INFINITE REGRESS FALLACY

Infinite regress is a circular argument fallacy that essentially presents the context of ‘a belief is justified because it is based on another belief that is justified by a belief.’ It does not answer anything and simply circles back on itself ignoring its own original moment of being set into motion as an argument. In other words, you cannot prove a validity of a belief based on another belief since beliefs are not the same as facts.

 

While some may be based on facts beliefs are more along the lines of specific opinions and assumptions interpreting facts instead of simply accepting the fact as they are demonstrated irrelevant of previously held belief biases, or as the example shows, it’s an argument that A equals B because of A which equals B because of A ad nauseam.

 

Whether referring to the origins of the universe or any other regressive context, the answer simply moves the question back into infinite regress rather than answering it. Another more common fallacy that demonstrates this is a priori assumptions is an assumption that is presumed to be true without any assessment of the facts or without further proof. Atheists and Theists often mutually fall into this trap.
 

So if one asks “what created the universe” and another says God, then asks who or what created God what you can add another deity after another ad infinitum, which is essentially what the regressive explanation for the origin of the universe does, never answering the question and inventing something else instead of accepting the reality of an initial uncaused cause. Yet the same also occurs with those who don’t answer with “God.”

 

Such will again be the moment when one asks ‘what created the universe, and the reply is “another universe” and continues ad infinitum ad nauseam without any actual proofs for the previous or the subsequent prior claims. It resolves nothing and simply pushes the question back to avoid arriving at a reasonable and logical answer which also contrary to the usual bit, an extraordinary claim does not need or requires an extraordinary answer or evidence to provide a logical, reasonable, rational and coherent answer with basic and comprehensible, demonstrable evidence.
 

Ultimately the whole infinite regression bit is logically incoherent because our premise exists within the space-time continuum. To conceive of a reality outside of this is not meaningfully fathomable and therefore irrelevant to the question and ignores the different kinds of causation such as dependent or accidental and the other issue with these is end results or current conditions cannot be used as a measure to indicate one or many possible prior initiating cause, especially if such thing are simply not able to be reproduced through some form of personal will and expression of it within the present; there are diverse ‘kinds’ of causation.

 

In addition, there are also factors such as paradoxes where what seems at first to be impossible and untrue actually is. Then there is the other issue of the universe in the concept of Totality of all things or the universe only as much as is observable and knowable and which one is being referenced.

​

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ITS OWN CAUSE

​

A creation implies a creator, design implies a designer, and fine tuning implies a fine tuner just as laws imply a law giver. Of course, the question usually presented is who created, or designed God in the context of the creator of the cosmos and the observable known universe or the totality of all things? If God is indeed timeless, spaceless, and immaterial as an uncaused cause then why cannot nature and ultimately all existence, exist in the same way as a timeless, spaceless, immaterial uncaused cause? 

 

In other words, why cannot the universe be its own uncaused cause and its own origin and become as marvelous and precise as is often attributed to God.

 

The answer to this really isn’t that difficult as there are only two options which is the universe caused itself spontaneously and unintelligibly and just happened to self-organize in the precise ways by blind chance and dumb luck, or the One and Three did it as where in the one retains his own Aseity and he and they are aware, conscious, mindful, intelligent and precise beings that made it all come about one way or another. So, we can demonstrate factually why the universe is not self-caused and self-organized blindly.  

​

1. All the evidence of actual physics and cosmology demonstrate that the universe is not its own uncaused first cause such as the second law of thermodynamics which more or less states that heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter which means the universe is running down and cooling off which means it had to have had some source that heated and rolled it up. This means we would have no form of usable existing energy if the universe was eternal.

2. The universe’s space-time is expanding faster than the speed of light because space time is not particle based, and ever increasing in that velocity, and has been shown that everything came and expanded from a singular point where the non-physical was converted into the physical described as a point of ‘infinite density’ which makes it by definition a void singularity of nothingness, and therefore had to have had a prior beginning or original starting point.

3. The fact of the radiating heat from the microwave background radiation also demonstrates and proves by its distribution that the universe emerged from this original beginning point and has been increasingly cooling down ever since which is also in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics as the ‘afterglow’ of the explosive inflation event often called the Big Bang.

4. The great galactic seeds and gravitational spiraling waves, which were very fine temperature variations in that radiating afterglow that allowed galaxies to form in the early universe from which stars and eventually planets along with all the materials and gases produced from starts being born and dying and serving as factors for the necessary materials to allow life to be possible and abiding by primal laws that don’t change over time, prove it had an origin other than itself.

5. And the proven fact that such things s time, space, and matter are in fact co-relative and came into existence together out of the available usable energy as the essence of everything here and beyond. That literally means that what we know as space, time and matter literally had a beginning which has been demonstrated repeatedly and independently to be true.

 

All this and much more all serve as observational and clear scientific proofs that the universe is not its own uncaused cause or first cause, which in this can only lead when using actual logic, reason, rationality and doing away with any A Priori assumptions and logical category error fallacies that there can only be something beyond and outside of the universe, and that something must be by definition timeless, spaceless, immaterial and its own uncaused cause.

​

So, this leaves only one simple question to which the answer is clear in itself. If such an entity is truly timeless, does it have a beginning? The only correct answer is no which is the nature of timelessness otherwise called eternity. As such since God possesses Aseity than he is indeed his own first uncaused cause and the ultimate cause of all other causes and the uncreated creator of created things. This is the very definition of the unmoved and immovable mover.

