Infinite Tortoise Problem (Turtles all the way down)

[otseng]

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

The first cause problem is often used as an argument against the existence of a god.

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

"If God created/designed everything, then what created/designed God?"

For debate:
Is it infinite turtles all the way down?
Is it logical to use this argument against the existence of God?

[Goat]

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

The first cause problem is often used as an argument against the existence of a god.

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

"If God created/designed everything, then what created/designed God?"

For debate:
Is it infinite turtles all the way down?
Is it logical to use this argument against the existence of God?

It is only logical to use that arguement if someone is using the whole 'everything has a cause, except the first cause' arguement. It is not so much a valid arguemetn on it's own, but it is showing the weakness of the arguement of 'everything has a cause, except god' arguement for god.

[Bugmaster]

It seems intuitively true to me that there can't be infinite turtles, but just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it's actually true. I still haven't seen a good philosophical defence of this argument. Harvey tried, but we got bogged down in tangents...

[otseng]

I'm not sure if I can do any better than harvey1, but let me try a hand at it.

I do not think the infinite turtle problem is a good argument for the non-existence of God. Here's why.

When the atom was first proposed, it was considered the most basic part of matter (atom means "indivisible"). Then it was discovered to be comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then these are discovered to be made of quarks, gluons, photons, neutrinos, et al. Then the next question is, what are these made of? When we think that we've reached the bottom turtle, we find another turtle under that. Conceivably, there could be infinite turtles in the subatomic world. Who knows?

Just because we do not know the lower turtles, that does not mean the higher turtles cannot exist. We do not deny that quarks exist simply because we do not truly understand what they are made of. Likewise, just because we don't know what created God, then that does not mean that God cannot exist.

[QED]

Just because we do not know the lower turtles, that does not mean the higher turtles cannot exist. We do not deny that quarks exist simply because we do not truly understand what they are made of. Likewise, just because we don't know what created God, then that does not mean that God cannot exist.

That's true. But as you've already mentioned we might ask what there is to distinguish the creator God (of unknown origin) from his supposed creation. This is also of unknown origin (if we drop our preconceptions for a moment) and it seems purely anthropomorphic to suppose the need for a creator to bring it about when the same logic that permits such a creator could be used less redundantly to bring about the creation directly.

I think we traditionally look for an intelligence in the knowledge that our own intellect is what drives our own creative processes. What seems to be overlooked in drawing upon this analogy is the long apprenticeship served in developing the sort of intellect we are all familiar with. How can we expect knowledge to come out of nowhere ready and complete?

[Cathar1950]

Who taught God?
Or
Who is God's daddy?
These are two questions that Harold Bloom goes over when talking about Western
Theistic philosophy. Most cosmological arguments miss the point.
Given my bias of non-dualism it makes perfect sense that God is also contingent.
Despite Metacrock's claims, I think this is Whitehead and Hartshorne's ideas of God. Even in the Scriptures, which I do not find, inspired or sometimes even inspiring there are at least two notions about creation. One that God creates out of nothing the other older one, that God creates from chaos. Is the beginning a singularity or is it pure chaos?
So I guess I like the bottom up design not the top down.

I don't know why but whenever I get into philosophy I start feeling stoned.

[otseng]

That's true. But as you've already mentioned we might ask what there is to distinguish the creator God (of unknown origin) from his supposed creation. This is also of unknown origin (if we drop our preconceptions for a moment) and it seems purely anthropomorphic to suppose the need for a creator to bring it about when the same logic that permits such a creator could be used less redundantly to bring about the creation directly.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Are you suggesting that the universe created itself?

Also, let me give another tortoise illustration. Evolutionists readily accept evolution without the need to explain abiogenesis. Even though abiogenesis has no known mechanism, is not reproducible, and doesn't even have a viable hypothesis. Yet evolution is fully embraced. So, even though the lower turtle is unknown, the higher turtle is not questioned.

[Goat]

That's true. But as you've already mentioned we might ask what there is to distinguish the creator God (of unknown origin) from his supposed creation. This is also of unknown origin (if we drop our preconceptions for a moment) and it seems purely anthropomorphic to suppose the need for a creator to bring it about when the same logic that permits such a creator could be used less redundantly to bring about the creation directly.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Are you suggesting that the universe created itself?

Also, let me give another tortoise illustration. Evolutionists readily accept evolution without the need to explain abiogenesis. Even though abiogenesis has no known mechanism, is not reproducible, and doesn't even have a viable hypothesis. Yet evolution is fully embraced. So, even though the lower turtle is unknown, the higher turtle is not questioned.

Are you suggesting that God created himself? And while abiogenesis does hot have a known mechanism (yet), a lot of the principles that allow for many of the
organic peices to get into place are known.

You are taking an unkonwn and projecting a supernatural solution on it. That is what is known as the 'God of the Gaps'.. and it takes away from God. When the
problem on how abiogenesis happened , and the problem of how the universe formed happened, does that mean God goes away?? Does it mean God gets smaller??

[otseng]

Are you suggesting that God created himself? And while abiogenesis does hot have a known mechanism (yet), a lot of the principles that allow for many of the
organic peices to get into place are known.

You are taking an unkonwn and projecting a supernatural solution on it. That is what is known as the 'God of the Gaps'.. and it takes away from God. When the
problem on how abiogenesis happened , and the problem of how the universe formed happened, does that mean God goes away?? Does it mean God gets smaller??

I am merely addressing the philosophical argument of the infinite tortoise problem. And showing that it has no logical basis to it.

I believe I have effectively demonstrated by natural examples the fallacy of the infinite tortoise argument. And whether it is being applied to natural or supernatural entities is immaterial. One cannot say that the argument is valid for supernatural things, but not valid of natural things, or even vice-versa. Either the argument holds true for all or for none.

[Goat]

Are you suggesting that God created himself? And while abiogenesis does hot have a known mechanism (yet), a lot of the principles that allow for many of the
organic peices to get into place are known.

You are taking an unkonwn and projecting a supernatural solution on it. That is what is known as the 'God of the Gaps'.. and it takes away from God. When the
problem on how abiogenesis happened , and the problem of how the universe formed happened, does that mean God goes away?? Does it mean God gets smaller??

I am merely addressing the philosophical argument of the infinite tortoise problem. And showing that it has no logical basis to it.

I believe I have effectively demonstrated by natural examples the fallacy of the infinite tortoise argument. And whether it is being applied to natural or supernatural entities is immaterial. One cannot say that the argument is valid for supernatural things, but not valid of natural things, or even vice-versa. Either the argument holds true for all or for none.

IMO, your examples were not part of the 'infinate turtles' arguement. The problem is the evolution doesn't care where life came from for it's predictions, nor does the various developing concepts on how abiogensis happen care how matter came into existance. It merely cares about how organic matter came onto the earth, and the chemical reactions that could happen. In neither case, do you get into an infinite regression to attempt to answer a question about something, nor do you get into a special pleading for the 'solution' to them.