Why can you not have an infinite regress?

Or is this another assumption?

A minority is enough to prove morals are relative.

Exactly.

As so you do.

He is simply trying to save his own life. That's biology, not morality.

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

Morality isn't absolute and never will be.

I have no evidence to the contrary. You're the one making the fatuous assertion that one moral code applies to the entire universe and all its species.

Furthermore, as a species we are not in agreement about a moral code anyway. We argue about right and wrong all the time, from nation to nation, and even within nations.

Who are you to judge the moral code of an alien species?

Yep. There is a justification for every conceivable act.

Self-interest is just self-interest. It's not morality.

This is an inept attempt at deflection. Answer the question.

As another has already asked, why can't there be infinite regression?

That's the problem with your argument. You blithely and arrogantly assume time and space to be linear and finite. You also make the assumption there is only one universe. There is no evidence for any of it.

Once again, its a question that is impossible to answer and so is irrelevant.
Time is not a constant,it is a dynamic property of the universe that affects and is affected by events in the universe.
Its meaningless to talk about time outside the limits of the universe.
We dont know anything about the properties of God physical or otherwise, so we cannot applying a property of the universe to its creator .
I know that to you God is irrelevant because you believe that he does not exist..a reasonable.. assumption but we can no more prove that there is no God than we can prove that he does exist

__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)

The "logical fallacy" that you are referring to, postulated by Dawkins, argues that it is a fallacy to say something is untrue if you cannot imagine it to be true.

My argument has nothing to do with "imaginings." Apart from a Creator God there is no way to account for the preconditions of intelligibility. We have laws of logic, we have uniformity of nature, we have absolute morality. Why do we have these preconditions of intelligibility and how do you account for them?

The irony is that the same "logical fallacy" that Dawkins postulates can be directed towards him. He says the following:

"I personally cannot imagine a supernatural event whereby X could have come about. Therefore, it must have come about by natural means."

The evolutionary community will get behind this statement because they believe there is evidence to show that life has come about by natural means. I would challenge this and say that it has not been proven that spontaneous life has come about from inorganic chemicals.

This statement is arbitrary.

__________________
"In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

(Colossians 2:3)

Regarding God, if we had an infinite regress that would mean that God had a beginning. However, God does not have a beginning. If God has a family tree that is infinite then God would not be the beginning and end of everything. Also, with an infinite regress you simply keep going backwards and backwards, with no end in sight, which would not be logical. Everything has a "beginning." God is that beginning.

(Without belief in the Biblical God I do not expect you to believe the above. Consider then the universe.)

Regarding the universe, an infinite regress does not allow for the universe to have a beginning. On the basis of the science we know (e.g. the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics) the universe cannot be eternal. If you say there "could be" some scientific explanation for the universe being eternal that would be arbitrary.

It is widely held among evolutionary scientists that the universe began with the Big Bang. In this hypothesis the universe does have a beginning. The insurmountable problem, however, is proving the Big Bang (how it came to be, why it came to be, what was before it, etc).

__________________
"In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

(Colossians 2:3)

It came from the “argument from ignorance” which Dawkins just tweaked a bit.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am delighted that you figured out it works both ways but if you use it then you would be expected to follow the same rules and I know you cant.

When you can pick apart almost every single aspect of a book and show it to be false, show that all the supernatural explanations for events we see around us were wrong and do this by explaining why these things really do happen, it is not a logical fallacy to assume that you can continue to do this down to the smallest or largest realm of our existence. People have used this assumption to make the world around us one of technology and comfort. You on the other hand, with your supernatural explanations for existence, have never predicted one single iota and seen it through to fulfillment. There is not one single aspect of our lives that has been improved by the assumption that God exists. The only benefit to this assumption is the comfort in knowing you will live forever. This is a life I don't choose because it is a life of delusion.


Evolutionary scientists study evolution. Physicists and astronomers study the cosmos and quantum mechanics etc., just to clarify.

All we really know is that a Big Bang happened. No one knows for sure that the universe began there. Even if we did, no one is claiming that existence started with the Big Bang. All the big bang does is explain the origin of what we can see in our universe. You're making this argument from ignorance of the theory just like most of you do when it comes to evolution. You refuse to understand it because to understand it means to admit it makes sense (to yourself).

How do you come to this conclusion?

I can understand why someone would wish to save their own life, of course. However, if he were to say that I cannot take his life, on what grounds is he able to say that I cannot do it? He may wish that I spare his life, sure, but if he believes that morality is relative then saying I cannot take his life is really nonsensical.

You are in affect saying that he should not say, "You cannot take my life," but should rather say, "Please don't take my life." But people use the word "cannot" all the time. If you say this is really all semantics and "cannot" actually means "please don't" then you are showing that you do not believe there truly is a right and wrong, which is what I feared. This idea that there is no longer a right and wrong and you cannot say that something is wrong is ludicrous and also very damaging to society. Also, did you notice the irony? How can a person say you "cannot" say something is wrong if there is no absolute morality?

There is no evidence that the universe is full of different species. It is arbitrary and assumptive to say that it is. Since there is absolute morality here on earth and absolute morality is universal, that is enough.

