- Education and Science»
INFINITE REGRESSION Argument for Creation - REFUTED
The proponents of Creationism (theists and atheists) posit the following irrational and fallacious argument in order to brainwash the masses into believing that the Universe was “created”:
“If the past was ‘infinite’, then you cannot traverse an infinite set of events from the past in order to reach NOW. There couldn’t have been an infinite amount of time in the past because the present could not have been reached in order to realize our current existence. Since infinity cannot be realized and is not real, we must conclude that the Universe is not eternal, but instead, created!”
Such lamebrains fool no one! We will explain why such a fallacious argument is absolutely no different than saying:
“If there are an ‘infinite’ amount of numbers, then you cannot traverse that infinite set and expect to reach the numbers that we are using today, like 1, 2, 3,...etc. Thus it would be impossible for us to say that “1+1=2”. Since it is impossible to have an infinite set of numbers, we must logically conclude that numbers had a beginning. The Big Bang atheist will conclude that the biggest number is 13.7 billion, while the Genesis theist will conclude that the biggest number is 6000!”
....and here is the antidote, which, when used within the same context, INSTANTLY DEBUNKS the fallacious Infinite Regress Argument:
“Since we cannot describe the past or the future using a finite number of causal events going backwards or forwards in time from the PRESENT, then the past and future must be eternal. You cannot traverse the past in a finite number of cause/effects to show Existence as VANISHING into nothingness. You cannot traverse the past and ever hope to find a point of Creation. Nope! No freakin’ way! Therefore the Universe is eternal - it had no beginning and will have no end. There was NEVER any Creation or any God.....QED!”
So the lamebrains who use the Infinite Regress Argument will have to cherry-pick the exact VERSION of the argument that suits their agenda:
a) They can either pick the version which demonstrates an Uncaused First Cause (see First Cause Argument DEBUNKED).
b) They can pick the ANTIDOTE which demonstrates that the Universe is indeed eternal (see Creation is IMPOSSIBLE).
Q: Which will it be? Do we flip a coin?
A: It doesn’t matter.....they BOTH lead to the conclusion that the Universe is eternal. There is no other option.
This article will expose the irrationalities and contradictions associated with the clause: “infinite regress”. You will see why such petty arguments belong only within the realm of the worst kind of Religions imaginable. These Religions do not preach belief and faith-based dogma, but instead preach the doctrine of worshipping the CONTRADICTION! Such Religions are often found in the traditional fundamentalist realm, as well as the contemporary fundamentalist realm of Mathematical Physics, which embodies Religions such as: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory.
PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE MEANINGS OF ‘INFINITE’ AND ‘ETERNAL’
.....and after reading this section, the proponents of the Infinite Regress Argument will STILL REFUSE to understand these terms....nor do they care to understand them. It’s much easier for these fools to continue parroting their nonsense which violates grammar, reason, and reality.
These feeble-minded folks often attempt to show a contradiction for an eternal Universe by using the word ‘infinite’ in their arguments. But what they end up doing instead, is unwittingly contradicting their OWN argument for “creation”.
It is just as much as irrational to say “Infinite Regress”, as it is to say “Eternal Regress”. Both clauses are complete gibberish – meaningless!
People’s confusion stems from the fact that ‘eternal’ refers to the metric of motion (forever; no temporal beginning and no end); while ‘infinity’ implicitly alludes to the sizes of objects (having a beginning of construction, but no end). One is an adverb while the other is an adjective. How they can confuse the two is beyond human comprehension!
Those who say “Eternal Regress” are oblivious to the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an object to change its direction, and suddenly regress backwards eternally. Remember, ‘eternal’ implies no beginning AND no end. You cannot begin walking backwards forever and irrationally claim that your regressing motion is eternal. The term ‘eternal’ is an adverb of the time metric of motion only; in that the motion is perpetual. It is irrational to use it in the context of “an implicit start” or “direction” (i.e. go backwards, go forwards, etc.). And it’s just as irrational to claim that your regressing motion is infinite (i.e. alluding to the size of an object).
