No, my concept of God is merely that it is the intelligence that created the universe. As such, your argument directly defies that definition because you're stating that there could be no intelligent origin to existence. But you can't back that up without making unsupported assumptions about the nature of existence.
Actually I did back that up. In order to exist and be in existence you will be slave to require it in order to exist. You can not preexist or exist outside of existence in order to create it lol.. And it's amazing how moronic one must be to think you can. It's really simple, you can't be made of nothing and exist. People here trying to suggest otherwise are either really dumb, or intentionally being ignorant for the sake of posting nonsensical circular arguments. And I am not making any assumptions on the nature of existence lol.. If you think non-existence can be for form of literal existing existence you have few screws loose. This really shows how desperate they have become in this argument by suggesting a literal impossible is magically possible lol.
I don't know what list you're talking about and I'm not rereading the entire thread to find it. It seems irrelevant to my point, anyway.
If you can show me how you can design and create the following into existence, then you can claim your GOD to be plausible.* existence
* intelligence
* information
* knowledge
* Point of zero (the base point where infinite regress can regress no further)
* Empty Space
* self-awareness
* self-identity
* consciousness
* a place for one's self to exist
* mind containment
* light/dark
* infinity
* time
* sight
* hearing
* smell
* observation
* calculation
* manipulation
* thought
* perception
* reality
* Feelings
* Emotions
* complexity
* cause and effect
* Morality
* Cognitive behavior
* Inertia
* Progress / progression
* Mental Processing
* Memory
* Oscillation
* intent
* Ability
* Positive and Negative
* Imagination
* Design
* Point of View
* material physicality
* attributes
* properties
* wisdom
* Character
* personality
* Belief
* Capacity
* Wisdom
* Individualism
Understand, I'm not necessarily talking about the beginning of matter. I can accept that it was always there. The scientific argument for the origin of the universe falls back to infinite regress because according to logic (and modern science) every action is a reaction to another action. The prevailing modern scientific argument for the origin of the universe is that there was a big bang that caused a very small and very dense pinpoint of matter to "explode" (for want of a better word) outwards, starting the chain of events that eventually led to the universe as we know it today.
Wrong, infinite regress shows that existence is impossible to not exist while it shows it is entirely possible and likely that your GOD doesn't exist. I can even use infinite regress and regress consciousness back to unconsciousness. And I am also not just talking about our "universe" as i am talking about the sum total of existence.
My problem with this argument, and the reason why I feel some kind of intelligence must have been behind it, is that this makes no logical sense at all, if we accept the proposition (on which the whole study of science happens to be based) that every action is a reaction to another action.
Take the time to study emergence, and emerging properties. These are natural attributes of energy to where complexity can arise from simplicity with no intelligent intervention what-so-ever.
Basically, the argument as it stands seems to be that there was this tight point of matter to which nothing happened... and nothing happened... and nothing happened... and then BANG!
Firstly, it wasn't a BANG but rather an expansion. The Observable Universe (our own neighborhood of matter) has been measured to be flat. Hence like our milkyway galaxy floating in a much larger space. Science is not saying that the Big Bang is the source to the creation of spatial volume or capacity. And in regards to whether something happens or doesn't happen is irrelevant.
out of the blue, the universe starts. You see, this bothers me not because modern science can't explain what caused the Big Bang based on what we know now.
They have working computer models from what I understand. However, it is pretty damn difficult to fully understand such an event without actually duplicating the event itself. And I don't think you are going to see Mankind ever attempt to do so. Saying man doesn't understand something doesn't magically make a GOD real or even the answer. That's a common problem with theists when they can't explain everything in existence, they invoke the god argument. And this of course is nothing more than an attempt to spread their ideological construct. It's called the GOD done it argument.. Well, have fun arguing GOD done it in regards to that entire list lol..
It's that modern science can't explain what caused the Big Bang at all. Even if we knew all the facts it would not change the fact that there was a period when nothing was happening, and then suddenly, an action occurred that wasn't a reaction to a previous action.
This is a false assumption, and most agree that under thermodynamics there can never be absolute zero.. There was never such of a thing as nothing happening. Read up on the Quantum Foam, or Quantum Electrodynamics. Energy self-oscillates, and this means that existence is essentially an ever progressive and regressive flow of energy to which higher complexities can emerge from.
