God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

First off, by "universe", I mean all physical reality govern by natural law. This would include universes that we know/don’t know about.

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is past eternal.

Justification: We know that the universe exist, and if there is no transcendent supernatural cause, then either

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

I think we can safely remove posit A from the equation (unless there is someone who thinks it is a plausible explanation).

Let’s focus on posit B.

Based on posit B, we need not provide any naturalistic explanation as to the cause of our universe, considering the fact that the term “universe” applies (as mentioned earlier) to all physical reality, which means that any naturalistic explanation one provides is already accounted for as “eternal”.

And if God does not exist, then physical reality (the universe) is all there is, and thus must be eternal.

2. If the universe is not past eternal, then God exists.

Justification: If the universe (all physical reality) is NOT eternal, then it had a beginning.

Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary.

If “nature” had a beginning, one cannot logically use nature to explain the origin of nature, and to do so is fallacious.

So, where nature stops, supernatural begins.

3. The universe is not past eternal.

Justification: If the universe is past eternal, then the causal chain of events (cause and effect) within the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because infinity cannot be traversed or “reached”.

If the past is eternal, that would mean that there are an infinite amount of “days” which lead to today. But in order for us to have “arrived” to today, an infinite amount of days would have to be traversed (one by one), which is impossible, because infinite cannot be “reached”.

Consider thought analogy..

Sandman analogy: Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole. By “bottomless”, of course if one was to fall into the hole, he would fall forever and ever and ever.

Now, imagine the man is surrounded by an infinite amount of sand, which is at his disposal.

Imagine if the man has been shoveling sand into this hole for an infinite amount of time (he never began shoveling, or he never stopped shoveling, he has been shoveling forever).

Imagine if the man’s plan was to shovel sand into the hole until he successfully filled the sand from the bottom, all the way to the top of the hole.

How long will it take him to accomplish this? Will he ever accomplish this task? No. Why? Because the sand is bottomless, so no matter how fast he shoveled, or how long he shoveled, the sand will never reach the top.

So lets put it all together…

The sand falling: Represents time travel, and the trajectory of the sand falling south of the top represents time traveling into the past, which is synonymous with past eternity.

The man shoveling: Represents the “present”, as the man is presently shoveling without halt. This is synonymous with our present causal reality. We are presently in a state of constant change, without halt.

Conclusion: If the sand cannot reach the bottom of the hole (because of no boundary/foundation) and it can’t be filled from the bottom-up to the present (man), then how, if there is no past boundary to precedent days, how could we have possibly reached the present day…if there is/was no beginning foundation (day).

However, lets say a gazillion miles down the hole, there is a foundation…then the hole will be filled in a finite amount of time, and it will be filled from the bottom-up.

But ONLY if there is a foundation.

Likewise, we can only reach today if and ONLY IF there is a beginning point of reference, a foundation in the distant past.

4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist: As explained, infinite regression is impossible, so an uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

This UCC cannot logically be a product of any precedent cause or conditions, thus, it exists necessarily (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC cannot logically depend on any external entity for it’s existence (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC is the foundation for any/everything which began to exist, which included by not limited to all physical reality…but mainly, the universe an everything in it.

This UCC would also have to have free will, which explains why the universe began at X point instead of Y point...and the reason is; it began at that point because that is when the UCC decided it should begin...and only a being with free will can decide to do anything.

This UCC would have to have the power to create from nothing (as there was no preexisting physical matter to create from, before it was created).

So, based on the truth value of the argument, what can we conclude of the UCC?

1. It is a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being
2. A being of whom has existed for eternity and can never cease existing
3. A being with the greatest power imaginable (being able to create from nothing)
4. A being with free will, thus, a being with a mind

This being in question is what theists have traditionally recognized as God. God exists.

In closing, I predict the whole "well, based on your argument, God cannot be infinite".

My response to that for now is; first admit the validity of the presented argument, and THEN we will discuss why the objection raised doesn't apply to God.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #441

Post by JoeyKnothead »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:20 pm
Diogenes wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:33 pm
:D I've singled out these two unsupported claims as representative of the 'logic' you employ. You make claims with zero support.
Singling out is a form of discrimination :D
It might well seem to the ignorant that addressing particular points of their argument's just as troubling as not hiring a black guy cause he wears him his britches funny.