People do argue about right and wrong. They argue, but we all hold to absolutes. That is why we have laws and rules, it is why we have courts and justice. Organisations around the world submit to a code of ethics. If morality is relative why do we submit to these things, and also, why are they even in place?

Have you heard the expression, "Laws are meant to be broken?" Actually, laws are meant to be followed and obeyed. That expression typifies the heart of man, a heart that is rebellious and a heart that through unrighteousness suppresses the truth.

Are you saying that I would be justified in killing an innocent person in cold-blooded murder???

__________________
"In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

(Colossians 2:3)

To support the existence of "god," an attempt must be made to answer those very questions. If you can't, or won't, then there is no reason for "god" to exist in the first place.

Cosmologists don't think so. They do it all the time. The latest theory is that our universe is but one of many, and that the "big bang" resulted, and will result again, because of the momentary interaction of our universe with another.

So you can't describe "god" in any physical sense but you make the claim that all derives from "god." This is no different than saying the universe was created and defined by Zeus, or by a serpent, or by any of a number of popular demiurges.

I hold no such belief. I am suspending belief in the supernatural until I am presented with verifiable scientific evidence for it.

When that evidence comes, I will then ask for evidence that the supernatural matters. Specifically, if there is a "god," is it worthy of worship and respect?

To a rational person, like me, proof matters. To an irrational person, like yourself, proof doesn't matter.

You are saying that to support the existence of God we must ask unanswerable questions.

What cosmologists do not think that time is a dynamic property of the universe?
What cosmologists believe that we can observe or consider time outside of the parameters of the universe?

There are many speculations about how many universes there are, whether there will be a big crunch and a new universe created or whether this universe is a one off..all are speculation, not theories, no more valid than any other speculation.

We cannot describe the singularity in any physical sense that preceded the big bang but it seems to be accepted by science.
The problem is that you are invisaging God not me.
I dont know what" God" is but I know that trite and unimaginative arguments like 'If God made us then who made God' are asked by dull and unimaginative people who do not understand that they are asking an unanswerable question.
I think we can take it as read that a snake is not creator.


You do not believe in God until it can be proved that there is one.So you dont believe in God


You are a' rational' person who believes that asking unanswerable questions make you rational and accuse others of being irrational when this is pointed out to you.

What seems to have gone over your head is that I have not particularly argued for the existence of God. I have argued that you were asking stupid questions

__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)

Of course it's an unanswerable question. The point is that you have no answer for it and therefore it exposes a flaw in your logic. You can say, oh hes always been. How do you know that? You can't say anything here except for the Bible told me or some other ridiculous bit of reasoning.

Having no answer to an unanswerable question only exposes the stupidity of asking an unanswerable question and expecting an answer

__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)

Actually the opposite is true. With infinite regression there is no point of origin. Without a point of origin there is no beginning, and therefore no need for creation, supernatural or otherwise.

Therein lies the paradox. If "god" has always existed, then so has time. If time has always existed, it must necessarily be curved, not linear. And if time is not linear, all creation myths, including that of xians, are moot.

The notion of curved time has been around for about a hundred years. It's perfectly logical.

Exactly. A beginning isn't necessary to explain the existence of our universe.

Cosmology and science are two different things. Science can explain the universe we live in. It can't explain the multiverse.

That isn't what scientists believe at all. No scientist has declared that there can only be one universe.

Because absolute means perfect, complete or pure.

For a morality to be regarded as perfect, complete or pure, all must assent to it.

He doesn't, because obviously you can. Strictly speaking, you can kill anyone you want dead.

It isn't. He can claim that a morality is shared between you and he such that you may not kill him without abrogating the social agreement to which the two of you are parties.

Your premise is that there always was one right and one wrong and that I am promoting deviation from that requirement.

I am not, because a world in which there was only one right and one wrong has never existed. Morals have always been relative.

But that is not what is meant by "cannot." The correct phrase would be "ought not" or "may not."

There is no evidence and can never be any evidence ruling out the existing of other species. You would have to visit every possible celestial body in our universe, and in all possible universes, before you could make such a claim.

The same is true about "absolute" morality. You would have to visit every person on earth, propose what you consider to be an immoral act, and acquire unequivocal assent to its immorality.

You can't achieve that, either.

Again, name any act you consider to be immoral -- I invite you to go to extremes here -- and I can reply with a justification for it.

I am not even convinced you hold to any moral absolutes, let alone the majority of people.

We don't have courts and justice to enforce an absolute morality. People make changes to their laws every day. If their morals were absolute, they wouldn't have to.

You are conflating popular morality with absolute morality. The two are distinctly different.

An absolute morality, for instance, would not recognize nation-states. The whole purpose of a nation-state is to circumscribe for a given population the freedoms and limitations desired by that population. A moral absolutist would not tolerate disparate sets of ethics for disparate populations.

Of course they are, but the laws accrue from moral relativism. What is illegal today is illegal tomorrow, and vice versa. Even laws against murder, and definitions of murder, change, as do the ascribed punishments.

According to our present laws, yes.

We do not enforce, with an iron fist, our murder laws. We still dicker about the guilt or innocence of the murdered, and what is or isn't considered "cold-blooded."

No moral is absolute. There is a conceivable justification for any act.

I wish that weren't true, but it is. That's human nature.