An infinite progress

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Infinite regress is the argument that theists use, not atheists. 

But only because theists have an Aristotle fetish. The idea that an infinite regress is absurd comes from him.

I can see why he thought that, though. It doesn't really make sense. The big issue, though, is that Aristotle's prime mover nor God explains away an infinite regress. Because "How did God get there?" We are told God is self-caused, but that seems ad hoc to me. I could just as easily imagine God being created by "proto-God." Can anyone prove otherwise?

And if God is self-caused, there’s no reason the Universe couldn’t be.

Boru

[Simon Moon]

I am a Christian. 

That being said, I am also a human. 

I have the same flaws as all the rest of you. 

Yes, individual humans are flawed. That is why the scientific method is so important. It has very good ways to eliminate the flaws of individual humans involved in the process.

Most importantly, the scientific method is self correcting and removes confirmation bias.

Science does not make proclamations of truth, or certainty. It creates models that best fit observable facts.

Of course this will lead to a view of the universe that is much more likely to be accurate.

THAT being said . . . why? Why is your view of the universe, no, of the Cosmos correct?

How does your method go about correcting itself when it is wrong, and how does it remove confirmation bias? Because after all, there are plenty of other religions other than your version of Christianity, that have yet other views of the cosmos than yours. And I am sure you'd probably agree, that their view has been shaped by their confirmation bias, based on their particular religious texts.

[Nay_Sayer]

My view of the universe is correct because FSM has told me it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Infinite regress is the argument that theists use, not atheists. 

But only because theists have an Aristotle fetish. The idea that an infinite regress is absurd comes from him.

I can see why he thought that, though. It doesn't really make sense. The big issue, though, is that Aristotle's prime mover nor God explains away an infinite regress. Because "How did God get there?" We are told God is self-caused, but that seems ad hoc to me. I could just as easily imagine God being created by "proto-God." Can anyone prove otherwise?

Maybe gods are created, ultimately, the same way we are.  For there to be a waterfall god, nature has to build the waterfall.

My view, if nature does build waterfalls, and those waterfalls are a meaningful causal agent in some circumstance of consequence in our lives - that's a more direct and demonstrable route to godhood or divine authority than some flirty ghost who played in the mud one day.

[Jehanne]

But only because theists have an Aristotle fetish. The idea that an infinite regress is absurd comes from him.

I can see why he thought that, though. It doesn't really make sense. The big issue, though, is that Aristotle's prime mover nor God explains away an infinite regress. Because "How did God get there?" We are told God is self-caused, but that seems ad hoc to me. I could just as easily imagine God being created by "proto-God." Can anyone prove otherwise?

And if God is self-caused, there’s no reason the Universe couldn’t be.

Boru

Perhaps the Cosmos has always existed:

The Physical Review Letters -- Quasi-Isotropic Cycles and Nonsingular Bounces in a Mixmaster Cosmology

[HappySkeptic]

Or, as in the Heechee Saga, the Heechee try to engineer a new Big Bang that will be better suited to material intelligence, while the Foe try to engineer one that will contain only energy and energy beings.

The multiverse then evolves its own gods.

[Astreja]

I don't know if my view of the cosmos is correct or not, but it doesn't seem to require gods, and it definitely doesn't require me to believe in them.

[Fake Messiah]

Why is your view of the universe, no, of the Cosmos correct?

Because it is based on observation by people who study nature for many years and generations, and not what some anonymous ancient writer claimed to have heard spirits telling him, after which another group of people had a meeting where they also claimed to be led by spirits and chose his version of cosmos out of other conflicting ones written by other guys who claimed to be led by spirits - like it is with the cosmology in the Bible and the Quran.

[FortyTwo]

I tend to like a scientific view of the cosmos. Because science strives toward accuracy. And if science ever finds itself to be inaccurate, it modifies its theories. It improves over time, corrects its own mistakes.

Granted, however, "science" has no way to gather ANY information before the Planck time. However, "science" has, almost by definition, an infinite amount of data that can be discovered after the Plank time. Answers, then, must depend on the future, not the past. Quantam theory has no problem postulating that effect can proceed cause, Therefore, would not an infinitely powerful and complex "being" in the future trump (pardon the expression) and almost infinitely simple, first-order cause in the past?

---

  Can't just cherry pick the good stuff. You've got to take everything that's in the mix.  

Cheers.

Not at work.

Forgive me . . . wait . . . that's my job!!!   Still, I did not postulate, in any way whatsoever, a cosmos without suffering or a cosmos that complied with your high ideals and standards. Why attack a position I did not espouse?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

"Before the Plank time" ?

Isn't 'Plank' just something like the smallest possible measurement 'Of' time and hence doesn't quite have anything to do with 'Before' time?

Also, since we're now thinking back to such things surely we have to have new concepts and words for things that are litteraly outside of space and time?

Calling dibs on 'Kitty-thulhu' as the measurement of cuteness!