But ya know, emoticons.

A more disgusting display of an inability to address the issues I've never known.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #442

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Bradskii wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:52 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:06 pm
No, a faulty conclusion would be "we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore, birds evolved from reptiles"
Yeah. The correct statement would be 'we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore we have even more evidence that birds evolved from reptiles'.
Which wouldn't make the statement any more correct. Still looks faulty to me.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #443

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm We are in agreement that you made a claim. You have not made a convincing case.
You don't feel as if I've made a convincing case....and I don't expect anything different.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm You are making the ancient claim of an uncaused 'First Cause." You call it 'God.' I call it the universe, or existence.
But I've already explained to you, even in our brief discourse here, as to why the universe cannot be an uncaused 'First Cause'.

You've yet to address this point (or hardly any point), so as far as I'm concerned, the point still stands.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm There is nothing new here. I agree with Andrew Loke that, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, only things which begin to exist require a cause, while something that is without a beginning has always existed and therefore does not require a cause.
I mean, that is all kind of obvious, isn't it?
Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm There is another GIANT and unwarranted assumption you make, even if we assume for the argument there is an 'uncaused cause.' You claim that First Cause is a theistic 'god.' Do you go further? Do you claim this 'god' has a personality? How do you describe this 'god' you posit must exist?
I don't need to go further, because the positive case for a theistic god in itself is enough of a defeater of atheism/agnosticism/naturalism.

And besides that, the question of whether this god has a personality was answered in the OP.

I kindly ask you to read the OP before replying to posts.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #444

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm You allow your argument for a god based on principles and notions ya disallow for the universe, such as claiming the universe was created but your god wasn't.
Um, no. I did not just merely claim that the universe was created. I laid out a case against infinite regression, which explicitly states why the universe could not have existed for eternity.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm But just in case I'm wrong on it, I'll retract my accusation of special pleading, and replace it with argumentum ad goofium.
Anyways..
Your argument injects an unproven, unprovable claim - God exists - then disregards the question of that god's origins.
Until I get a rational debunking of the argument as laid out in the OP, it stands.

All of this "your argument is unproven" statements are just empty, blank assertions with no basis or substance, besides the "I just don't like the idea of god" mentality coming from those that are making the assertions.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Plenty fair. It ain't it so special an argument when so many theists seek to present it.

But otherwise, it merely pushes the origin question back another step.
See, that is the point, no it ISN'T pushing the question of origins back another step. That is the whole point, the question of origins cannot be pushed back any further; it begins/ends with the Uncaused Cause.
You propose a "cause" for the universe, and contend that "cause" is of "supernatural", or "exonatural" origin.

It's my firm convictions such a thing is most likely considered a " god".

However, of you now accept the earthworm theory of the universe acoming it to be, we can forget all that.
I gave reasons why the uncaused cause must be supernatural. The more my reasons remain unaddressed, the more I satisfyingly continue to take the W.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm I respect my opponents, and do my best not to mischaracterize their arguments. In this matter I leave it to the observer to decide on if I have or not.
:ok:
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Then here ya go, do tell us all..
Looks to me like I already did (the OP).
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm I challenge you to show the following..

1. 1st step I promised not to ask
2. You know what this 'almighty', disallowed in step 1, is 'really up to'
3. When he 'created' the universe.
:?:
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Please wait about four minutes after the time of my posting here, while pretty thing fixes me a bowl of popcorn.
How long have you and him been involved?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Birds have a gene that deactivates the development of teeth. So that gene exists, it the teeth growing gene, only it doesn't get expressed on account of the "no right minded bird's have em teeth" gene.

