole
If the universe can differ from itself in any way (evolve), then it cannot be self-existent. Only an immutable being can be self-existent. Why? Because change implies incompleteness. A self-existent reality is by definition complete in and of itself. Therefore, since the universe evolves, it cannot be self-existent.
Why does that stop the underlying stuff of the universe from being self-existent? -- pawnokeyhole
If you are positing 'underlying stuff' to the universe, you will be taking us back in time almost one hundred years, before Einstein entered the scene. Einstein proved that matter, energy and gravity are seamlessly interwoven as one whole (the time-space continuum), while the prevailing theory had formerly been that all phenomena existed within a universal medium called, 'ether'. The ether gave the universe its self-existence.
Thanks to Einstein, today we know that the 'underlying stuff' of the universe are just molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, and (possibly) multiple dimensional strings, etc.; all of which are mutable and contingent. That is, their existence has a starting point (i.e. the Big Bang).
A self-existent reality has no starting point.