My case against Creationism and Infinite regression

[Cyberman]

MC Escher ftw!

Eschertime!

[robvalue]

I lurv infinite regressions . . .

This is actually extremely relevant to a post I made on another thread, talking about whether there is a fundamental, irreducible building block:

Well, I couldn't possibly say. As far as I know quarks are the smallest component, although I think it's the case that ultimately everything exists as a probability field, as per quantum mechanics. When you get down to the real small parts, things stop being so clear cut as just "stuff" and start becoming increasingly abstract and weird. I don't have a great grasp of QM but we have plenty of people here who do. There's also wave/particle duality and such.

Can you keep on going, indefinitely? Maybe you can. Maybe reality is like a fractal. Again, I don't think you can rule this out. You'd be assuming some sort of "end point", without ever being able to test that it really is an end point and not just the limitations of your technique.

[Drich]

Definition of infinite regression according to Google:

a sequence of reasoning or justification which can never come to an end.

I've never really truly understood the nature of infinite regressions. Furthermore, within my limited understanding of it I don't believe infinite regressions are real. Hear me out, when we are taking about something existing in the nature, you could ask a series of questions like:

*Where did the puddle of water come from?
Rain.
*Where did the rain come from?  
Clouds.
*Where did the clouds come from?
.
.
.

Which eventually leads to an answer "I don't know".
Suppose we discover the answer to this "I don't know"  then the next question follows: "Where did the answer which we discovered to the" I don't know" come from.
And so on. This is what is described as an infinite regression, correct? But IS it really an infinite regression?

When questions concerning our physical world, or nature, descents into infinite regression is it really because of an infinite set of possibly unanswered questions following the last answered question?

I thought about this,but from a different angle, I thought about infinite regression based on something we as humans have(most likely)100% idea of.
I thought about infinite regression based on basic mathematics.

I think it'd be fair to say that humans "invented" mathematics. Yes, I do know that mathematics existed long before a formal subject called mathematics was created, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the number system,I'm talking about the literal subject called mathematics that was "created"  as a formal guide to symbolically represent and interpret the real world easily and efficiently.

So I did some random operations on a random number, say 1,operations like:
*Add by 1.
2.(1 added to 1 equals to 2)
*Multiply result by 2.
4.(2*2=4)
*Multiply result by 6.
24.

Then I asked myself:
Where did 24 come from?  
Hypothetically and analogicaly speaking, a creationist would respond as "God created 24." The analogical equivalent of a creationist responding "God created humans."  

I do some further research and I discover 24 was achieved from multiplying 6 with 4.

Now I'm left with 4. I discover it came from multiplying 2 with 2.

Now I'm left with 2. I discover it came from adding 1 with 1.

Now I'm left with 1. Creationists say God created 1(Analogicaly) . In a world where I didn't have any knowledge how 1 came out to be(invented by humans) I wouldn't be able to respond to the creationist I would be forced to a position of "I don't know".

But here I do know where 1 came from,it came into being from the thoughts of a person. Creationists would however argue that this is the analogical equivalent of a God "thinking us into existence",ie creationism.

1. We just realize that there is no infinite regression,the so called infinite regression we call is actually just finite regression,if a question is unanswered it just means that there is a gap in knowledge, this doesn't mean this gap must be filled with a god.
2. Creationists are saying that my model is actually giving creationism more weight.

Here is a definition of creationism according to Google:

Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation."

Here is a definition of creation according to Google :

the action or process of bringing something into existence.

And here's  the first law of thermodynamics:

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

The first law of thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created.

When our ideas are implemented as actual models it doesn't mean we "created"  something.
Our neurons firing, our energy spent in modeling something from an idea to an actual model all follow the conservation of energy.

So suppose there really is a God, even if the so called God "thought us into existence" it means that he also followed the laws of conservation of energy, ie,first law of thermodynamics was not violated, ie,no creation took place.

So to summarize,
*There is no infinite regression, the so called infinite regression is actually only a finite regression and it is illogical to fill the gap of knowledge with a God.

*Even if there really was a God that thought us into existence (Which in the Bible it says, Bible also mentions the God growing tired and requiring rest,ie,energy spent) it doesn't mean any act of creationism took place because it follows the law of conservation of energy.

Here's your problem, The same argument can be made of 'science.' Instead of having God to fill the gaps you crutch in science to fill the same gaps. I know on the surface science can be used to explain the discernible, but when it comes to things out of our reach (say origins/big bang) you are in no better shape than a creationist who says "God did it." Why? because you still have an un-caused, cause. In the case of the believer God speaks the universe into existence. where science is god, you have a "basket ball" explode and everything that is comes from said basket ball. If as you say their isn't an infinite regression then your left with the answer "science says so" when someone asks what caused the big bang.

So then how is that position any more tenable than "God did it?"