How some people don’t understand these basic Kindergarten ideas is mind-boggling! And yet they showcase their arguments in public by professing to be experts in Logic, Physics and Cosmology. Priceless!
The word ‘infinite’ is the context-opposite of ‘finite’, and thus irrationally implies that an object is either incessantly growing in size, or its size is indeterminate. In common language (not scientific language) it is sometimes said that an ocean can be infinite, because the observer cannot readily determine its size. But it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for anything in the Universe to be infinite in size, otherwise it would actually BE ‘the’ Universe.
Eternal can only be applied in the context of time/motion. So if we want to scientifically describe the Universe from a temporal perspective, we can say: The Universe has no beginning and no end, or the Universe is eternal. Remember, the Universe is a concept (matter and space relation), not an object, that’s why we can qualify it with the adverb ‘eternal’.
From an objective approach to the problem, infinite is an adjective whereas eternal is an adverb.
An adverb is a qualifier of a ‘concept’ or a ‘verb’, specifically, for dynamic concepts like time and motion. So you can say “eternal motion” or “eternal time”, but you cannot say “eternal Sun”. It is irrational to qualify objects as eternal. It only makes sense to qualify the “motion” (verb) of objects as eternal.
An adjective is a qualifier of an ‘object’, like Sun, table, atom, etc. You can try to say that a table is finite or infinite, but you must realize that it is impossible for any object to be ‘infinite’, because all objects have ‘shape’, and thus are always finite. In common everyday speech, people always say that objects, concepts, and verbs are infinite, but this is not only irrational and violates grammar, but it is also impossible.
What has happened, as usually happens in any language; is that due to mindless casual ordinary speech, people have unwittingly converted (reified) the adjective ‘infinite’ into the noun ‘infinity’, and the adverb ‘eternal’ into the noun ‘eternity’. Whenever they use ‘infinity’ or ‘eternity’ in a sentence, they are irrationally alluding to an imaginary object that is impossible to exist. Many will also reify ‘infinite’ into the adverb ‘infinitely’, and use it to qualify motion, when they should instead be using the adverb ‘incessant’. Then everyone just mindlessly parrots this breathtaking knowledge without even understanding what they are talking about. And when many people parrot this nonsense, we call it: Religion!
Converting and using the adjective "infinite" as though it was the noun "infinity", is as irrational and inappropriate as converting the adjective "finite" into the noun "finity". And such concoctions are inapplicable to reality, the Universe, mathematics, or to any other conceivable context. Therefore, this inconsistent usage of the irrational word “infinite” is unscientific (unrealistic) and always leads to sillytalk and contradictions.
In physics, we don’t use common everyday parlance; we are “precise” with our use of terms. It is irrational to say something is infinite, especially with regards to reality. Adjectives like infinite, cannot describe verbs and concepts. Only adverbs can describe verbs and concepts. So you can say that, ‘running’ (verb) is incessant (adverb). But you cannot say, ‘running’ is infinite (adjective). And you definitely cannot say: infinite regress (verb). Such clauses are completely meaningless – total gibberish that is only meant for Religious usage!
Mathematicians claim that there are infinite numbers and infinite sets. The problem with infinity is simple. The mathematicians have morphed (reified) “incessant counting” into “infinite numbers”. Then they converted 'infinite numbers' into the noun 'infinity'. Mathematics has no use for nouns or adjectives. Mathematics is exclusively a language of adverbs because it is the study of dynamic concepts, like numbers, motion, equations, etc. So in their context, “infinity” means that you count incessantly. Counting incessantly, like not counting at all, does not qualify as a number. Therefore, whenever a mathematician uses the words ‘infinite’ or ‘infinity’, he is talking religion and not science. Similarly, the popular notion of ‘infinite set’ means that the number of elements in it is so great that we would count them incessantly. Such conceptual abstractions have nothing to do with reality. Not even Mathematics can make sense out of these delusional abstractions.
