The End of Religious Debates

[Dawnofhope]

If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

Thought provoking thread indeed. You've probably seen this before and I share it again

"Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion." Abdu'l-Baha

Peace and Blessing upon us all

 

[sayak83]

U don't get my point. Actually impossibility of infinite regress is so clear that doesn't need any further arguments.

Sorry to disappoint you, but infinite regress is very much possible.

But for u I'm trying to say u consider A and B beginningless. This isn't our assumption. Your mistake is that u consider all the chain as necessary existents. In this case all of these existents have no beginning and no ending and actually they haven't created each other so discussing about A created B and vice versa is senseless.

This needs other arguments.

Right now we assume that these existents created each other. In this assumption can u say they are beginningless????

It's senseless to consider A created B while A itself was created by B. This is impossible. Right?????

The series ....ABABABAB... is beginningless even though each and every copy of A exists only for an instant created by the previous copy of B in the previous instant and creating the next copy of of B in the next instant. Similar case for B. Thus, the following simple set of causal rules,

1) A is created by B in an instant, and in turn creates B in the next instant
2) B is created by A in an instant, and in turn creates A in the next instant
3) Either A or B exists in a given instant

Is sufficient to logically and consistently describe the beginningless and endless series .....ABABABABAB.....
To say such a thing cannot possibly exist just by fiat is senseless.

I don't know
I watched and read about big bang and I know that they can't see the very early after big bang because they can't see the light of that time.

Well, if you do not know, you have no grounds for assuming an absolute beginning in cosmology do you?
13 billion years ago, the universe was so dense that it was opaque. Does not mean it did not exist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But you are wanting the universe to owe you something, life after death, don't be greedy, enjoy the one you have and you wont have time to worry about another.

Wait, what? Methinks you are confused. I'm the one saying there is no life after death... that there is NOTHING. Then you said you felt sad for my belief... then I explained why you shouldn't because nothing happening after you die means you won't even be there to feel/experience anything... and then you said "don't be greedy".

 

[psychoslice]

Wait, what? Methinks you are confused. I'm the one saying there is no life after death... that there is NOTHING. Then you said you felt sad for my belief... then I explained why you shouldn't because nothing happening after you die means you won't even be there to feel/experience anything... and then you said "don't be greedy".

Oh, sorry about that, well I am then glad for you, and if there was such thing as a heaven it would be the last place I would want to be in, just imagine how boring it would be.

 

[interminable]

Sorry to disappoint you, but infinite regress is very much possible.




The series ....ABABABAB... is beginningless even though each and every copy of A exists only for an instant created by the previous copy of B in the previous instant and creating the next copy of of B in the next instant. Similar case for B. Thus, the following simple set of causal rules,

1) A is created by B in an instant, and in turn creates B in the next instant
2) B is created by A in an instant, and in turn creates A in the next instant
3) Either A or B exists in a given instant

Is sufficient to logically and consistently describe the beginningless and endless series .....ABABABABAB.....
To say such a thing cannot possibly exist just by fiat is senseless.



Well, if you do not know, you have no grounds for assuming an absolute beginning in cosmology do you?
13 billion years ago, the universe was so dense that it was opaque. Does not mean it did not exist.

I hope u can represent your argument before god if it was necessary.[emoji16] [emoji16] [emoji16]

The impossibility of infinite regress is clear I thought.

 

[psychoslice]

In the future we will all be laughing about most of religion, we have been in the dark for so long now all because of religion, yes praise the day that will happen.

 

[paarsurrey]

If I proved there is only one creator then all of the phenomenon will be ascribed to him right?

Sure.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I hope u can represent your argument before god if it was necessary.[emoji16] [emoji16] [emoji16]

The impossibility of infinite regress is clear I thought.

Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[interminable]

Please elaborate.
Regards

I've done that before in previous posts. Its impossibility is evident. Just needs to imagine that and u will conclude that it is impossible.