[GrandizerII]

Definition of infinite regression according to Google:


I've never really truly understood the nature of infinite regressions. Furthermore, within my limited understanding of it I don't believe infinite regressions are real. Hear me out, when we are taking about something existing in the nature, you could ask a series of questions like:

*Where did the puddle of water come from?
Rain.
*Where did the rain come from?  
Clouds.
*Where did the clouds come from?
.
.
.

Which eventually leads to an answer "I don't know".
Suppose we discover the answer to this "I don't know"  then the next question follows: "Where did the answer which we discovered to the" I don't know" come from.
And so on. This is what is described as an infinite regression, correct? But IS it really an infinite regression?

When questions concerning our physical world, or nature, descents into infinite regression is it really because of an infinite set of possibly unanswered questions following the last answered question?

I thought about this,but from a different angle, I thought about infinite regression based on something we as humans have(most likely)100% idea of.
I thought about infinite regression based on basic mathematics.

I think it'd be fair to say that humans "invented" mathematics. Yes, I do know that mathematics existed long before a formal subject called mathematics was created, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the number system,I'm talking about the literal subject called mathematics that was "created"  as a formal guide to symbolically represent and interpret the real world easily and efficiently.

So I did some random operations on a random number, say 1,operations like:
*Add by 1.
2.(1 added to 1 equals to 2)
*Multiply result by 2.
4.(2*2=4)
*Multiply result by 6.
24.

Then I asked myself:
Where did 24 come from?  
Hypothetically and analogicaly speaking, a creationist would respond as "God created 24." The analogical equivalent of a creationist responding "God created humans."  

I do some further research and I discover 24 was achieved from multiplying 6 with 4.

Now I'm left with 4. I discover it came from multiplying 2 with 2.

Now I'm left with 2. I discover it came from adding 1 with 1.

Now I'm left with 1. Creationists say God created 1(Analogicaly) . In a world where I didn't have any knowledge how 1 came out to be(invented by humans) I wouldn't be able to respond to the creationist I would be forced to a position of "I don't know".

But here I do know where 1 came from,it came into being from the thoughts of a person. Creationists would however argue that this is the analogical equivalent of a God "thinking us into existence",ie creationism.

1. We just realize that there is no infinite regression,the so called infinite regression we call is actually just finite regression,if a question is unanswered it just means that there is a gap in knowledge, this doesn't mean this gap must be filled with a god.
2. Creationists are saying that my model is actually giving creationism more weight.

Here is a definition of creationism according to Google:
Here is a definition of creation according to Google :
And here's  the first law of thermodynamics:
The first law of thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created.

When our ideas are implemented as actual models it doesn't mean we "created"  something.
Our neurons firing, our energy spent in modeling something from an idea to an actual model all follow the conservation of energy.

So suppose there really is a God, even if the so called God "thought us into existence" it means that he also followed the laws of conservation of energy, ie,first law of thermodynamics was not violated, ie,no creation took place.

So to summarize,
*There is no infinite regression, the so called infinite regression is actually only a finite regression and it is illogical to fill the gap of knowledge with a God.

*Even if there really was a God that thought us into existence (Which in the Bible it says, Bible also mentions the God growing tired and requiring rest,ie,energy spent) it doesn't mean any act of creationism took place because it follows the law of conservation of energy.

Here's your problem, The same argument can be made of 'science.' Instead of having God to fill the gaps you crutch in science to fill the same gaps. I know on the surface science can be used to explain the discernible, but when it comes to things out of our reach (say origins/big bang) you are in no better shape than a creationist who says "God did it." Why? because you still have an un-caused, cause. In the case of the believer God speaks the universe into existence. where science is god, you have a "basket ball" explode and everything that is comes from said basket ball. If as you say their isn't an infinite regression then your left with the answer "science says so" when someone asks what caused the big bang.

So then how is that position any more tenable than "God did it?"

Science will always be a better method for knowledge in any field than just postulating some entity we have no empirical evidence for.

[Mister Agenda]

Why?  The universe is simply a changed form of what it was 'before' the Big Bang'.

So, you don't think that the beginning of space-time and all physical reality (including physical laws) could be characterized as a new system? Please also explain how the laws of physics stop working at Planck time (before you get back to the singularity) and how the First Law of Thermodynamics mysteriously is exempt and will continue on not just to the singularity, but through to the other side. 

In addition, please tell us what came 'before' the Big Bang that avoids the absurdity of a past infinite chain.

Fallacy of composition, Steve. As you pointed out, our universe is the system, and the Laws of Thermodynamics apply within it, within the space and time of existence as we know it. We know that things in the universe have to follow the LoTs, but we have no basis for concluding that the LoTs apply to the universe itself or to the conditions preceding it.

BTW, so many people like to claim that a past infinite chain is absurd, but none of them can prove it isn't the case. The argument against infinite regression seems to consist of primarily 'it makes my brain hurt so it can't be true'.

[robvalue]

Yup. Infinite regression may make perfect sense if we could view things from another perspective.

