(September 9, 2013 at 3:28 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's my current view that both concepts of "prime mover / uncaused cause" and "infinite regress" are problematic. I may be entirely wrong on this, but I don't think that either has been adequately logically demonstrated, nor can either be necessarily ruled out. Nor, for that matter, is it necessarily a case of it being one or the other - if, for example, we are mistaken about the nature and necessity of causality - particularly in spatial-temporal locations where our concept of physics breaks down.
TL;DR: I simply don't think we know enough to answer such questions definitively.
Are you kidding, infinite regress is a solid refutation against a god.
The paragraph you just typed is simply another apology to excuse shifting the burden of proof.
"You can neither prove or disprove". Good science and good logic does not work as a 50/50 proposition. Otherwise "all claims are true by default until disproven" , and you know that is a ridiculous statement.