https://www.audubon.org/news/how-birds-lost-their-teeth

Beyond that, the bird - reptile connection goes beyond their smile.
SMH.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Or, ya hafta pull out the "agree to disagree" card so's ya don't hafta refute your opponent's arguments, or support your own. I'm plenty happy to let the observer decide on this'n too.
Hey, maybe I am maturing. I am beginning to have little interest in the unnecessary squabbles.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Declaring an argument "nonsense" without explaining why is like declaring a chick pretty, but not buying her a drink.
Maybe the chick is pretty, but not pretty enough for you to buy her a drink.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Here's what I mean...Sometimes the pretty thing makes me go shopping with her, when she's fixing to buy a new living room mess of furniture, or some such as that. Forget we got a new new bunch last year, common sense declares when pretty thing says jump, I either jump, or sleep me out on that multidecade old couch out there in the barn, comfortable as it is, on it the other side of where the pigs sleep. And I'm here to tell it, ya ain't never got ya a comfortable night of sleep when the piglets're up and hungry. And ya ain't drunk enough to just pass on out.
First time I ever needed an English to English translation.
Anyway, on the furniture fetching..
"Pretty thing, I trust your judgement, and I'd just soon sit here on the porch and whittle. And ya know danged well I'm me weeks behind on it."

"Naw Joey, this is a decision we gotta make together."

And we go there, and get there, and there we buy the furniture it was, she'd done looked up online and decided on. And cause I can't match colors and textures, and if ya say leather clad reclining with extra special vibrating massage, I don't care if it's plaid or not, I'm astopping on the way home for beer and prophylactics, and I don't care in which order I do. So it is is, we get us the deluxe couch and chairs, and the deluxe side tables and the deluxe coffee table, and the deluxe lamps with the deluxe shades. And not never once can ya tell what's deluxe bout any of it.

But all the same, it's "nonsense" to me how come I gotta be there to "decide" on the stuff it is, she done did. Ah, but on the way home she makes her them girly sounds of pleasure, and I know soon as we get home I gotta take out the trash I was sposed to atook out the other day. And hopefully, she'll stop payment on the furniture we don't need, cause she buys this stuff every time she rips a page off the calendar there in the pantry. And come to find out, pantry's ain't where they store their frillies. I swear by the old gods and the new, if wimmins wasn't so smooshy, well I don't know. I'm just fed up with having to work afitting me a new butt print into where I sit all the time.

That's nonsense right there. See how I explained how come it was.
Gotta hand it to ya, Joey. You sure know how to make a short story long. :approve:
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #445

Post by Diogenes »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:57 pm
Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm We are in agreement that you made a claim. You have not made a convincing case.
You don't feel as if I've made a convincing case....and I don't expect anything different.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm You are making the ancient claim of an uncaused 'First Cause." You call it 'God.' I call it the universe, or existence.
But I've already explained to you, even in our brief discourse here, as to why the universe cannot be an uncaused 'First Cause'.

You've yet to address this point (or hardly any point), so as far as I'm concerned, the point still stands.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm There is nothing new here. I agree with Andrew Loke that, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, only things which begin to exist require a cause, while something that is without a beginning has always existed and therefore does not require a cause.
I mean, that is all kind of obvious, isn't it?
Diogenes wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm There is another GIANT and unwarranted assumption you make, even if we assume for the argument there is an 'uncaused cause.' You claim that First Cause is a theistic 'god.' Do you go further? Do you claim this 'god' has a personality? How do you describe this 'god' you posit must exist?
I don't need to go further, because the positive case for a theistic god in itself is enough of a defeater of atheism/agnosticism/naturalism.

And besides that, the question of whether this god has a personality was answered in the OP.

I kindly ask you to read the OP before replying to posts.
I read the OP. It is not just unpersuasive, it's utter nonsense. You have proved nothing, except to yourself. This issue has been debated for Centuries, yet you claim (without evidence) to have finally solved it. Your proof? That you said it and it should be re-read. :D
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #446

Post by Bradskii »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:47 pm
Bradskii wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:52 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:06 pm
No, a faulty conclusion would be "we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore, birds evolved from reptiles"
Yeah. The correct statement would be 'we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore we have even more evidence that birds evolved from reptiles'.
Which wouldn't make the statement any more correct. Still looks faulty to me.
Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least. And you missed an option from the op.

C: The universe is cyclical.

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #447

Post by Bradskii »

Bradskii wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:35 am
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:47 pm
Bradskii wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:52 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:06 pm
No, a faulty conclusion would be "we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore, birds evolved from reptiles"
Yeah. The correct statement would be 'we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore we have even more evidence that birds evolved from reptiles'.
Which wouldn't make the statement any more correct. Still looks faulty to me.
Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least. Maybe you didn't know that birds actually have the gene for making teeth. It's just been deactivated.