Not only that, but the laws of physics that developed as a result of that Big Bang happened to be tuned precisely so that intelligent life could develop.
This is a false argument. Firstly the universe is mostly lifeless, and it can hardly be said to be tuned for life. That is a typical nonsensical argument. And secondly, it's the period of time in which our universe is currently in that allows for the possibility of life to emerge. This would have not been possible in the early years of our Universes existence. To say it's precisely tuned is laughable.
I'm sure that as knowledgeable as you are you recognize that there are several numbers governing physics that, were they just a tiny bit different, would prevent the development of matter as we know it, and would prevent any possibility of intelligence arising at all. This is quite statistically unlikely.
Touting nonsensical statistic argument is again laughable. Can you tell me the odds of having atom's come together in exact order to form a simple pebble? Hence the exact order to which makes that pebble what it is? Statistically there could be an infinite number of events that could have prevented that pebble from ever being what it is. Trying to argue statistics of emerging properties from a chaotic system is moronic and and a bad attempt to suggest it couldn't have happened without some magical sky fairy.
There is one thing you need to learn about order from chaos, order is controlled by feedback, and feedback creates order from chaotic systems. Such as waves, or ocean currents. Your weather is a prime example. These are complex systems that arise from a system of chaos. They are emerging properties of energy itself.
Now, about why this can only be solved by invoking infinite regress. Modern theoretical physics has fallen in love with the idea that we're only one of a great number (perhaps infinite) of other universes that we can never observe but must be there (sound familiar?) and that this solves the problem of how the universe came out exactly right for intelligent life to develop, because the statistical problem goes out the door when there are a large number of possible universes in which intelligent life can develop. That's fine and dandy. But if you're going to invoke an unobservable, untestable, and unprovable gimmick to solve this problem, how do you feel that's any better than invoking God?
And again, it didn't come out exactly right. If you are going to play the game of statistics, perhaps you should statistically figure out how much of the universe is alive. It wouldn't even make a .00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percentage. And when you consider the eternalness of existence, you have no idea how many times this event has or hasn't taken place. It seems to me that under an infinite amount of time, it is bound to happen regardless if you think a GOD was involved or not. You have no possible means to measure or base your statistical argument on.
You're assuming that the intelligence that created the universe, if one exists, must be extraordinarily complex to have brought into existence something so extraordinarily complex. You contend that such an intelligence, therefore, could not have arisen out of nothing.
What? This is not the argument at all. Under infinite regress complexity does not begin at the highest levels of complexity. It begins at the lowest possible level of complexity known as the base. This base represents the point to which complexity can regress no further do to it being literally impossible. And that is how you solve infinite regress. You can't solve infinite regress by invoking something of higher complexity than the lowest possible level of complexity. A GOD can not be the source origin to complexity or solve infinite regress because it would require complexity, and it would require to be more complex than even you or I. The common argument of theists is that complexity means there had to be a GOD. Well, I doubt you are going to argue that your god is less complex than yourself lol. This notion is like trying to argue that a 100 story building wouldn't require the 99 other floors to be a 100 story building with 100 floors. Well, you can't be a 100 story building with 100 floors without the 99 other floors! So under the complexity argument I surely can infinitely regress the said Deity.
That's where infinite regress comes into play in your argument against the existence of God. But if matter and existence could have always existed, and lain dormant until several billion years ago, why couldn't the same thing be said about God?
I can verify that existence has always existed due to the opposite being impossible. Sorry but I can't say the same for your GOD
. And again, this would be irrelevant because this still wouldn't make said being the source origin to existence. And I can logically infinitely regress every aspect of said being.
And how can science, without resorting to something completely unobservable, untestable, and unprovable, solve the question of what set the laws of physics so perfectly for the development of intelligent beings capable of observing and appreciating his surroundings better than theology can?
If it were so perfect for life and intelligent life, we would have neighbors on Venus and Mars. And there would be life everywhere we looked. And theology simply assumes and then asserts it's beliefs as facts within an ideological construct to which is entirely dogmatic. Science does no such thing and assumes itself to be wrong until it substantiates something is reasonable fact. Such as you can't be made of nothing for obvious reasons. Theists will try to argue and assert that their god magically can be made of nothing just to support their ideological construct, and it doesn't matter how moronic their theological logic is so long as they can rationalize irrationality in order to cling to their ideology.