In the real world, in the Universe out there, everything is countable if we only had enough time to do it. Only the mindless geeks of Mathematics and the priests of Religion use the word infinity. There is no context in which to use the words infinite or infinity in physics or in nature. The term 'infinite object' is an ontological contradiction and the term 'infinite counting' is irrational. The correct term is 'incessant counting.' Therefore the word ‘infinite’ is restricted to Mathematical or abstract conceptual usage, and can never be used in physics! Physics deals exclusively with objects and space; none of which can be described as being infinite.
Whenever a so-called scientist uses the adjectives ‘finite’ or ‘infinite’ to qualify speed or space, you instantly know that he is a Religionist, and not a scientist. These Religionists are invoking ordinary speech rather than scientific terminology. They are confusing nouns with verbs in the same presentation. They should at least get their language straight before making fools of themselves in public.
Anybody who uses any of the following terms in a sentence, especially to talk about the Universe, space, matter, existence, or God....
a) ADJECTIVE: infinite
b) NOUN: infinity, finity, eternity
c) ADVERB: infinitely
....is an ignorant fool with absolutely no clue of what they are talking about. They have disconnected themselves from reality and are drowning in a sea of religious/mathematical delusion.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein
That’s right.....despite his irrational theories; even Einstein understood that the Universe was not infinite, but rather, eternal. That’s why he never bought into the Religion of the Big Bang.
THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH “INFINITE REGRESS”
The major problems arising whenever somebody uses “infinite regress” in their arguments are:
1) The ignorant presenter combines an adjective (infinite) with a verb (regress) and claims that the clause “infinite regress” makes sense to him. It’s like saying that the term “triangular laughing” makes sense. Time to take Grammar 101.
2) Since “infinite” is an adjective, in order for it to be used in a sentence it necessarily demands an object! But there are NO infinite objects in the Universe, under any context. So it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to use the word “infinite” in any context concerning reality.
3) The presenter should instead be using the adverb “incessant” to qualify “regress” (motion). But the funny thing is: since his foolish argument does NOT make reference to any objects, then “incessant regress” is not even applicable to his argument.
4) Instead, his foolish argument is relying on the reification of a concept like regress, event, cause, etc.....into an ‘object’, and then attempt to traverse this supposed object ‘infinitely’......and in the process.....confuse the hell out of the reader into accepting the argument as True Gospel. Talk about pulling the wool over your eyes!
5) Now that he has a fictitious (and irrational) scenario set up, he proceeds to attack & stab this straw puppet to death by claiming that there are NO actual infinites in the Universe. Well, duh! If there aren’t, then WHY did he bring up this strawman argument?
6) Now the presenter attempts to traverse “infinity” from the opposite direction (past) from a fictitious starting point, in order to reach the initially defined (present). Since he can’t do this, he now has another STRAWMAN to attack!
7) After the presenter has FORMULATED, IDENTIFIED, ATTACKED, STABBED, and KILLED all the strawmen in his foolish argument, he victoriously claims that it is impossible for the Universe to be eternal.
8) Thus he concludes that the Universe was created in a t=0 beginning, whether from a God or from a Singularity. And almost everyone and their brother falls victim to this scam.
Of course infinity is not real. There is no point of contention here. Only objects which have ‘shape’ and ‘location’ can be said to be real (i.e. exist).
Concepts cannot be traversed like you traverse a road from one town to another. Only physical objects can be traversed. But the Infinite Regress argument is talking about traversing concepts, like events, time, causes, etc. Concepts CANNOT be traversed because they have no physical structure to traverse; they do not exist, and they necessarily require a dynamic observer with memory to conceive them. So even if the proponent of the argument uses the adverb ‘incessant’ instead of the adjective ‘infinite’, his argument still fails because concepts cannot perform this incessant motion that he is alluding to. He instead needs to identify an object, like an atom, that regresses incessantly. But he will not do that because it will destroy his argument.
But even if, say, for arguments sake, we “pretend” that some invisible object called ‘time’ exists, and can supposedly be traversed,....the Infinite Regress argument still leads to contradictions!