[Mister Agenda]

Here's your problem, The same argument can be made of 'science.' Instead of having God to fill the gaps you crutch in science to fill the same gaps. I know on the surface science can be used to explain the discernible, but when it comes to things out of our reach (say origins/big bang) you are in no better shape than a creationist who says "God did it." Why? because you still have an un-caused, cause. In the case of the believer God speaks the universe into existence. where science is god, you have a "basket ball" explode and everything that is comes from said basket ball. If as you say their isn't an infinite regression then your left with the answer "science says so" when someone asks what caused the big bang.

So then how is that position any more tenable than "God did it?"

In every case where we've found the answer to something in nature, it has actually turned out to be natural. In science, the question isn't considered answered until it is both understood and confirmed by evidence.

The problem with explaining the origin of the universe isn't with finding answers that work mathematically and match the available evidence; it's that there are multiple 'answers' (hypotheses) that we don't have a way of confirming with evidence yet. If we never do, the answer to the question, scientifically, will be 'We don't know' forever.

Science doesn't pretend to have answers when it doesn't. That is what makes it more tenable than clinging to a cultural construct made by people who didn't know the earth orbits the sun.

[robvalue]

Science slowly learns more and more.

Religion slowly makes more and more excuses.

[Mister Agenda]

Definition of infinite regression according to Google:

a sequence of reasoning or justification which can never come to an end.

I've never really truly understood the nature of infinite regressions. Furthermore, within my limited understanding of it I don't believe infinite regressions are real. Hear me out, when we are taking about something existing in the nature, you could ask a series of questions like:

*Where did the puddle of water come from?
Rain.
*Where did the rain come from?  
Clouds.
*Where did the clouds come from?
.
.
.

Which eventually leads to an answer "I don't know".
Suppose we discover the answer to this "I don't know"  then the next question follows: "Where did the answer which we discovered to the" I don't know" come from.
And so on. This is what is described as an infinite regression, correct? But IS it really an infinite regression?

When questions concerning our physical world, or nature, descents into infinite regression is it really because of an infinite set of possibly unanswered questions following the last answered question?

I thought about this,but from a different angle, I thought about infinite regression based on something we as humans have(most likely)100% idea of.
I thought about infinite regression based on basic mathematics.

I think it'd be fair to say that humans "invented" mathematics. Yes, I do know that mathematics existed long before a formal subject called mathematics was created, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the number system,I'm talking about the literal subject called mathematics that was "created"  as a formal guide to symbolically represent and interpret the real world easily and efficiently.

So I did some random operations on a random number, say 1,operations like:
*Add by 1.
2.(1 added to 1 equals to 2)
*Multiply result by 2.
4.(2*2=4)
*Multiply result by 6.
24.

Then I asked myself:
Where did 24 come from?  
Hypothetically and analogicaly speaking, a creationist would respond as "God created 24." The analogical equivalent of a creationist responding "God created humans."  

I do some further research and I discover 24 was achieved from multiplying 6 with 4.

Now I'm left with 4. I discover it came from multiplying 2 with 2.

Now I'm left with 2. I discover it came from adding 1 with 1.

Now I'm left with 1. Creationists say God created 1(Analogicaly) . In a world where I didn't have any knowledge how 1 came out to be(invented by humans) I wouldn't be able to respond to the creationist I would be forced to a position of "I don't know".

But here I do know where 1 came from,it came into being from the thoughts of a person. Creationists would however argue that this is the analogical equivalent of a God "thinking us into existence",ie creationism.

1. We just realize that there is no infinite regression,the so called infinite regression we call is actually just finite regression,if a question is unanswered it just means that there is a gap in knowledge, this doesn't mean this gap must be filled with a god.
2. Creationists are saying that my model is actually giving creationism more weight.

Here is a definition of creationism according to Google:

Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation."

Here is a definition of creation according to Google :

the action or process of bringing something into existence.

And here's  the first law of thermodynamics:

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

The first law of thermodynamics clearly states that energy cannot be created.

When our ideas are implemented as actual models it doesn't mean we "created"  something.
Our neurons firing, our energy spent in modeling something from an idea to an actual model all follow the conservation of energy.

So suppose there really is a God, even if the so called God "thought us into existence" it means that he also followed the laws of conservation of energy, ie,first law of thermodynamics was not violated, ie,no creation took place.

So to summarize,
*There is no infinite regression, the so called infinite regression is actually only a finite regression and it is illogical to fill the gap of knowledge with a God.

*Even if there really was a God that thought us into existence (Which in the Bible it says, Bible also mentions the God growing tired and requiring rest,ie,energy spent) it doesn't mean any act of creationism took place because it follows the law of conservation of energy.

This is kind of a mess.

That there can be no infinite regression isn't established.

The Laws of Thermodynamics apply within the universe, it does not follow that they apply to the universe. Plus, quantum weirdness. God or no God, whatever preceded the universe didn't have to be subject to the laws that things in the universe must follow.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Yup. Infinite regression may make perfect sense if we could view things from another perspective.

Could you make a post that talks about infinite regression from another perspective, please? Pretty please?