.
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.
God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Moderator: Moderators
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
-
- 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 #691You asked me this: "how can time physically exist" remember?
Yes, as evidence that time is a part of physical reality, a dimension just like space.You did introduce the 'clock' as part of your argument, remember?
You believe that, I don't. I believe time is a part of physical reality.The clock represents "our perception or experience of time"
You kept equating our perception of time with time itself, not me.The confusion obviously has to do with thinking that the passing of time [which is believed to be fundamental to the position of the human mind experiencing this universe] therefore, has to be fundamental to the universe itself.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #692[Replying to Bust Nak in post #691]
Fine. So long as you are not saying that time is fundamental to physical reality.I believe time is a part of physical reality.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #693It would be a contradiction if I was talking about them both being true at the same moment, but I’m not. “No outside of GOD prior to creation” and “outside of GOD at/after creation” are not logical contradictions.
William wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 11:17 pmIf one does a little study on the Set one will discover that the infinite progression can be shown to run opposite [as infinite regression] which signifies that the point where the video begins is the same as the begin/end points which turn up throughout the eternally unfolding.
Can you share the reasoning that shows this?
William wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 11:17 pmMy statement has to do with our overall conversation here. Do you want to end this conversation because 'the existence of a creator' hasn't been supported or carry on re the question "Do we exist within a creation?"
When I wrote "we know that it was built from something that already existed" I was referring to Energy and QF [matter] and if these things fundamentally represent GOD [re theistic ideas about existing within a creation] then they may as well be be accepted by theists, in that attitude.
I don’t see any reason to believe your conditional here. Why should I believe that energy and matter fundamentally represent GOD?
William wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 11:17 pmWhat we can do is agree that the interaction between Energy and QF results in identifiable intelligent outcomes and take that as an indication that we may indeed be existing within a creation and therefore Energy and Matter may be intelligent, because they do not exist outside of GOD.
If all you are claiming is that it’s not logically impossible that GOD transformed (at least in part) into the material universe, then I agree.
I don’t see how that’s remaining neutral. There are three views:
1. Energy and spirit are distinct things
2. Energy and spirit are the same thing
3. I don’t know which is true
The third view is the neutral one.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #694Bust Nak wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:06 amIt tells us that a quantifiable thing (which is itself not infinity) just keeps getting bigger. Similar to how a speed limit (a boundary concept) isn’t an actual speed. I know what you are thinking, but hold on. The speed limit, as a limit, tells us that one cannot go above a certain speed/quantity/number, it's a concept of "go no further than" that is applied to a quantity, but isn't a quantity itself. Infinity, as a boundary, tells us an object's quantity keeps getting bigger forever, but isn't any of those quantities itself, even if "infinity" is also a number.
60mph isn't a speed? Wow.
That’s not what I said. Pay close attention to the words after the bolded part. The speed limit as a limit is not a speed but a concept that says “go no faster than”. “Go no faster than” is not a speed but a statement about speeds.
Of course. The article doesn’t claim ‘boundary less,’ though; it says all we know from this data is that the universe goes beyond what we can see.
I’m not following you here. Perhaps an example would help?
P1. Man is the only rational animal.
P2. No woman is a man
C. Therefore, no woman is a rational animal.
Can you conflate the two meanings of “man” here [i.e., a human being and a male] to make this argument sound? Or do you have an example of what you mean?
Bust Nak wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:06 amEven assuming it’s size is an actual infinite number/quantity, this “actual infinite” is different than the “actual infinite” we are discussing (thus, another equivocation), which is the idea that there is no end to the number of events to “pass through”.
How is it different? No end to space to pass through, and no end to events to pass through, sounds like the same concept to me.
The difference I’m talking about is between how one answers the question “how many events are there”:
(a) There is no end to the number of events to pass through (infinity as a boundary concept)
(b) There is an actual infinite quantity of events to pass through (infinity as a quantity/number concept)
I have said I see no reason to think it is a quantity, not that the concept of it being a quantity is internally incoherent.
I have also said that, assuming there could be actual infinite quantities in existence (such as an actual infinite B-theory past), this definition is externally inconsistent with an A-theory past, to where an actual infinite A-theory past is akin to saying a square circle.
What is the difference for you between calling it hypothetical and saying an assumption was involved?
Bust Nak wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:06 amGranted "every element being moved through" is about a series, but how is it not also about individual elements? "Element" is literally the subject of the sentence.
“Every element” not just “element” is the focus. If one element in the series was not moved through, then we would rightly say “every element was not moved through,” even though many individual elements were moved through.
