The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[The Grand Nudger]

GN, if you're saying what St. Peter did: "15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.",(1 Pet 3:15), then I agree with you. 

I'm not saying that at all, in fact I'd call that one of the earliest forms in christian canon of the lie you're telling yourself right now.  

You don't have a reason to tell.  You've already acknowledged this on these boards.  Keeping some reason ready to tell is having a close lie of convenience. Gentleness and respect are non starters. You could gently and respectfully lie about some reason, but that's all it would be, and that's all you've done. Just a never-ending list of throwaway reasons, thread to thread, and not a one of them actually matter to you.

Well, you shouldn't be surprised that they mean as much to us as they mean to you, eh?

[Nishant Xavier]

Successively adding what an infinite number of times? That sounds like begging the question. You need to prove this premise: "By successive addition, I can get to an Actual Infinite". Your response is: "If I successively add an infinite number of times, I can".

It does not prove the point. When you successively add numbers 1,2,3 on the paper, why don't you get to an Actual Infinite? According to you, "If I successively add an infinite number of times, I can". So do that, and then I'll concede the argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still arguing, and arguing incompetently, rather than connecting.

[Nishant Xavier]

GN, you seem to be missing the point of what a cumulative case is. All the factors mentioned add to the cumulative case for Christ. It doesn't have to be any one of them in isolation. Btw, Scripture and Catholic Teaching forbid lying and bearing false witness, as false witnesses lyingly did against Christ at His Trial. We are not bearing false witness or lying. We are bearing witness to the Truth, like the Apostles and Martyrs for Christ did. It's true we've not directly seen Christ Risen as they did. But other than that, as they experienced Him, we've experienced Him too, and thus bear true witness to Him Who is Truth. I'm content to leave it at that for now. Pray and seek, and you will find the Truth. Those who want the Truth will find it. The evidence has already been given.

[GrandizerII]

Grandizer, ok, thanks for that; any comments on what I said to Polymath earlier on, that if you start writing 1,2,3, etc on pieces of paper, will you, or others after you, ever get to infinity? If not, and he seemed to agree this series formed by successive addition would always be finite, so if you do too, then why doesn't that apply in reverse? If we imagine points on the timeline to be -15 BN (give or take), when time began, then it is clear that, with the elapse of seconds, we can finally get to the present, t=0, at some point, which is today. But if it was actually infinite, how did it ever become a finite number in the first place? I asked the same in reverse when I said, if you did get to an Actual Infinite on one page, what number were you on 10 pages earlier? You see, the difference between the finite and the infinite cannot be transcended by successive addition; that's what we're saying. So would you agree with that, or would you dispute it? It seems to me that, if we agree that by writing numbers on pieces of paper, we, or others after us, could never reach an Actual Infinite, then the same applies in reverse. Granted that we got to 0, we did not start infinitely many years ago. We started, according to some, around 13.7 BN years ago, and according to others, around 15-20 BN years ago.

I get what you're saying, and I sympathize with the intuition that leads you to think this way. The problem, however, is what does it even mean to start from infinity? Just as we can't make sense of "ending in infinity", we can't make sense of "starting from infinity". Or at least, I can't. So you will have to make clear what you mean by this exactly, to make your conclusion as persuasive as possible.

But again, I'm not an A-theorist when it comes to the flow of time, so all this is a non-issue for me.

[Bucky Ball]

NX

GN, you seem to be missing the point of what a cumulative case is. All the factors mentioned add to the cumulative case for Christ. It doesn't have to be any one of them in isolation. Btw, Scripture and Catholic Teaching forbid lying and bearing false witness, as false witnesses lyingly did against Christ at His Trial. We are not bearing false witness or lying. We are bearing witness to the Truth, like the Apostles and Martyrs for Christ did. It's true we've not directly seen Christ Risen as they did. But other than that, as they experienced Him, we've experienced Him too, and thus bear true witness to Him Who is Truth. I'm content to leave it at that for now. Pray and seek, and you will find the Truth. Those who want the Truth will find it. The evidence has already been given.

