Quote Originally Posted by philosophik
I never claimed that particles, or anything for that matter, actually come from your idea of nothing (non-existence). I am saying that linear cause and effect is a rule from within our universe, to assume that it is a rule outside the universe is presumptuous.
If according to your theory there is no causation outside the universe, then the universe would never have come into being so to assume there is no causation is to betray your own existence. Any theory you propose cannot contradict itself.

Because you refuse to explain why I only could have happened in the past if the universe had infinite regress (which by the way makes no sense, considering the fact that whenever I do happen, from my standpoint it is always going to be the present) I'm just going to go ahead and humor you. Lets suppose you are right, if the universe had infinite regress I would have happened already, and therefore I would not exist today. So what. How does the time at which I occur in any way affect whether or not the universe can have infinite regress? And even if the universe can not contain an infinite amount of causes and effects within it, how does that logically prove god?
Your standpoint is irrelevant. If you have an eternity to come into being, you had an eternity to come into being. Therefore, you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Very simple for a child or teenager to understand. Not so simple for you because you hate God. Any theory you propose can't contradict itself. If you want infinite regress to be true then you should not exist now since you would have happened already. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator. The common name we give to the uncreated Creator is God. So the issue is not whether God exists, but who God is? Therefore, atheism is false and you are living a lie.

This is what you originally said in the OP: if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point.
That's right.

In the first sentence you claim that if infinite regress were the case, then I would have already existed, past tense. But then in the following sentence you say that if infinite regress were the case then I would never have existed, also past tense, contradicting yourself. But then you provide a bizarre reason to explain why the past could never reach the present moment, suggesting that the past could never reach the present because it goes on for eternity. This is confusing and nonsensical at best. I thought you deliberately worded it this way so you could say that infinite regress is a contradiction, therefore god. If you had just said 'if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so, therefore you would not exist today,' it wouldn't have been confusing. At any rate, the time at which I exist is irrelevant in attempting to disprove infinite regress. And whether or not infinite regress in our universe is possible, is irrelevant in attempting to prove god created our universe.
The contradiction lies with infinite regress because it is both true you would have have happened already and you would never existed. You had an eternity to have existed so you should have happened before now. And if an eternity was going on it would be going on for eternity before now so this point would never be reached so you should not exist now. Any system of belief that contradicts itself is false. Based on this evidence, infinite regress is impossible, therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself, and this whom we call God.

You realize that 'this point' you are referring to is the present. So to say that 'if there was infinite regress an eternity would still be going on never reaching this point,' is to say that eternity never reaches the present. But how can that be true? The present is the only point in eternity that actually exists, in fact, eternity functions as a perpetual present moment.
Your theory does not hold as was said, if there was an infinite regress there would be an eternity going on before now so this point would never be reached, since eternity would still be going on for eternity.

I did quote you, but i clearly said that that was the first time you ever mentioned that I would not exist right now.
You didn't say that at all. Rather, you said, "Show me where you wrote in a previous post that I would not exist right now. I did not see it." So I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already.

I showed you what you originally posted, and you did leave out that detail. You worded it in such a way that it appeared that you were deliberately attempting to create a false contradiction.
What I posted that you quoted was this, "I never said anything about recurring as was said many times. I said you would have already happened and gone so you wouldn't exist now. You are really slow aren't you." You responded by saying, "this is the first time you ever mentioned that if infinite regress was the case then I would have happened in the past, consequently, I would not exist right now." That's simply not true, for there are many posts I have repeated the statement "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." Don't assume I am speaking of recurring for I said "already happened." "Already" means it should have happened already and thus, not now. If I meant how you misread then I should have used a word like "recurred before". You're simply misreading. Careless atheist.

I challenge you to write the above passage into a logical argument, use as many syllogisms as you like. If you can do it, and have them at least be valid, then I can say that you are actually making progress. If you reply to this post with no syllogisms to demonstrate your logic, I'll take it as you conceding that what you have written above is illogical, incoherent, rubbish.
How about I just repeat it so the reader can see there is no problem with it and thus, you are being illogical avoiding it. I am standing on the foundation of evidence but you are not so you will need to make some progress.

I see energy in nature all the time. Go check out a nuclear power plant for example. Whether there is an infinite number of forms or not you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on before this point. Infinite regress is dumb and self-contradictory.

You do realize that the universe doesn't exist in space-time, but rather space-time exists in the universe, right? It is a very basic concept.
You realize those two statements in your petty self are one in the same, since the universe is space-time. Very simple to understand. Cyclical universes, multiverses, etc. don't change anything.

I'm not proposing infinite regress, I'm demonstrating how the claims you make about infinite regress are illogical. Let me be clear, the crux of this debate hinges on the fact that you claim an uncreated creator is the only logical explanation for our universe. You use a 4 step proof in a feeble attempt to demonstrate this. I have only addressed the first two steps and pointed out the logical inconsistencies present in these steps. Not only that, but I have implied an alternative logical explanation for the existence of our universe. Just in case you missed it here it is again, in syllogism form.
I am glad you are not proposing infinite regress now, so stop arguing for it. I have responded to everything to show you that you are being illogical and your claim for an infinite regress is self-contradictory. You're free to respond to my points or shut your mind down. Sorry, couldn't find anything in what you said for an alternative logical explanation to infinite regress. Why keep this secret to yourself? Share it with the world. People might think you are full of you know what being coy.

Proof of a larger system

P1- Finite systems require larger support systems in order to exist.
P2- Our universe exists as a finite system.
C- Our universe requires a larger support system in order to exist.
Sounds like infinite regress to me, because you will just say the next larger system above that and on and on. You would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on. Boring.

Proof that a larger system is all that is required

P1- In order for any finite system to exist, all that is required is a larger system to produce it.
P2- Our universe exists as finite system.
C-- A larger system is all that is required to produce our universe.

There you have it, I have shown you that there is no need to jump to the god conclusion.
Your argument is faulty because you shut your mind down to that larger natural system. You need to ask what caused it. Since it is natural, and you admit nature needs a cause, then you are implying infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

We are left with no other possibility as usual than nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God. God is the great I AM, the Intelligent mind. God is infinite but does not infinitely regress, because God is outside of time and space. Amen.

That's not enough though. You would need to receive what God did for you to avoid going to Hell.