Right, so what's exactly the problem here? I've proven that "every element," not just "element," can be moved through, so why did you think that I am attaching "moved through" as a characteristic of individual elements when I say "every element," but when you say "every element" you are talking about characteristics of series not individual elements?
I was working off of “how is it not also about individual elements?”
You’ve only proven that you can take out individual elements of a series, put them in a different series, and then move through those series.
Bust Nak wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 5:06 amWe've been through this, 16) does not say the whole series has the property can be moved through, it's equivalent to "the series' members all can be moved through." It's not my problem that it is identical to "being completed." Here, add these extra steps if it helps (with an alteration to 16 to remove any confusion as to what "moved through" is being applied to what entities.)
16) the series' members all can be moved through (from 15)
17) if a series' members all can be moved through then you can complete that series (premise)
18) you can complete {0, ...} (from 16 and 17)
There, 17 is the justification for applying "can be completed" to the whole series.
What is your justification for premise 17 being true? I haven’t agreed to it or seen any reason to think it is true. I’ve agreed to this:
17’) if [a series’ members] all can be moved through, then [a series’ members] can be completed
And
17’’) if you can [complete] a series, then you can [move through all members] of a series
But neither of these will give us (18).
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #695[Replying to The Tanager in post #693]Something "outside of GOD" contradicts "no outside of GOD."
Creating something new does not contradict "no outside of GOD."
Creating something new "outside of GOD", does.
No matter how you word it or what context you build around it, 'outside of GOD' contradicts 'there is no outside of GOD'.It would be a contradiction if I was talking about them both being true at the same moment, but I’m not. “No outside of GOD prior to creation” and “outside of GOD at/after creation” are not logical contradictions.
Adding the mind-construct of 'time' does not make a contradiction a non-contradiction.
Another way of looking at it, is that GOD is Omni-present - specifically "always in the now of every 'moment' - never absent - never outside of anything and everything never outside of GOD."
There is no contradiction in referring to "No outside of GOD" unless one attempts in inject the idea that there actually is an outside of GOD. One is real and the other is human invention attempting to superimpose the false upon the real.
Saying 'both';
Tanager: It would be a contradiction if I was talking about them both being true at the same moment...
is relying upon unsupported assumption as;
There are no 'both'. There is only One.
If one does a little study on the Set one will discover that the infinite progression can be shown to run opposite [as infinite regression] which signifies that the point where the video begins is the same as the begin/end points which turn up throughout the eternally unfolding.
Sure - when I come across the video I picked the info up from, I will. From memory, the person showed that by applying the Set formula for the negative numbers, one gets a mirror-image of the Set, 'going the other way'...having written that it occurred to me I could google something like "Mandelbrot Set negative equation" - there are articles on this you can view for yourself, if you make a similar worded search...Can you share the reasoning that shows this?
My statement has to do with our overall conversation here. Do you want to end this conversation because 'the existence of a creator' hasn't been supported or carry on re the question "Do we exist within a creation?"
When I wrote "we know that it was built from something that already existed" I was referring to Energy and QF [matter] and if these things fundamentally represent GOD [re theistic ideas about existing within a creation] then they may as well be be accepted by theists, in that attitude.
I don't ask anyone to believe or not believe.I don’t see any reason to believe your conditional here. Why should I believe that energy and matter fundamentally represent GOD?
The fundamentals of this universe are Energy and Matter.
GOD - [if we do exist within a creation] has to be the mindful aspect of the Energy which forms the Matter into shapes [galaxies et merda] so has to be fundamental to the fundamentals - the 'Mind' aspect of the whole process.
If Energy and Matter engaging do not fundamentally represent GOD [re the question "Do we exist within a creation?"] what DOES?
What we can do is agree that the interaction between Energy and QF results in identifiable intelligent outcomes and take that as an indication that we may indeed be existing within a creation and therefore Energy and Matter may be intelligent, because they do not exist outside of GOD.
The mindful construct itself is a vast rabbit hole of possibility, even if only an aspect of GOD was required for the event to take place.If all you are claiming is that it’s not logically impossible that GOD transformed (at least in part) into the material universe, then I agree.
What it all means - in context - is not something we can off-handedly 'agree' about. The complexities are simply too vast and unknown.
Being in the Natural Neutral position helps as it eliminates belief or lack of belief and simply accepts 'we don't know' while acknowledging that it is still worthwhile to - at least - attempt to find out...
Energy and QF refers to the nature of the universe, thus the "Natural" part.
Re the question "Do we exist within a creation?", one remains neutral until such a time as nature reveals for certain, either way, thus the "Neutral" part
Correct.I don’t see how that’s remaining neutral. There are three views:
1. Energy and spirit are distinct things
2. Energy and spirit are the same thing
3. I don’t know which is true
The third view is the neutral one.