Because “infinite” implies a start but no end; thus alluding to something which is not finite and indeterminate. So theists and atheists are actually setting up a STRAWMAN by alluding to an artificial starting point of time they call NOW or PRESENT, which is growing back in time into an infinite past. And this is not only irrational, but impossible! So they proceed to attack this strawman by claiming that an infinite past would not allow a traversal into the present to be reached. In their strawman attack, they try to pick some undefined starting point in the infinite past in order to traverse in the OPPOSITE direction into the present. But they claim they can’t do that because the past was infinitely growing and no starting point can be realized. All they’ve managed to do here is kill a strawman in order to proclaim that the Universe must have had a t=0 beginning of creation.
They should understand that the Universe is the only conceivable perpetual motion machine. The Universe is static because it has no stored states; is has no memory and no dynamisms. Every single object in the Universe is separated from all others by the nothingness of space. Hence each object only has LOCATION in the present, and in all presents; as there is no past and no future by which existence can be gauged. Hence objects CANNOT traverse a ‘past’ or a ‘future’. Objects only have a present location - always! Space has no boundaries and hence no t=0 moment of creation can be deduced, induced, or reasoned in any way possible. It is this boundlessness of space and the Universe’s static behaviour in the PRESENT which makes the Universe perpetual and eternal. It never had a beginning and it will have no end.
For those who disagree that the Universe is perpetual and eternal, I welcome their explanations which can justify their position of a t=0 beginning.
So really, the Infinite Regress argument is irrational and contradictory because it violates not only grammar, but reality. This argument is notoriously used as a strawman argument by setting up an initial REFERENCE point to the regression and calling it the PRESENT, which supposedly is flowing infinitely into the past. And then the strawman is attacked by irrationally attempting to traverse the regression in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION, by claiming that you cannot find a starting point in the infinite past which will lead to the present. Well, duh! Of course you can’t, because “infinite” is atemporal. So the proponents of this argument always attack the strawman of a fictitious starting point in the infinite atemporal past. They set up their own contradiction, and then they misrepresent this contradiction as being dependent upon an eternal Universe. Sorry, but they don’t fool the critical thinkers out there.
Anyway, their argument is pure bunk because you cannot traverse or regress concepts. In reality, only OBJECTS can be traversed or regressed.
Remember: ‘infinite’ is an adjective that only qualifies abstract mathematical objects, and NOT Universal events, causes, time, or motion. It can’t be used to qualify nouns, verbs, adverbs, objects, existence, or anything having to do with reality!
THEISTS AND ATHEISTS LIKE TO PLAY BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WITH “INFINITE REGRESS”
Just to showcase the extreme ignorance and lack of rational thought of the proponents of this Infinite Regress argument, let’s just “pretend” to play along with them under THEIR terms. Let’s have some fun with them.....shall we?
So even after the mindless theist and atheist flat-out tells you in your face that the Universe had a t=0 beginning point of CREATION, because Infinite Regress is impossible (duh!),.....they will proceed to tell you that Infinite Regress does NOT apply to their creation argument.
Q: Why not?
A: Because they said so, and you’d better BELIEVE them, and don’t even think about questioning them!! It is a FACT that their God & Singularity do not have a t=0 beginning (of course!!!), otherwise it would DESTROY THEIR FICTITIOUS RELIGION in an instant!
Now we expose how the “theist” and the “atheist” BOTH contradict themselves because they necessarily ALLOW for an Infinite Regress in their arguments in order to support the special pleading of their respective Religions. This is how they twist your arm and get you to believe their claim:
THEIST: The theist first claims that infinite regress is an impossibility, so it’s a DEAD issue, and the Universe cannot be eternal. But then RESURRECTS it by saying that it’s okay for God to exist in His own “bubble” of infinite regress in the past, and somehow traverses infinity into the future when He creates the Universe. So God waited an infinite amount of time until He decided: “Hey! I’d like to create a Universe!” So if God was thinking in His own infinite time bubble about creating the Universe, then WHY didn’t He create it instantaneously, at which point the Universe would be ETERNAL, instead of traversing an infinite amount of time (which is impossible) and claiming to have created it in the infinite future (13.7 billion years ago)? As it turns out, God is NOT eternal either!