So you claim. You have no cumulative case, or any case.
Anything you claim about your religion, FAR FAR more people, billions upon billions of them in other religions can claim to have had all the same subjective experiences you claim.
A lot of people on drugs have the same experiences.
Your endorphin and oxytocin mediated brain experiences are evidence of nothing.
None of it is evidence of any kind. There is no evidence at all. Subjective experiences are not evidence. 
You really should learn how to debate. Religious experiences are sensory, brain mediated and no case at all for religion.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/religio...experience
Stick your praying and seeking up your ass. We don't pray. How stupid are you ? If you actually think someone can pray who has no beliefs, you're even more stupid than we thought.

There was no trial of Jesus. The gospels state very different things about them, they're not even on the same day.
What other Galilean peasants got trials before Roman aristocrats ?

BTW, you're teaching the heresy of Feeneyism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeneyism

[GrandizerII]

Successively adding what an infinite number of times? That sounds like begging the question. You need to prove this premise: "By successive addition, I can get to an Actual Infinite". Your response is: "If I successively add an infinite number of times, I can".

It does not prove the point. When you successively add numbers 1,2,3 on the paper, why don't you get to an Actual Infinite? According to you, "If I successively add an infinite number of times, I can". So do that, and then I'll concede the argument.

Logically speaking, an eternal being can add an infinite number of times, so Angrboda isn't being illogical here. Call it begging the question all you want, but this sounds very trivially true.

You seem to not understand what she is saying actually.

I can count forever, logically speaking. But it doesn't mean that if I were to count forever, I would eventually finish counting.

ETA:
Actually, I can't see where Angrboda said what you claim she said. Even though it's not logically wrong.

[Angrboda]

Successively adding what an infinite number of times? That sounds like begging the question. You need to prove this premise: "By successive addition, I can get to an Actual Infinite". Your response is: "If I successively add an infinite number of times, I can".

It does not prove the point. When you successively add numbers 1,2,3 on the paper, why don't you get to an Actual Infinite? According to you, "If I successively add an infinite number of times, I can". So do that, and then I'll concede the argument.

If by "do that" you mean perform the task then I think you are confused, as if I am adding an infinite number of times or for an infinite amount of time then the task never finishes and so it isn't in any sense performed [to completion]. That's because infinite series, my additions in this case, never end, and so I never stop.

Here is the point from two eminent philosophers who I suspect know a sight more than you do about the subject:

@16:40 - 18:40

Adrian Moore, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford and author of The Infinite
Alex Malpass, Philosophy, Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Bristol

[Bucky Ball]

I have to admit, I experienced the same thing as NX.
I also had some pasta (which the wafer from communion is) and some wine.
Then I felt all warm and fuzzy, too. I swear.

This is only a small part (which I get to claim also) without actually stating it, of my cumulative case for Pastafarianism.
If you're not marinated in the waters of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are not saved.
This is of the same importance to your eternal life as any BS claimed here.
All my subjective experiences are proof of this, and it's a cumulative case which Pastafarianism is.
I have many more miracle to cite regarding the magic colander. You are so fortunate I chose to preach here.

[Bucky Ball]

Look, it's very simple. If Christians are right, then we're giving you a gift of Priceless Value in telling you about Christ and the Gospel, since the Reward is Eternal Happiness for those who get it right. Those who get it right earlier on even moreso. If, however, we're wrong, then we're just wrong, and it's all meaningless anyway. And if morality is subjective, since we subjectively intend to do good, then that should be good under Atheism also, lol.

Not all that funny. 
Pascal's Wager. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/01/0...e%20finite.
Did you take Philosophy at all, ever ? 

So what you really are saying is that we should proclaim our belief even if we don't, 
and that your gods are so fucking stupid they won't know the difference.

ETA : pascal's Wager has been debunked.