Re: Re. The 5:29 PM (Evolution/Creation - the debate) Post

Reply No 1
John Harshman wrote:
louann wrote: First post
If the universe is too complex to have happened without a
more-complex-than-the-universe designer, then why isn't a
more-complex-than-the-universe designer _even more so_ too complex to
have happened without a more-complex-than-the-universe-designer
designer?

(Aka "Who made God?")
Louann wrote: Second post.
I still have the same question you didn't answer last time

Carl:
There cannot be an intermediate stage in a process that has had
eternity to complete its evolvement.

John Harshman:
Do you think that statement communicates anything?

Carl:
It establishes the basis for the proof that contradicts the secular
humanist assertion the God does not exist, that the universe is
self-existent and that it has always existed.

John Harshman:
If I can understand it, it seems to deny that there can be such a thing
as the number 14, because it would be an intermediate stage in the
infinite series of integers.

Carl:
A very curious logic, by establishing a number in a successive series
of numbers as a reference point, causes that number to become
nonexistent. That would mean a reference point cannot ever be
established in a successive series because that causes the reference
point to disappear. For instance, if Dec. 24 is established as a
reference point in the series of numbers from 1 to 31 for the month of
December, children will get their Christmas presents one day early.
Interesting.

John Harshman:
(Carl: There isn't much of anything original in the notion. But it sets
up a basis for the proof of an observation made by Aristotle (384 - 322
B.C.): An infinite regress is not possible.)

Nobody is arguing for an infinite regress. [Louann was using the
infinite regress as the obviously false conclusion of her reductio ad
absurdum. Which you have not addressed. (Carl- Bafflegab)]

Carl:
louann's first post above makes an unmistakable reference to a
progressive series of gods. Her second post confirms it. You are
confused, and your claim is contradictory. Her request calls for the
proof that a progressive, infinite, successive series of gods is
impossible.

(NB. Not exactly as in the post.)
Wherefore, required: To prove that a self-existent, infinite successive
series of gods without beginning or end is impossible.

Given: An infinite, innumerable multitude of gods. The present moment
as the reference point.

Proof: Regressing from the reference point, then however great the
infinite multitude of gods, they must diminish eon upon eon until the
regression arrives at the one God. Therefore the principle holds true,
unless you prove that he can create a greater than himself.

John Harshman:
Wherever that series begins (and let's keep the arrow of time going in
the proper direction), you are left with the question: where did that
god come from? And this is the question you have not addressed. Either
the series is infinite, with each god greater than the subsequent one,
or there is a first god whose origin is unexplained. You want to limit
that series to one. But why not limit it to zero? What have we gained
in explanatory power by adding that one god?

Louann:
(Aka "Who made God?")

Carl:
If it can be demonstrated that the universe cannot be self-existent,
that will reveal the one God.

First a restatement of a modified form of the theorem: There cannot be
an intermediate stage in a self-existent, successive series without
beginning or end that has had eternity to complete its evolvement.

The universe is expanding therefore the present moment is an
intermediate stage in its evolvement.

According to scientific information, light coming from all the galaxies
exhibit red shift. This indicates they are receding from the position
of the observer and are moving away from each other. This holds true
wherever the position of the observer, including
the position where the infinitely dense singularity began the Big Bang
that expanded to the universe of the present day. This is consistent
with the galaxies receding from the center and along the radii of a
sphere.

Hence, required: To prove that the universe cannot be self-existent.

Given: All the galaxies recede from the center of, and along the radii
of a sphere. They move away from each other.

Proof: If the motion of the galaxies is reversed then they will return
to the center of the sphere from whence they came.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I need a philosophical opinion ...
    ... object with possibly infinite fractal dimension is a much more elegant ... There is only so much energy in a system (say a universe, ... By this I mean that energy used to induce expansion rate ... we invented 'god' to give short shrift to unanswered ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Jesus
    ... I think the notion of God is infinite really means, ... we have a sneaking suspicion that our universe may be one ... If there is no God, then, the faults that you find with religion must ...
    (soc.politics)
  • Re: A stellar explosion has smashed the record for most distant object in the known universe.
    ... is a god. ... Difficult as it is to conceive of the universe just ... large or there are an infinite number of universes, ...    Infinity is a concept that it's possible for humans to make, but, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Supernatural is Natural
    ... >> then modes of design and use become an inevitable contributor to ... I'm not really saying anything at all about God. ... naturalism, thus being empirically demonstrable as a causal entity. ... no one can comprehend the Infinite in totality. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Inevitability of All Occurrences
    ... an absolute given. ... fact that the universe was infinite and that all things were possible ... with the prospect of God, soon asks; ...
    (talk.origins)