 

[sayak83]

I hope u can represent your argument before god if it was necessary.[emoji16] [emoji16] [emoji16]

The impossibility of infinite regress is clear I thought.

Of course infinite regress is very much possible and logical as I have shown in my posts above. What you personally believed about its possibility or impossibility is irrelevant. Do you have any further counter arguments to present? Can you find any logical flaw in the arguments I presented? If not, then your claim has been refuted.
A faith based on faulty logic is not much of a belief in my opinion.

 

[interminable]

Of course infinite regress is very much possible and logical as I have shown in my posts above. What you personally believed about its possibility or impossibility is irrelevant. Do you have any further counter arguments to present? Can you find any logical flaw in the arguments I presented? If not, then your claim has been refuted.
A faith based on faulty logic is not much of a belief in my opinion.

Unfortunately I think maybe u don't get my meaning. Impossibility of infinite regress is very very evident and actually doesn't need any arguments. U change the assumptions.
As I said before we are talking about existents that all are created one day I mean there was a time when they didn't exist. In this case I say they need something out of chain to bring them into existence.
Or maybe u believe that something can be created from nothing
If u believe so our discussion will be useless

For further information

Please define and explain vicious circle (daur) and infinite regression of causes (tasalsul)? - Questions Archive - IslamQuest is a reference for Islamic questions on the internet

 

[Cephus]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

Without proof, or at least objective evidence, in the existence of gods, nobody in their right mind should believe in one. How does someone even come up with a credible god-concept without some kind of evidence that the thing they believe in exists? All of the characteristics of all of the gods are just made up nonsense. Nobody can point to the characteristics of their supposed god and explain how they came to that conclusion objectively. How did they verify it? How do they know? The answer, of course, is that they don't. It's all crap.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.

But nobody has to disprove the existence of something that hasn't been proven in the first place. I don't have to prove the non-existence of unicorns or leprechauns. I simply reject them as unsupported concepts. Of course, I am open to evidence as it becomes available, but until it actually does become available, I'm not stupid enough to believe.

If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

Except I think theistic belief is, in and of itself, harmful. It interferes with the advancement of rational human thought. It contributes to religious tribalism, warfare and violence. It wastes time and money that could go to other, more productive things. We, as human beings ought to be better than that. So long as religion exists as a motivating force in the world, we can't be.

 

[sayak83]

Unfortunately I think maybe u don't get my meaning. Impossibility of infinite regress is very very evident and actually doesn't need any arguments. U change the assumptions.
As I said before we are talking about existents that all are created one day I mean there was a time when they didn't exist. In this case I say they need something out of chain to bring them into existence.
Or maybe u believe that something can be created from nothing
If u believe so our discussion will be useless

For further information

Please define and explain vicious circle (daur) and infinite regression of causes (tasalsul)? - Questions Archive - IslamQuest is a reference for Islamic questions on the internet

Obviously an infinite regress of existents necessarily implies that there was never a time when some existent or another did not exist. At each and every instant of time there was some existent that existed, that was caused by a previous existent in the previous instant of time and in turn caused the next existent to arise in the next instant of time. Its ridiculous to try to refute an infinite regress by presuming apriori that there was time when no existent existed. Infinite regress implies that there was no such time in the past.
Your link provides no argument whatsoever showing its logically impossible. It just assumes so by fiat. Sorry, but that won't do. The medieval Islamic logic is outdated in today's world of modern mathematics and logical analysis.

 

[interminable]

Obviously an infinite regress of existents necessarily implies that there was never a time when some existent or another did not exist. At each and every instant of time there was some existent that existed, that was caused by a previous existent in the previous instant of time and in turn caused the next existent to arise in the next instant of time. Its ridiculous to try to refute an infinite regress by presuming apriori that there was time when no existent existed. Infinite regress implies that there was no such time in the past.
Your link provides no argument whatsoever showing its logically impossible. It just assumes so by fiat. Sorry, but that won't do. The medieval Islamic logic is outdated in today's world of modern mathematics and logical analysis.

