"You're like a preacher who failed to study for his sermon Solon, WEAK POINT, POUND PULPIT!!!"
A rather childish and meaningless response to my points. Perhaps you consider such vacuousness to be a refutation?
"You seem to think the idea of infinite regression of cause and effect is rational. Go ahead and embrace the irrational, and the unscientific, it looks good on you."
SIGH...I said nothing of the sort. My focus was on antecedal events. Having corrected your misconception, however...an infinite regression of cause and effect is extremely rational. If you can't accept it from Hawking, you can accept it from me.
Let me go over it slowly for you, Greg!
For as long as time has existed there has been a before and an after. Logically, every condition or event "after" entails a condition or event "before". Whether or not the events are causal or consequential is immaterial. What is material is that all events within time occur after antecedent events. If time is infinite, then we have an infinite regression of events. But if there is a reality uninformed by time, then there is therein no basis for logic. Logic cannot exist outside of time because logic requires that something follows upon something else.
As I have said, we have no experience of a non-temporal reality. Although it may be conjectured...it would be both gratuitous and naive to assume.
What is required to remove time from existence? Firstly, all movement must cease. A single electron moving in a bacterium would evidence time...but of course there would be no-one to observe it. An observer inside or outside such a system would exist in time because such a one would be capable of more than one experience, thus a "before" and an "after".
The negation of time could only take place in the case of absolute unity. Such a condition would be outside the purview of logic, as logic cannot exist in unity.
If there is life there is movement. If there is movement, there is time. With or without "God", the idea of infinite regression logically holds. Only if we step OUTSIDE the realm of logic may we even consider some of the fanciful deity constructs.
I know from past conversations with you that you would hope to insert some ultimately complex Being into the river of existence. Not only that, but you seek to introduce some Being fanciful and frail--emotionally unstable, incompetent, and delusional. Other than an overweening affection for ones own silly ego, I can see no benefit in such nonsense.
David Hume has already made the simplistic observation that adding god as an uncaused Being simply adds a layer of complexity to assuming the universe as an uncaused thing. Such a gratuitous explanation has no more validity than any other imaginary assertion. There has never been an evidentiary link to "God". |