'The finding made scientists curious whether healthy chickens still possessed the 80-million-year-old genetic pathway for producing teeth. By making a few changes to the expression of certain molecules in the pathway, the researchers were able to induce tooth growth in normal developing chickens.' https://www.livescience.com/7051-surpri ... teeth.html

And you missed an option from the op.

C: The universe is cyclical.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #448

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:10 pm If you mean it in the weaker sense of the dichotomy applies in most cases, then wouldn’t you be implying that there are some cases where it doesn’t apply? I don’t think the default would be to put some new case in the majority category until proven otherwise. I’m agnostic on if it even applies in the majority of cases. I don’t even know what all the different kinds of cases there are.
Limited and not limited a true dichotomy, this holds trivially because it takes the form of A or ¬A. If there are exceptions, it would be because of some misunderstanding of what the two categories means (maybe something along the lines of infinity is not really the same as not limited,) there is no getting around that the simple A and ¬A.
Infinity is used in both ways in mathematics. For my understanding, mathematics involving actual infinites simply assume they are true and investigate what follows, assuming that, so that’s not support for the second way being a real way.
Used both ways as in a mathematic construct like the root of -1 and as a limit? That's fine, both way it is treated as a quantity though.
That’s assuming “unlimited height” can be a real thing. If it can’t be, then lacking that isn’t having a second concept of height.
Why not? There is still two: a height that is a real thing and the height that isn't a thing. Where as my stance just has height.
Then isn’t there either a contradiction or an equivocation going on? An end for an unending line (logical contradiction). Or this ‘infinity’ being limited and, therefore, not infinite (equivocation).
I don't think so, math is quite well defined, even if it might not gel well with intuition.
So, again, we reach the contradictions of actual infinites rearing up. At some point 9-20-21 was the present moment preceded by an infinite past and, thus, to reach it reality would have had to traverse the infinite past, an actual infinity...
Stop right there, this much is fine.
...and then they would be able to reach it. Yet, such a thing is impossible.
No no no, it is very much possible because traversing an actual infinite past, is not reaching infinity. Only the latter is impossible. As I keep pointing out, there is no such thing as reaching infinity or counting to infinity when traversing the infinite past because every single past event is a finite gap away from any other past event. Why do you keep equating "traversing infinity" with "reaching infinity," when you have acknowledge that every past even is a finite time away from the present? There is nothing in an actual infinite past that is infinitely far away, so how can there be any sort of reaching infinity involved? Infinitely many integers, all of them finite, it's very easy to understand when it comes to the number line, apply the same principle to the time line.
Could you rephrase this?
I was suggesting that instead of saying "0, 1, 15, 2mil, etc," just say "..."
With series Z you were just adding the various series of that type together. I don’t see why changing what type of series (which have infinite cases) you are adding together would change how series Z looks.
I don't understand what you are referring to by changing how series Z looks. I don't think I am changing how series Z look at all. Do you still accept that series Z, which is defined as (series 1, series 2, series 3, ...) is equivalent to (1, 2, 3, ...)? If so, what look is changed?
‘…’ isn’t a number. It’s a symbol that means there are other numbers there. If you can count to one of those numbers represented by “...” then you can count from that number as well.
Yes, and how many of those numbers, that you can count to and from, are there?
The iterative process (and forming a set of that process) is a separate issue than working out a sum.
So why would (1 + 1+1 +1 + ...) be impossible, if it is different from the iterative process? Only the iterative process of reaching infinity is impossible.
I’m saying your reasoning shows that starting at any particular number you can count to 5. If you are saying that this means that you can start at infinity and count to 5, then either infinity is a particular number or there is an equivocation on “start” or the latter doesn’t logically follow from the former.
I am not saying you start at infinity at all. I am saying that since it is possible to start at any number and count to 5 therefore you don't have to start at all. That's what the (X... 3, 4, 5) is possible + intermediate steps therefore (... 3, 4, 5) is possible argument was for. We are just hammering out the detail of said intermediate steps.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #449

Post by JoeyKnothead »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:26 pm Um, no. I did not just merely claim that the universe was created. I laid out a case against infinite regression, which explicitly states why the universe could not have existed for eternity.
While not holding your "uncaused cause" to the same criteria.

