My case against Creationism and Infinite regression

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

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.

[dyresand]

To put it bluntly i don't want to accept science or the real world it's to hard to understand there for god done it.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I'm stupid and I can't understand the real answers, so my flimsy sophistry that's very comforting should be accepted by everyone as the truth.

[Minimalist]

"Everthing has a cause" um, except the particular sky-daddy I believe in.  He is eternal."

Standard bullshit line from all theists.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Absolutely. I'm completely against filling the gaps of knowledge with something as ambiguous as "God".
I also think I managed to show that even by theistic standards creationism is not possible.

[SteveII]

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.

Theist (at least those that think about such things) think numbers are abstract objects. They are not real things that God created. Logic is grounded in the the nature of God (it's how God thinks). 

Your description of a causal chain would be an infinite regression if you don't stop somewhere with a "first cause". An infinite regression is logically absurd. You cannot count backwards and reach infinity. There is no number + one more to get you to infinity. Infinity is a mathematical concept used in equations. The set of real numbers is infinity. There is nothing real that can be infinite (including causal chains). Your conclusion "there is no infinite regression" is correct but it seems you solved the problem by simply changing the label to "finite regression" -- a conclusion that does not follow from any of your reasoning. Then stating that "it is illogical to fill the gap of knowledge with a God" is either to fail to understand the problem you are asking about or a bias you brought in because nothing you said supports that conclusion.

You missed a key phrase in the First Law of Thermodynamics: "isolated (or closed) system". Creation of the universe would be creating the system.

[SteveII]

Absolutely. I'm completely against filling the gaps of knowledge with something as ambiguous as "God".
I also think I managed to show that even by theistic standards creationism is not possible.

It's interesting that the first three comments you got were encouraging and piled on the typical phrases that makes them happy to type. No one bothered to point out that your premises are misconceived and your reasoning is flawed. 

If you want to believe that God (a first cause) is not needed, all you have to do is admit that the universe (or a predecessor) is infinite in the past--in spite that being logically absurd. If you want to "show" that creation is not possible (as you think you did) you would have to show a logical proof where the individual premises are supported and then concludes there is no God. No one has done that yet so good luck with that.

[Minimalist]

I've concluded there is no fucking god because assholes like you can't provide any evidence for one.

Instead we are treated to "logic" from the "illogical."

[IATIA]

Creation of the universe would be creating the system.

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

[SteveII]

Creation of the universe would be creating the system.

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.