I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[LukeMC]

Question: is an infinite regress of causality a hard idea to accept in an infinite universe?

The idea of an infinite regression of time, or of an inifinite causal regression, is not a "hard" idea, but an idea which is, a) possibily incoherent since it is irrational to say that there is an infinite regression when we have clearly reached this point in time, and it is a mathematical fact that you cannot transverse infinity, b) unverifiable and undemonstrable, c) excluded per Occams razor because there are better cosmogonies which do not invoke infinite regression.

I thought you were the one who couldn't handle a little extra "ontological complexity"? Wasn't that your holy grail in the last argument? That more ontological entities are what entails greater complexity? (and i'm referring to God being your new ontologically independent being)

[Tiberius]

No, my post-supposition after looking at the evidence is not brought into arguments containing new evidence. That would be a foolish way to look at things.

But you have not refuted any of my arguments; and so, you are either suspending judgement (clearly not; you have directly rejected them, at least judging from your posts I've read so far), or presupposing that they are wrong (for you have not refuted them).

That is your opinion. In my opinion I have refuted your arguments, since your argument itself is circular; it requires belief in the Christian worldview for the argument to work, and the argument attempts to prove the God espoused by the Christian worldview.

If I ignore the fact that I am an atheist and do not believe in God, your argument still presents no evidence to suggest that such beings exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yep. There's a blank slate and evidence for God is yet to be placed there. So untill some is placed (and I dare anyone willing to try and do so) let's just assume it's almost certainly blank

EvF

[Jon Paul]

That is your opinion. In my opinion I have refuted your arguments, since your argument itself is circular; it requires belief in the Christian worldview for the argument to work, and the argument attempts to prove the God espoused by the Christian worldview.

That is the orthodox TAG, which is but one out of three of the arguments I have presented. There is both the other transcendental argument, which is more of an after-the-effect than an analytic argument; and there is the argument from potentiality and actuality. You have refuted neither of them. But then, you haven't refuted the orthodox TAG, either.

The orthodox TAG is not circular, because it does not both begin and end with the premise and the conclusion that one must presuppose Christianity. It's not, premise: the presupposition of Christianity is necessary, and conclusion: the presupposition of Christianity is necessary. It's only after the conclusion that one must presuppose Christianity for the argument to work; but if you don't grant the argument it's validity, that will never be the case, and you will never have to presuppose the truth of Christianity to begin with. If the argument is right, and it's conclusion true that the presupposition of Christianity is necessary, however, then of course the presupposition of Christianity is necessary. That is not circular, because it was not the premise with which the argument began; but the conclusion it reached, which after the conclusion is reaches, necessitates that it is presupposed.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you are trying to provide several arguments at once JP. A suggestion then, a little tip: Demonstrate just one of them to be at all evidence for God and then you can focus on the others perhaps? Because as far as I'm concerend they all fail and there's no evidence for God at all. I don't need evidence from three sources...all I need is any evidence from any source, and if you can't even do that, then there's no point trying to do more than that.

Also see my post before this one on the matter of how atheists don't need to prove logic to exist outside themselves, conceptual is fine. That's all we have evidnence of, logic is how we measure reality.

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

Yeah Adrian,

It does not begin and end with presupposing Christianity! It ends with presupposing Christianity so therefore you need to begin by presupposing Christianity!

Wait, what?

Seriously JP, I read that paragraph three times and still come to the same conclusion.

The thrust of all your arguments rely on the listener already being a theist. I see that you THINK that the TAG necesitates a Christian worldview but all it really does is validate an existing Christian worldview.

You are succeeding in expanding my vocabulary as well as philosophical knowledge though so thanks!
Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

It does not begin and end with presupposing Christianity! It ends with presupposing Christianity so therefore you need to begin by presupposing Christianity!

So therefore, the Christians, who happened to formulate this argument, who already believed in Christianity were right in doing so, and the atheists wrong in not doing so. I've already said it's an analytic argument, that analyses already-existing worldviews. That doesn't make it circular, it means it's analysis of actually existing beliefs in reality.

but all it really does is validate an existing Christian worldview.