When the claim is "Energy and spirit are distinct things" I don't know.
When the claim is "Energy and spirit are the same thing" I don't know.
3: [I don’t know which is true] is not claim-based.
Re the question, "Do we exist within a creation?"
I extend curtesy to Theism by agreeing - for the sake discussion - that "Energy and spirit are the same thing" [2:] but do not extend that curtesy to contrary theist notions that "Energy and spirit are distinct things" [1:] if there is no established logic involved in doing so.
Thus 1:+ 3: = the less cluttered way forward, with that addition;
3: I don’t know which is true so will go with 2: "Energy and spirit are the same thing", until a more logical alternate presents itself - [which 1: does not achieve, at least in its current format.]
Last edited by William on Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #696Your view has that same element. You have GOD not in the form of the universe and then you have GOD (at least in part) in the form of the universe. Using your reasoning, your view would have a contradiction as well. I disagree with your reasoning, but the reasoning, if true, works both ways.
That is not the traditional definition of omnipresent. I believe God is omnipresent, but if we are using your definition, then I don’t think GOD is Omni-present. Thus, you need to offer some support for it to help me move toward agreeing with you.
You came in here and made a claim, so the burden of support is on you. In bearing that burden you’ve tried to show my alternative is illogical. My burden is not then to show my view is true, but just that it isn’t illogical. If you could logically rule out the alternatives, then this would be support for your view. I’ve simply argued that you can’t logically rule those out, so you need to support your claim in a different way.
William wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:38 pmSure - when I come across the video I picked the info up from, I will. From memory, the person showed that by applying the Set formula for the negative numbers, one gets a mirror-image of the Set, 'going the other way'...having written that it occurred to me I could google something like "Mandelbrot Set negative equation" - there are articles on this you can view for yourself, if you make a similar worded search...
Let me know when you come across the video or an article, lay out the reasoning, and I will share my thoughts on it.
William wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:38 pmThe fundamentals of this universe are Energy and Matter.
GOD - [if we do exist within a creation] has to be the mindful aspect of the Energy which forms the Matter into shapes [galaxies et merda] so has to be fundamental to the fundamentals - the 'Mind' aspect of the whole process.
If Energy and Matter engaging do not fundamentally represent GOD [re the question "Do we exist within a creation?"] what DOES?
It seems to me like you should be saying Energy is the mindful aspect of GOD which forms the material aspect of GOD into shapes. Regardless, you haven’t shown this to be the only logical option or supported it as the more reasonable option. You keep stating it has to be the case, but you haven’t ruled out the alternatives. Such as GOD being fundamentally represented by Spirit, with Energy and Matter being something distinct from that.
Okay, but you aren’t being neutral in doing so. You have left neutrality via an assumption that “Theism” is true. That’s fine if you are (1) talking to a “Theist” about something that follows from it, (2) wanting a “non-Theist” to comment on the logical consistency of “Theism”, or (3) wanting a “non-Theist” to comment on some element that follows from such an assumption.
I’m not (1), contested Theism and you’ve been responding, but I’m fine if you don’t want to address such concerns any further. I’ve stated (2) this part of Theism is not logically impossible. If you are wanting me to do (3), then what further element do you want me to help you analyze?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #697[Replying to The Tanager in post #696]
Support for your claim above, is required.You came in here and made a claim,...
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #698[Replying to The Tanager in post #696]
One such option being examined is from the Jehovah's Witness religion. As I am attempting with you and your beliefs, I am also attempting to get clarity on their beliefs re this.
So far what I am being informed, is that the JW belief is;
"The Spirit is not God. It emanates FROM God, like power emanates from an electrical facility. The power is not the electrical facility."
viewtopic.php?p=1084079#p1084079
There appear to be two theistic beliefs re the nature of Energy;
1. Energy and spirit are distinct things
2. Energy and spirit are the same thing
It was a mistake to add the so-called "third view"; [3. I don’t know which is true]
This has to be rectified, in that it is not a theistic belief and shouldn't have been placed on your "list of views".
To clarify. Which of those two options do you position your belief?
One remains neutral simply by not making a shift to either Theism or Atheism.
One can lend and ear to either side without having to wear the burden of being accused of holding and defending the position of either side.
As I wrote;
"Being in the Natural Neutral position helps as it eliminates belief or lack of belief and simply accepts 'we don't know' while acknowledging that it is still worthwhile to - at least - attempt to find out..."
