So you going to stick to your circular reasoning. Okay.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
So you going to stick to your circular reasoning. Okay.
it isn't circular. It is showing an equivalence. Now, you need to eliminate one of the alternatives.
Nope. Already explained many times how you are doing exactly circular reasoning to the proof and attacking the conclusion. But you keep doing it. Your model is not an alternative, its circular reasoning using the assertion if its possible, its possible which is circular and meaningless as explained many times. Your model is purely circular refence to itself.
But it shows that your conclusion does not follow without considerably more work.
Once more, *why* is no order ever given?
Nope. You are caught in a circular approach. At this point, you have to go back and re-read and get yourself out. I can't. I would only be repeating what has been said in this regard.
Here is the situation:
1. There are infinitely many commanders.
2. Each commander waits for a higher commander to give an order before he can give his.
Prove that no command will ever be given.
Do NOT assume
1. that there needs to be a first command given
2. that there is a time when no commands have been given
This is the situation that is analogous to an infinite regress of events.
This is getting repeated (same info). You've said this before. So I don't have anything more to add. I've explained myself.
You have always assumed one of the excluded conditions.
No, that's you. Pot/Kettle.
You have always either assumed there is a first command or that there was a time when no commands were being given. Those assumptions are not necessary and show how your reasoning fails.
You always repeat and never digest information.
Who is pot and who is kettle?
Look at your argument and do not assume that there was a first command or that there was a time when no command was being given. See whether your conclusion still goes through.
This usually happens at the end a long debate. I've explained how your analogy assumes the conclusion. I've gone through step by step. While my structured argument makes an analogy and does not assume the conclusion. It proves it by analogy.
A failed analogy.
To stubborn minds.
Or ones that understand the argument better.
Let me quote a part that refutes your accusation that I am assuming there needs to be a first:
"There is no first"
Do you know how an argument by an analogy works?
The point of the argument is to prove by analogy there needs to be a first.
While let me explain this to you again, if you assume the effects were always in play + infinite as a possibility, it's mere stating, that infinite chain is possible.
So your argument by analogy comes down to:
If infinite chain is possible then an infinite chain is possible.
What clouds is that you draw an description that mimics my analogy, and assumes it was always going and is still going.
Do you know how an argument works? You don't assume the conclusion nor make an analogy assuming it.
The question we are looking at is "is an infinite chain of effects are possible". Now my analogy has three comparisons:
(1) it compares the commander commanding another commander, as an effect causing another effect. Do you disagree with this part?
(2) it compares the scenario if we go back infinite commanders with going back infinite effects so it makes an analogy between rank of commanders lined up with effects lined up in time. Do you disagree with this part? So while rank is what separates all the commanders and you need one command to get going, time is what separates all the effects. Time can be drawn on a paper as a line as a representation, so I don't see this as a bad comparison. Rank would be a vertical line and time more of a horizontal, but the analogy holds.
(3) It argues that no command can issue in the first scenario (commanders separated by rank) and that we should conclude the same about it in the second scenario (effects separated by time).
You analogy that if there was a commander already commanding is a way to attack the conclusion. We are tying to see if it's possible for cause and effects in an infinite chain is possible to exist. It's a hidden way to say if an infinite chain of effects was possible it would be that an effect is always moving. And in this case, it would be a commander is always commanding. But that just saying I can draw a description with commanders for an infinite chain that is going. However, my analogy compares the side by side commanders without assuming there is already one commanding. That would be circular. I'm saying if there is no highest commander to give lower commander a command which is the condition, infinite ranks would draw the command going higher and higher, but never reach. The same is true of time, everyone needs a preceding, and keep going, there is no first.
Entropy is a statistical property. An increase of entropy essentially means an increase in the number of ways to 'spread' of energy over quantum states.
The early universe had low entropy because there was only one possible quantum state it could be in: the vacuum state.
Also, I would point out that the second law is not a fundamental one, but a derived one that ignores details of microscopic interactions. It is *expected* that, in a very long period of time, there will be a 'cycling' that decreases entropy quasi-periodically. Look up the Poincare Recurrence time if you want to learn more.