ATHEIST: The atheist first claims that infinite regress is an impossibility, so it’s a DEAD issue, and the Universe cannot be eternal. But then RESURRECTS it by saying that it’s okay for the Singularity to exist in its own “bubble” of infinite regress in the past, and somehow traverses infinity into the future when it creates the Universe without a cause. So the Singularity waited an infinite amount of time until it decided: “Hey! I’d like to create a Universe acausally!” So if the Singularity was waiting in its own infinite time bubble before creating the Universe, then WHY didn’t it create it instantaneously, at which point the Universe would be ETERNAL, instead of traversing an infinite amount of time (which is impossible) and claiming to have created it in the infinite future (13.7 billion years ago)? As it turns out, the Singularity or any type of Big Bang “seed” is NOT eternal either!
Talk about playing Double-Dutch! Talk about having your own cake and eating it too! Talk about playing BOTH SIDES of the argument!!!!!
These are the typical irrational, childish, and brain-dead arguments made by theists, atheists, priests and mathematical physicists; and for the sole purpose of protecting their respective Religions from the voice of reason. They want to protect their Religions from critical thought, as any academic inquiry into their Dark Age dogma will surely unravel its ontological contradictions and send it to the garbage bin where it belongs.
Well guess what? Their arguments are easily refuted by merely using their OWN argumentative attack on Infinite Regress, and attacking their implied and necessitated Infinite Regress on God and the Singularity. It works both ways!
Q: Can their arguments get even stupider than what they already are?
A: Yes! Just listen to their circus show tactics as they try to protect their Religions from scientific inquiry and scrutiny:
Atheist: “It’s nonsense to claim that an invisible sky-daddy created the Universe. What was before God? Who created God?”
Theist: “This is a meaningless question. There was no time before God. Time began when God created the Universe. God is so great that we cannot possibly hope to understand Him and His ways. It’s like asking: what did God have for lunch last year?”
Theist: “What was before the Big Bang explosion and the Singularity? Who created the Singularity? Who set off the explosion?”
Atheist: “This is a meaningless question. There was no time before the Singularity created the Big Bang. Time began at the Big Bang. It is meaningless to ask who set off the explosion. We only know facts after the Plank Time of the explosion. Uh duh, it’s like asking: what’s north of the North Pole?”
Well, SPACE is north of the North Pole and south of the South Pole, and there are stars and planets out there! That's the stuff we encounter when we take a step radially outwards from the North Pole. Where is the North Star, also known as Polaris? Isn't it north of the North Pole? Or is it south of the North Pole?
Space is what “contours” the supposed “edge” of the Big Bang explosion. So space was already there, which contradicts the religion of the Big Bang.
Similarly, space is what “contours” God, and allows him to move and impart causal actions. So space was already there, which contradicts all creationist religions.
These mindless parrots need to get their heads out of their butts, stop parroting authority, and start using their brains for THINKING rather than for memorizing authoritative quotes. That’s the only way they can begin to conceptualize, rationalize, visualize, and understand the Universe.
The buffoons who answer with: “that’s a meaningless or invalid question”; don’t fool anyone. What the answer does is destroy their religion, so it must be avoided at all costs. It is these lame excuses that allow them to dodge the scientific questions and censor them, because they place their religion in the light of scientific scrutiny. They don’t have the balls to admit that they only BELIEVE in creation because some authoritative priest (William-Lane Craig, Billy Graham, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, etc.) told them to do so.
In summary, such arguments regarding Infinite Regress have absolutely nothing to do with the Universe, existence, or reality; nor do they contradict the eternal Universe (matter & space) in any way. They are irrationally used for formulating strawman arguments that deal with the abstract notion of the “infinite”, which only has Religious and Mathematical connotations attached to it. Remember: ‘infinite’ is NOT the same as ‘eternal’.
