Why all god claims fail.

[Brian37]

Not only are they projections of human desires, there is no way to postulate "eternity" with an infinite cognition as the starting point. You cannot claim everything has a cause then ignore the implication that your "super cause" has to have a cause itself.

"Eternity" is only plausible as an up and down cycle without a cognition. Much like a light switch goes from off to on back to off. As soon as you postulate a super hero as the cause of that cycle, then it begs the question as to what caused that super hero, and what caused that super hero and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress".

[ignoramus]

But, but, special pleading please!
Give the theists something to hook onto.

If our souls are not eternal, what's the point of living?

(I forgot! Fragile egos)

[vorlon13]

BECAUSE JESUS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vorlon13]

Damn, my avatar was hellishly fantastic before, and now that I have the animation working, it fucking ROCKS !!!

Praise Jebus !!!

[ignoramus]

It sure was! (Remind us what you had before?) Hehe

[AFTT47]

Thanks Brian but I think most of us have already figuredl that out. More appropriate for a new atheist forum.

[Brian37]

Thanks Brian but I think most of us have already figuredl that out. More appropriate for a new atheist forum.

Why does everyone assume this is written for the vets?

[robvalue]

All the God claims fail to entice me, regardless of their truth. They just happen to be really stupid as well. Even if they weren't, I'm not looking for giant asses to kiss.

[vorlon13]

Speaking for yourself, of course . . . .

[Neo-Scholastic]

As soon as you postulate a super hero as the cause of that cycle, then it begs the question as to what caused that super hero, and what caused that super hero and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress".

So what then is your solution to the infinite regress?

This problem of infinite applies only to any sequence in which potential posterior causes necessarily depend on actual prior causes. The dependency of the posterior on the prior is what distinguishes an accidentally order sequence from an essentially ordered one. The solution to an infinite regress in an essentially ordered sequence is having a fully actualized initial member to the series, a first cause, that is not contingent upon any other. In your words, that would be a "super hero" the greater than which cannot be conceived.

However, if you believe all causal chains are accidental sequences, then of course, a world of non-contingent causes could extend into the infinite past without contradiction. This position comes at great cost. Such a world would be absurd since there would be no reason for posterior causes to follow prior causes. You can assert that they do as a "brute fact" but that is the opposite of supplying a reason. It's a simple choice based on blind faith about in what type of world you believe we live.