An infinite progress

[FortyTwo]

I am a Christian. 

That being said, I am also a human. 

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

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

The major objection you all seem to raise is the infinite regress. What about the infinite progress? If everything that is designed requires a designer more complex than itself, how does that not imply an infinitely and complex creator?

[vulcanlogician]

Hey man! Welcome to the forums.

Does everything designed require a designer more complex than itself? Maybe (shrug). Doesn't matter if there's no designer in the first place, but it might be true. What did you mean about infinite progress? Like the opposite of infinite regress? Didn't quite catch your meaning there, sorry.

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.

[FortyTwo]

Yes! EXCELLENT!!!!!  

If everything designed requires a disigner more complex than itself, does that not imply an infinitely complex designer?

[Peebothuhlu]

I am a Christian. 

That being said, I am also a human. 

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

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

The major objection you all seem to raise is the infinite regress. What about the infinite progress? If everything that is designed requires a designer more complex than itself, how does that not imply an infinitely and complex creator?

Hello!

Why is my veiw of the cosmos correct? 

Honestly... I'm not sure it is beyond a certain, simplistic sort of understanding. Earth spins. Mons orbits Earth. Earth orbits Sun. Pretty much it's all reading/listening to Astronomers after that.

Objection raised? Objection to what? You'll have to be a tad more specific other wise I'll be throwing darts at a vague target nd hoping it's in the right direction of your thoughts.

If there's a "Designer"?

Well.....

 




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

Cheers.

Not at work.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am a Christian. 

That being said, I am also a human. 

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

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

The only difference between your view of the universe and mine is that mine contains precisely one less magic man who died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for all the times we shook our peckers too hard after we took a piss.  

The major objection you all seem to raise is the infinite regress. What about the infinite progress? If everything that is designed requires a designer more complex than itself, how does that not imply an infinitely and complex creator?

I don't personally worry about infinite regress.  Gods never seem to manage to account for the first thing, let alone all things - and they're not particularly complex anyway.  They're cutouts of people.  We're their creator, in this chain of infinite progress you refer to.  Brings me right back around to my answer for your first question.  My view of the cosmos is only more accurate with respect to your own in that I'm aware of this, whereas you, allegedly, are not.

[no one]

Excuse me?! I HAVE NO FUCKING FLAWS!

I mean god is perfect, right?
How does a perfect being create flaws in the first place?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I am a Christian. 

That being said, I am also a human. 

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

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

The major objection you all seem to raise is the infinite regress. What about the infinite progress? If everything that is designed requires a designer more complex than itself, how does that not imply an infinitely and complex creator?

Infinite regress is actually used more often by theists who think it demonstrates that the universe can’t be infinitely old (it doesn’t).

Mathematically, this ‘infinite progress’ notion of yours suffers from the same issue as infinite regress, ie that you can’t traverse an infinite series.

Boru

[Rahn127]

Why is my view of reality correct ?

I try as best as I can to have the model of reality that I have in my brain match up with actual reality as close as possible.

Let's say that I see a baseball on my desk.
I reach out to touch it and my sense of touch tells me it's real.
I can weigh it and other objects in reality react to it's presence.
I can drop it and it seems to behave as other objects behave when it comes to the force of gravity.
I can submerge it in water and it will displace an equal volume of water.
I can ask another fellow human if they can perform the same tests. Hopefully they will confirm my beliefs concerning the reality of the baseball.

All of the evidence we gather can be recorded and submitted to show that my internal model of reality matches with actual reality.

Now let's say that someone comes along and says that they believe that a tiny invisible, intangible man is building an invisible, intangible house on the surface of the baseball.

That belief doesn't seem to match with reality.
There is no evidence of a tiny invisible, intangible man.

In much the same way, there is no evidence for any gods.
You are free to believe in them if you do wish, but your internal model of the world doesn't seem to match up with reality.

When it comes to the idea of a designer, I'll try my best to describe it to you like this.

If we look at a painting we can see the brush strokes of the artist. We can examine the paint they used. We can describe the paint in terms of color and chemical composition.

The artist and his or her intelligence is a product of nature. The paints, the canvas, the frame, the brushes are all products of nature. Nature produced the artist. Nature came first.

Nature must exist first.
Intelligence is a product nature.
The carbon in our bodies was produced in a star.
It didn't magically appear.

The chemicals that form the paint existed in the ground for millions of years before humans existed, before intelligence existed. The nature of it existed first long before the artist.

For anything that exists, the properties it has are natural properties. If something exists the properties of it's existence are detailed by the nature it exists in.

Nature is the initial requirement BEFORE anything can exist.

[brewer]

Yes! EXCELLENT!!!!!  

If everything designed requires a disigner more complex than itself, does that not imply an infinitely complex designer?

Hello new entity. We have heard this argument many many times. Can we interest you in making and introduction thread? It would indicate that you're here for more than just preaching.

A thing that is less complex does not require a designer to become (or become a part of) something more complex. And vice versa. No designer necessary.

[Spongebob]

Case in point for complexity. The global economy is inarguably a complex thing. Did any single entity design it? No. It developed over the millennia of billions of humans interacting. Not even the same humans because they all eventually die. And not all of the humans have worked in concert while forming this economy. Complexity can emerge from diversity.

I suppose if I were a theist, I might spend far more of my time attempting to discern the nature and purpose of existence instead of trying to convince others that it was all created for some unknown purpose.