CREATION UNDER ANY CONTEXT IS AN IRRATIONAL & UNTENABLE CLAIM
No matter what idea the proponents of Creation use in an attempt to justify their position, whether it is infinite regress, first cause, singularities, God, etc., they always end up chasing their tails in circles. There is not a single Creationist argument which does not lead to ontological contradictions. This includes the proponents of the Big Bang religion, as this idea is even more surrealistic and more supernatural than positing a Creator God, because it irrationally proposes matterless motion and self-creation out of nothing. That is a BIGGER whopper to swallow than a magical God.
Bottom line: The claim of Creation is unfounded and unsupported by any conceptual analysis, whether from traditional religion, or from contemporary religions like the Big Bang. It is the case that we presently have matter that is separated by space. This is in fact the DEFAULT POSITION. Any claim wanting to depart from the default position MUST explain its case rationally!
But what we actually have from the Religionist and the Big Bang Apologist is the CLAIM and the BELIEF that there was no matter and no space at some instant in the past. This is the positive claim they are presenting which is akin to the claim that a square-circle can be realized.
1) The proponent of such a claim has to explain HOW it could be possible that there was NO matter and space at some instant in the past. How is that even a possibility?
2) WHY wouldn’t there be matter and space in the past? What is the reason?
Once they are able to rationally answer the questions above and give us the reasons for their claim, they will now have to justify their claim:
1) Now they will have to justify their CLAIM that there was no matter and space in the past by describing in detail the ontological situation of no matter and no space. How is that situation any different than just “omnipresent space” without any matter? What is the difference between space and non-space? Please explain in detail.
2) They will also have to explain the process by which matter and space can arise from the ontological situation described in 1).
Without justifying their CLAIM of Creation, all we have is just another irrational claim.....like God dunnit!.....or the Big Bang dunnit! Human beings make thousands of claims every day. And the claim of Creation is no exception. But what makes the claim of Creation very special, is the fact that it stemmed from the monotheistic Jews who wanted their own special existence that was created by their own special God. And this special existence ensured they were God’s “chosen” people with their own special culture and customs that were given to them by their God. It is incredible how Christianity, Islam, and Mathematical Physics (Big Bang) were able to capitalize on this Jewish idea of “creation”, and proceed to brainwash humanity in order to propagate their irrational ideologies to this day.
The fact that Infinite Regress is impossible does not give credence to Creation, and it has nothing to do with the reasons theists and atheists parrot mindlessly. Infinite Regress is impossible because the word INFINITE is an irrational abstract concept (adjective) that circumscribes Religion and Mathematics. It has nothing to do with reality and it certainly has nothing to do with the eternality of the Universe. So it actually DEBUNKS Creation because all forms of Creation (God, Big Bang) are necessarily dependent on the notion of Infinite Regress, as argued by their proponents.
It is in fact the Creationists (theists, atheists, and mathematicians) who have to grapple with the irrational and impossible notion of Infinite Regress, in order to remedy their contradictions and their own special pleading of God and the Singularity. After all, this is THEIR precious argument. It is obvious that they are BOTH peddling their own version of the worst kind of religion imaginable: religion without faith or belief, but instead, religion WITH CONTRADICTIONS!!
Does anybody out there have a rational explanation with a critical analysis of nature’s ontology which demonstrates the viability of creation?
No! Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers have been desperately busting their brains for over 2500 years to come up with an analytical explanation. The BEST that they have to date is William-Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is NOT analytical and NOT an explanation. It is nothing but a “cartoonish” assertive syllogism which fails on the very first premise.
Those who posit the claim of Creation have absolutely nothing but a baseless bald assertion that is contradictory under any context. Their claim is nothing but an assertion of a “square-circle”. Theists and atheists always fall back on TRADITION, RELIGION, SURREALISM, and AUTHORITY to make their arguments and self-validate their own irrational claims. Creation is just like a square-circle that smells happy.....it is IMPOSSIBLE!