Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.

[Mystic]

IF eternality doesn't need to be caused to come to be, the same may be true of an infinite chain of effects. And sometimes you cannot apply a feature of every part to the whole.

So he is right, you can't just say well universe needs a cause, but God doesn't.

However, I do believe that an infinities series of effect is still an effect in need of a cause.

God is not an effect. The universe I find is an effect and it would not be the case of a fallacy of the parts being applied to the whole.


It can be proven by induction, that an infinite series of effects remains an effect in itself.


I will go through this proof if anyone is interested.

[Minimalist]

All evidence for a god arguments are "simple."  It's the best that simpletons can manage.

[GrandizerII]

IF eternality doesn't need to be caused to come to be, the same may be true of an infinite chain of effects. And sometimes you cannot apply a feature of every part to the whole.

So he is right, you can't just say well universe needs a cause, but God doesn't.

However, I do believe that an infinities series of effect is still an effect in need of a cause.

God is not an effect.  The universe I find is an effect and it would not be the case of a fallacy of the parts being applied to the whole.


It can be proven by induction, that an infinite series of effects remains an effect in itself.


I will go through this proof if anyone is interested.

Somehow I doubt you'll really be able to provide that proof (based on past experience). But go ahead ... not like you ever needed us to give you permission, lol.

[Mystic]

It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.

[OakTree500]

It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.

[GrandizerII]

It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.

No, I think it's still a fallacy of composition in this case, because the points individually could each be caused and with beginnings, but the whole set would be eternal and uncaused. Just as a whole set of points has at least one dimension, even if the individual point doesn't.

So this is a logical possibility, and if you think it's wrong that this is logically possible, feel free to correct it.

EDIT: IOW, the inductive part applies to the individual points that altogether complete the infinite set, not to the whole set of points.

[Mystic]

It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.

No, I think it's still a fallacy of composition in this case, because the points individually could each be caused and with beginnings, but the whole set would be eternal and uncaused. Just as a whole set of points has at least one dimension, even if the individual point doesn't.

So this is a logical possibility, and if you think it's wrong that this is logically possible, feel free to correct it.

It would be if you say each point is an effect, so whole thing is an effect. But induction is seeing that no matter what size you give, the same reasoning that proves it to be an effect, will prove it in this case. And in this case, the line is an effect due to composition.  But since applying parts to whole sometimes is right but sometimes is wrong, you have to look an it inductively.  Therefore you have to see the reason why a whole line is still all an effect, will apply here.

So it's proper use of induction, to see the infinite series would remain an effect. The only aspect of it is that we resorted to an infinite chain to do away with a beginning. And if it didn't have a beginning and had no reason to be brought to being this would be true. But by induction, we can apply that infinite chain is still an effect.

And in this case, see the whole thing is made of contingency, and hence in need of a cause.

So yes a beginning would prove a cause, and non-beginning would prove a need of no cause if the thing was all contingent, but by induction, you can apply this.


Here it looks like this.

-
--
---
----

(still an effect)

Why? Cause it's made out of -

An infinite series of ---- would not have a beginning, but still made out ----


To give an example, it's like saying, well saying you know I can lift 300 pounds. 

But I can't lift 350, so I can't life 400, but all of sudden, you say, well if it was infinite pounds it would be different and perhaps I can lift it.

In this case, the property of contingency, can be see by induction, to remain no matter how much we grow it, infinite or not.

[robvalue]

Yup, no logical problem with infinite regression. It’s incredibly simple, actually.

Our reality is object 1.

For all values of integer n, the cause of object n is object n+1.

Done. Obviously I’m not saying this is the case, but it can’t be logically ruled out either. When we're talking about how things work outside of our own reality, trying to apply our intuition and experience to rule things out is hopeless. That’s if there is anything outside of our reality of course. Maybe, maybe not.

And maybe if this infinite regression could be viewed in the right way (by someone with pan-reality vision), it would make perfect sense. Who knows.

[GrandizerII]

It would be if you say each point is an effect, so whole thing is an effect.

No, not necessarily. Every single point? Yes. The whole line? Not if it's an infinite line.

But induction is seeing that no matter what size you give, the same reasoning that proves it to be an effect, will prove it in this case. And in this case, the line is an effect due to composition.  But since applying parts to whole sometimes is right but sometimes is wrong, you have to look an it inductively.  Therefore you have to see the reason why a whole line is still all an effect, will apply here.

But a whole line, if it's infinite, is infinite ... even though each of its points is "finite" in size.

So it's proper use of induction, to see the infinite series would remain an effect. The only aspect of it is that we resorted to an infinite chain to do away with a beginning. And if it didn't have a beginning and had no reason to be brought to being this would be true. But by induction, we can apply that infinite chain is still an effect.

You're losing me here. I'm not seeing how a line must be finite in length just because the individual points in it are "finite" points.

Here it looks like this.

-
--
---
----

(still an effect)

Why? Cause it's made out of -

An infinite series of ---- would not have a beginning, but still made out ----

Yeah ... but an infinite number of these dashes is possible, even if each dash is finite in size ...

To give an example, it's like saying, well saying you know I can lift 300 pounds. 

But I can't lift 350, so I can't life 400, but all of sudden, you say, well if it was infinite pounds it would be different and perhaps I can lift it.

In this case, the property of contingency, can be see by induction, to remain no matter how much we grow it, infinite or not.

No, if your limit is 300 pounds, then that's the limit.

If, however, there's no limit, then inductive reasoning suggests that you should keep going forever ...

That said, your wording is rather confusing, and I may not have understood what you're really arguing.

[Mystic]

The whole thing remains an effect by induction that we can apply parts to the whole, just as we do with any series of lines.

Again, it's like saying 100 pounds is heavy, 1000 pounds is heavy, infinite pounds is not heavy, makes no sense.