Unfortunately u don't want to understand.
Time can be understood when there is a move or there is a creation.
When an infinite existent was and hadn't created anything there was no time. By creation time can be understood.
U can't understand this fact.
Please think about it.
Infinite regress proves that there must be an existent that isn't created by anything else. So this existent has no beginning which means the concept of time is senseless if u consider this existent an infinite one.

I told u before and u accepted it that non existent doesn't exist and there is not somewhere that is non-existent.
So this infinite existent existed without time and move. He is the creator of time and everything after him.

 

[sayak83]

Unfortunately u don't want to understand.

No, it is you who is failing to understand the obvious.

Time can be understood when there is a move or there is a creation.

Ok.

When an infinite existent was and hadn't created anything there was no time.

No. In an infinite regress, there is no existant that exists for more than one instant of time. Each instant of time has one momentary existent that exists at that instant only. The previous instant of time had a different momentarily existent entity that was the latter's cause and the next instant has another momentarily existent entity which is the effect. And so on and so forth begininglessly in the past and endlessly in the future. If each existent is given an unique numbering, then this infinite regress of momentary existents take the form of the series of integers:-
....-5000, -4999, -4998,........-100, -99, -98,.......-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,.......100,101,102...............
Nothing can be simpler or logical or more consistent than a reality that so easily maps onto the number line. The endless regress is one the simplest and easiest to understand of logically possible worlds. I am confounded that you think its illogical and impossible!

By creation time can be understood.

And at every instant, one momentary existent is being destroyed and another different one created, taking its place through causation. So the flow of time remains very very comprehensible.

Infinite regress proves that there must be an existent that isn't created by anything else. So this existent has no beginning which means the concept of time is senseless if u consider this existent an infinite one.

Rubbish. See above.

I told u before and u accepted it that non existent doesn't exist and there is not somewhere that is non-existent.

I understand that your grasp of english is not good. Could you rephrase this, as its meaning is not clear due to poor construction.

So this infinite existent existed without time and move. He is the creator of time and everything after him.

More unsubstantiated claims. Refuted above.

 

[interminable]

No, it is you who is failing to understand the obvious.

Ok.

No. In an infinite regress, there is no existant that exists for more than one instant of time. Each instant of time has one momentary existent that exists at that instant only. The previous instant of time had a different momentarily existent entity that was the latter's cause and the next instant has another momentarily existent entity which is the effect. And so on and so forth begininglessly in the past and endlessly in the future. If each existent is given an unique numbering, then this infinite regress of momentary existents take the form of the series of integers:-
....-5000, -4999, -4998,........-100, -99, -98,.......-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,.......100,101,102...............
Nothing can be simpler or logical or more consistent than a reality that so easily maps onto the number line. The endless regress is one the simplest and easiest to understand of logically possible worlds. I am confounded that you think its illogical and impossible!


And at every instant, one momentary existent is being destroyed and another different one created, taking its place through causation. So the flow of time remains very very comprehensible.


Rubbish. See above.

I understand that your grasp of english is not good. Could you rephrase this, as its meaning is not clear due to poor construction.

More unsubstantiated claims. Refuted above.

As I said before u change the assumptions
If we consider all the chain are possible existent which means all are created
In this case we say infinite regress is impossible and they need to something out of chain
In this case we are discussing.

But if u consider all the chain beginningless which means they haven't created each other the discussion about infinite regress is senseless
In this case there are other arguments that prove the impossibility of two necessary existents at the same time

 

[sayak83]

As I said before u change the assumptions
If we consider all the chain are possible existent which means all are created
In this case we say infinite regress is impossible and they need to something out of chain
In this case we are discussing.

But if u consider all the chain beginningless which means they haven't created each other the discussion about infinite regress is senseless
In this case there are other arguments that prove the impossibility of two necessary existents at the same time

In an infinite regress, each link of the chain is created by the previous link in the chain. And so on beginninglessly. Completely sensible.