We observe the universe exists. We can therefore conclude it might well be its own "uncaused" entity. We don't need to, have no need to, add the extra god step into the equation.

...snip...
JoeyKnothead wrote: Your argument injects an unproven, unprovable claim - God exists - then disregards the question of that god's origins.
Until I get a rational debunking of the argument as laid out in the OP, it stands.
Your inability to see the failures in your OP, and further argumentations based thereupon, are reflected in your inability to understand opposing arguments.

We observe the universe to exist. That fact alone 'allows' us to consider the universe its own "uncaused cause".

By attempting to place a god in the mix - and really, that's what's meant by uncaused cause - we create more questions than it answers.
All of this "your argument is unproven" statements are just empty, blank assertions with no basis or substance, besides the "I just don't like the idea of god" mentality coming from those that are making the assertions.
I don't like the idea of coming to a difficult question, only to answer "God".

God can't be shown to exist.
God can't be shown to possess a thought.
God can't be shown to be able to act on that thought he can't be shown to possess.
God can't be shown to have created a universe by the mere act of having him a thought it is, he can't be shown to have had.

Inserting gods into the question of universal origins is little more'n invoking magic to explain what can't be explained.
See, that is the point, no it ISN'T pushing the question of origins back another step. That is the whole point, the question of origins cannot be pushed back any further; it begins/ends with the Uncaused Cause.
That's as goofy a notion as saying we observe an ununiverse universe.

We observe this universe. If we're fret to call things uncaused, we can stop right there
I gave reasons why the uncaused cause must be supernatural. The more my reasons remain unaddressed, the more I satisfyingly continue to take the W.
Your inability to understand that your arguments've been exposed as special pleadings and goofy, is sound indication you'll feel proud to declare for yourself "the W".

At risk of others thinking not only are your thoughts on this issue errant, but childish to boot.

...snip...
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm I challenge you to show the following..

1. 1st step I promised not to ask
2. You know what this 'almighty', disallowed in step 1, is 'really up to'
3. When he 'created' the universe.
:?:
You previously made claims that invoke these challenges.

That you can only present a question emoticon is indication you don't even understand the very comments or claims you present.

Do I even bother to reiterate a challenge you so obviously can't understand?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Please wait about four minutes after the time of my posting here, while pretty thing fixes me a bowl of popcorn.
How long have you and him been involved?
Pretty thing's a girly thing, right down to the expecting me to do all the critter removal chores a life in the country requires, and her having to do the grocery getting, and all that other stuff it is the wimmins do, here in the country.

Or, if ya wanna imply I'm a homosexual, in some misguided attempt to get you another self-proclaimed "W", go right ahead. I'm secure in who I am and wouldn't feel shamed if I was on the other team.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Birds have a gene that deactivates the development of teeth. So that gene exists, it the teeth growing gene, only it doesn't get expressed on account of the "no right minded bird's have em teeth" gene.

https://www.audubon.org/news/how-birds-lost-their-teeth

Beyond that, the bird - reptile connection goes beyond their smile.
SMH.
Shake your head. It might loosen up the cobwebs of your inability to refute the presented data.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:43 pm Or, ya hafta pull out the "agree to disagree" card so's ya don't hafta refute your opponent's arguments, or support your own. I'm plenty happy to let the observer decide on this'n too.
Hey, maybe I am maturing. I am beginning to have little interest in the unnecessary squabbles.
"Maybe" is a hypothetical I don't think you can defend.

...snip...
Gotta hand it to ya, Joey. You sure know how to make a short story long. :approve:
Lol in the best, friendliest way.

I take that as a praise. I do enjoy carrying on from time to time.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #450

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:28 am I read the OP. It is not just unpersuasive, it's utter nonsense. You have proved nothing, except to yourself.
That would have all been an excellent ending conclusion of an actual refutation of the argument.

But since there was no actual refutation of the argument, it is just an empty, baseless claim.
This issue has been debated for Centuries, yet you claim (without evidence) to have finally solved it. Your proof? That you said it and it should be re-read. :D
*Singing*

And the battleeee wages onnnnn...for apologeticsss.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply