Only atheists

[interminable]

While I respect what you are saying here, it is somewhat disingenuous for him to use an argument that can easily be (and has been) refuted a hundred times before. The fact that he does not understand the refutation should not cause him to use the same argument again and again.


LINK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the analogy is wrong. In your analogy there still remains a time when neither A nor B is running. However a beginningless system (A,B) where
1) A is running because B is running
2) B is running because A is running

will have no first moment where either A or B was stationary. It neither has nor requires an initial condition. In mathematics and in real life, an infinite series or a set is a fundamentally different category of entity than a finite series or a set. Unless you understand this, you will be stuck.

I will add to this. Very simply a binary system (A,B) where

1) A runs when B runs and
2) B runs when A runs

will have two stable configurations.

Configuration one is when both A and B are stationary for infinity.
Configuration two is when both A and B are running for infinity.

Both are perfectly stable and consistent configurations. Your logical mistake is to believe that somehow the state of rest must be a more natural state than the state of movement, and hence configuration two must have a beginning point. This is false. Both configurations (A,B at rest) and (A,B are running) are beginningless and endless configurations and are mutually exclusive. They cannot transform from one to the other and they have no beginning or initial condition. Both configuration one and configuration two are perfectly possible ways (A,B) can exist and neither is more likely than the other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U made me laugh!

Impossibility of infinite regress is an evident concept . Even it doesn't need to use logic to prove its impossibility . But atheists need to reject it . Otherwise they may prove the existence of God

 

[sayak83]

U made me laugh!

Impossibility of infinite regress is an evident concept . Even it doesn't need to use logic to prove its impossibility . But atheists need to reject it . Otherwise they may prove the existence of God

Possibility of infinite regress is an evident concept, as proved by logic and rationality. Some theists need to reject it for their blind belief in specific theologies about God.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is a question actually.
I wanted to know that can u find somewhere that doesn't exist or not!

Errr...not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

U made me laugh!

Impossibility of infinite regress is an evident concept . Even it doesn't need to use logic to prove its impossibility . But atheists need to reject it . Otherwise they may prove the existence of God

Watch out for 'evident concepts that don't require logic'.
Even ones that DO require logic can be slippery and subject to change and development. The illogical ones are basically just tacked on to support pre-existing suppositions based on 'common sense'. Which is reliably proven to be severely flawed and not designed at all to deal with the 'larger questions'.

 

[Shad]

Impossibility of infinite regress is an evident concept

Only because you confuse infinite regress with infinite series of events. If you knew what you were talking about there would be nothing to laugh at. Get your terms right next time you copy/paste William Lane Craig.

Even it doesn't need to use logic to prove its impossibility

Actually you do as logic is used as part of methods which dictate if something is considered possible or not. To suggest otherwise means you are asserting a claim based on nothing.

But atheists need to reject it .

Actually no we do not. See atheists can accept finite series of events simply by accepting modern cosmology. As as theist you need to tack God on to this cosmology.

Otherwise they may prove the existence of God

No they prove the existence of the universe and the universe only. Remember when I said you have no idea what you are talking about? You still don't.