Exactly. It validates one worldview and falsifies another. The premise for doing so is that those worldviews already existed; and they obviously did, as foundational beliefs or non-beliefs.

You are succeeding in expanding my vocabulary as well as philosophical knowledge though so thanks!
Rhizo

That's what's great about philosophical discussion. Besides, when learning new words, we also learn new things about what the words refer to.

---

So you are trying to provide several arguments at once JP. A suggestion then, a little tip: Demonstrate just one of them to be at all evidence for God

They are themselves demonstrations and evidence of God. [they are arguments that arrive at the conclusion of Gods existence]

As to whether you will accept them, I am afraid I consider it irrelevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

As to whether you will accept them, I am afraid I consider it irrelevant.

So you're in effect content to talk to yourself?

Or are you specifically talking of me?

Anyway, if we are to proceed. Perhaps we should be clear on this definition of "God" that you are claiming to somehow be able to prove...

I define him as the supernatural creator of the universe, do you?

In which case, where is he? Or what evidence do you have that somehow shows he exists? This talk of transcendence does fuck-all for his existence, because not only is there no evidence for transedence, but transcendent things can exist without God. And to speak of a transcendent mind is more complex than something that's merely transendent. So you are speaking of something more improbable of transcendence. And you are yet to provide evidence for transcedence, "God", any 'objective mind' that you speak of (whether you are using that as just another synonym for God...or not).....or indeed, actual 'logic' that isn't conceptual.

'Logic' exists inside our heads and on paper, it's a way we measure our percieved apparant rationality of the universe which in our experience seems to exist. There's no evidence that 'logic' or any 'values' objectively exists outside the universe. 'Truth' can only exist outside in the sense of existence itself existing objectively, and it being objectively 'true' that something either does or does not exist.

So where's your evidence for God, anything transcednent whatsoever, or 'logic' or any 'values' whatsoever, existing objectively 'out there'?

EvF

[Jon Paul]

(and i'm referring to God being your new ontologically independent being)

No, because God would not be a "new" ontologically independent being; he would be the only ontologically independent and subsistent being, and any other being would be contingent upon him. Besides, the question is not whether we should add God just for kicks, to add more complexity, but whether he is necessary minimally, for the existence of the universe. The doctrine of divine simplicity, that God is noncomposite (pure actuality), and that all of his attributes are equal to the same fact of his being and existence, makes him, nevertheless, the simplest possible ontological unit in existence, simpler than any unit in the universe, which is always composite (of both actuality and potentiality) and whose attributes followingly do not equal the same fact of their being and existence.

Logic doesn't need to exist outside our subjective minds for objective reality to exist. Logic is how we measure the reality we experience through our own experience.

No, but logic needs to apply outside of our minds as a conceptual reality. Obviously logic means the rules and laws of reality that apply to matter and energy, and in time and space, but logic is not itself matter, energy or time and space; it is itself conceptual, because it is that which applies to matter, and energy, and in time and space, e.g. the rules and patterns of their behaviour, but is not it self any of them.

I have read the argument, its utterly unconvincing for the reasons given.

I don't care if it's unconvincing; nevertheless, it's unrefuted.

Whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds or,

I've never asked if the "theory of evolution" exists independently of human minds, but whether the truth of it does, that is, whether the conceptual content of it such as described in the theory actually conceptually applies to reality, exists independently of human minds or only exists in human minds.

---

So you're in effect content to talk to yourself?

Or are you specifically talking of me?

No, but I cannot force you, by any means, to accept something as true. That will, in the end, have to depend on your own free will.

I can only await a refutation, and if it does not come, disregard your conclusions.

[Rhizomorph13]

Ok JP,

What I meant by validate was that it makes people who already believe in god feel they have an intelligent reason for their belief. I would refute your beliefs by saying that morality, theology, psychology, religion, law, politics, science, economics, democracy, socialism, in fact all things relating to ways of measuring reality are in fact subjective constructs of the human mind. Yes, even science, which really only considers any conclusion as a subjective approximation of understanding reality.

1) Humans can't comprehend things objectively
2) All constructs of the human mind are inherently subjective because (1)
3) Therefore there is no way to establish anything as objectively real

Rhizo