And on that point, I gave you information re the Mandelbrot Set being shown to display infinite regression and infinite progression. The reasoning has already been 'laid out'. Your thoughts on it [even as a concept unsighted] in regard to my own [already mentioned] are welcome.
eta:
At this point I am bouncing around with ideas already established by religious theists in order to get bearings on the differences in beliefs as to how well they hold up to the things we do know about the universe.It seems to me like you should be saying Energy is the mindful aspect of GOD which forms the material aspect of GOD into shapes.
One such option being examined is from the Jehovah's Witness religion. As I am attempting with you and your beliefs, I am also attempting to get clarity on their beliefs re this.
So far what I am being informed, is that the JW belief is;
"The Spirit is not God. It emanates FROM God, like power emanates from an electrical facility. The power is not the electrical facility."
viewtopic.php?p=1084079#p1084079
There appear to be two theistic beliefs re the nature of Energy;
1. Energy and spirit are distinct things
2. Energy and spirit are the same thing
It was a mistake to add the so-called "third view"; [3. I don’t know which is true]
This has to be rectified, in that it is not a theistic belief and shouldn't have been placed on your "list of views".
To clarify. Which of those two options do you position your belief?
Nice try Tanager. Remove [3] from your list and the waters will clear.Okay, but you aren’t being neutral in doing so. You have left neutrality via an assumption that “Theism” is true.
One remains neutral simply by not making a shift to either Theism or Atheism.
One can lend and ear to either side without having to wear the burden of being accused of holding and defending the position of either side.
As I wrote;
"Being in the Natural Neutral position helps as it eliminates belief or lack of belief and simply accepts 'we don't know' while acknowledging that it is still worthwhile to - at least - attempt to find out..."
And on that point, I gave you information re the Mandelbrot Set being shown to display infinite regression and infinite progression. The reasoning has already been 'laid out'. Your thoughts on it [even as a concept unsighted] in regard to my own [already mentioned] are welcome.
eta:
GM: "We are not orphaned - we are authored"
Make Story
viewtopic.php?p=1081283#p1081283
William: The link is to an earlier post - where Tanager and I are in the initial stages of teasing out the specifics of the different beliefs involved with A Cosmic Mind [aka GOD] and the way in which that mind creates 'things' - from within itself or from outside of itself...our discussion is ongoing...
GM: Bonding Entities of Particular Belief Systems
Becoming whole
William: I remain upon minded re that...
viewtopic.php?p=1084092#p1084092
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #699[Replying to The Tanager in post #267]
The fact that we have a visual representation in the Mandelbrot Set - not only of infinite regression but also of infinite progression - shows us that it is possible.
Therefore the thread title "Infinite Regression is Impossible" is shown to be incorrect.
re Q: Do we exist within a creation?
If you want to add to that, the idea that GOD has always existed, then the visual representation in the Mandelbrot Set serves as a confirmation that this is also possible.
"God Must Exist because Infinite Regression is Impossible" is false reasoning.
Okay.' This is apparently also what JWs think.I think energy and spirit are distinct things.
Can you give reason for why you think this? Is it similar to the one given by onewithhim?One With Him: Of course the Spirit is not God. It emanates FROM God, like power emanates from an electrical facility. The power is not the electrical facility.
William: The Energy itself is NOT intelligent, but the Facility which produces the Energy IS, and is GOD?
I gave you information re the Mandelbrot Set being shown to display infinite regression and infinite progression. The reasoning has already been 'laid out'. Your thoughts on it [even as a concept unsighted] in regard to my own [already mentioned] are welcome.
I did in an earlier post, but will remind you again.You did not lay the reasoning out.
The fact that we have a visual representation in the Mandelbrot Set - not only of infinite regression but also of infinite progression - shows us that it is possible.
Therefore the thread title "Infinite Regression is Impossible" is shown to be incorrect.
re Q: Do we exist within a creation?
If you want to add to that, the idea that GOD has always existed, then the visual representation in the Mandelbrot Set serves as a confirmation that this is also possible.
"God Must Exist because Infinite Regression is Impossible" is false reasoning.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #700You brought this issue to the discussion by claiming they were one. The support for that being one thing you came in here claiming would be through looking at your posts in this thread.
My belief here stems from my current assessment of the scientific, philosophical, theological, etc. data that is pertinent, that I've come across. I see no reason, in any of these areas, to think they are the same thing. But I'm open to changing my mind.
And, as I’ve already said, this is not laying the reasoning out; it’s simply asserting that this visual representation shows infinite regression is possible. You need to lay out the logical reasoning, which will require things like premises leading to a conclusion, to “lay the reasoning out”.