​

Naturally the rebuttal to this is there is no reason to assume that such an uncaused first cause would be such as a God the Supreme Being and such will then try and go back to the infinite regress argument with suggestions based on ideas also without actual supporting evidence of mindless other dimensions with properties that allow for the universe to be created without having an intelligence having a hand in any of it.

​

Such is still its own claim requiring faith in something without actual evidence as pure speculation and has never been able to be observed. In addition, it still requires such other dimensions if considered in the same concept as “other universes with their own properties actually increases the probability for the existence of God rather than diminishes it because with more dimensional universes it means such a being as God can also arise from a non-dimensional state. However, there is another factor of observational facts present in the universe that also reinforces rather than negates God as the ultimate source.

​

1. The universe is understandable and would not be understandable if it was composed randomly by dumb luck and there is no reason why the universe should exist as it does or even exist at all, or in other words, the universe shouldn’t be able to exist, but obviously it does because we exist within it.

2. The universe also retains levels of extreme complexities such as the cosmological constants that are too precise to have occurred randomly and such complexity to have occurred randomly would require that the laws of the universe and nature itself to have “eventually” arranged themselves to such degrees as they exist that would far exceed the age of the universe in order to accomplish such.

3. Because the laws of nature and therefore the universe to which we are all subject are observably the same from the point of the formation of the singularity to the present state of the universe do not evolve or change over time they would either have to predate the universe itself or have been organized instantly at the same moment the universe’s singularity had first formed and would then make such laws themselves creations and thus imply a mindful and aware creator of said laws.

4. The universe also demonstrated on many diverse and fundamental levels high levels of incomprehensible and clear intelligence behind everything and expressed through everything, and intelligence implies also mind, awareness and individuality of existence present in but distinct from the universe itself.

 

This is the moment when most will bring about emotional arguments or other questions mostly out of the frustration that much of the claimed logic behind their disbelief are more faith based than beliefs in such as the One and the Three. This goes to the first question of “if this is true, why is there theology and why do we worship the One and Three of such is so lofty and beyond us? That is not a question about existence or a refuting of existence but rather asking for a justification an opinion which is simply an opinion if one cares to bother with that ad fall into that distraction from the existence or non-existence questions.

 

For example:

​

1. Worship from simply means useful form in the sense of good shape being in good shape and came to also figuratively for ‘praise, acknowledgement, respect or honoring something.

2. In the sense of what most have come to assume worship means and tend to apply such matters often ignorant of the facts. “Worship” in such context or any context is actually not required and why some choose to “pay homage and express some sort of devotion” is entirely up to the individual but still says nothing about existence.

 

Another is the whole problem of evil thing which again is placing the One and Three of the limited human perspective and fails to recognize from such debates what is considered good to one is considered evil to another and there are a very slim set of things within human ethical and moral compasses that were or are universally agreed upon. It still does not prove or disprove existences it is less about existence than personal opinions and emotional appeals of greater or lesser value in general. So here is no “have to” and the reason there is theology is the same as there is philosophy as there is anything.

​

People create it to explore it and try to understand it, whatever that it as a subject happens to be which as such is obviously an aspect of cosmology. Furthermore, that is also the reality of free will even if your will is limited by other wills and other things. That includes the freedom to accept or reject, believe or not, explore or abandon. This also includes choices to do or not do harm to others and or to teach people to harm or not harm others though it is actually impossible to not cause some harm to others in some form or another as a living existing being.   

​

THE UNIVERSE IS A SIMULATION NONSENSE

​

The idea that we might be living inside the simulation of some more advanced civilization is nonsense. Yet in recent years it has been floating around as an ostensibly serious and respectable intellectual position, especially among tech utopianists (utopianism always fails for a reason regardless of what latest flavor it comes in).

 

Rather than get into all the specifics and why it is all full of holes, riddled with absurd and implausible assumptions and contradictions, it basically proclaims the One and Three or Divine Unity simply given a different cover and is a poor atheistic attempt to try and deny the Divine but have the creationist concepts also.

 

Computers cannot exceed the inherent information processing limitations of matter itself, and a small classical or quantum computer can never simulate a larger system than itself with perfect fidelity and because of that and other limitations, even a quantum computer will be bound by those limitations.

 

1. That alone makes such a concept nonsensical. So, the only base thing within the universe that can simulate the universe is the universe itself. Even the whole "rendered view" argument fails because it falls  because every distance and perceptive has to be rendered at the same instant for all views and at all angles for all things and eventually falls into the same kind of nonsense as claiming that the universe is only as it is based on the moment of one's personal observation which means if someone places a bag over your head or closes the curtains the universe outside goes away (which also means everything and everyone else goes away as well and cease to exist).

2. If that were true, then each moment the person removed the obstructed view the universe would be different and so would everything and everyone else. The simple proof is how blind people who observe nothing still collide with objects we see and if we put them in their path without their sensory awareness. If observation-based reality was true, the blind should not be able to collide with said obstructions but pass through because they are not real to them until impact. When computational shortcuts are employed, inconsistencies inevitably occur. It's clearly false. All the claims are based on solipsism which claims there is no proof anything outside of one's own mind is real.  

3. If one is to actually believe everything is an incomprehensibly advanced simulation created by some sort of ultra intelligent simulation programmers who know in advance what observations the simulation inhabitants are going to make in any given instant, every decision and every action and reaction and all the innumerable variables therein and managed to avoid such things as stack overflow and systemic failures and all the factors of consciousness we don't, and not bound to the limitations of the simulation itself and able to code in anything at will effortlessly, all that is being described in computer rather than maniacal terms (as was the tendency also after the industrial revolution) is more or less the One and Three as has been presented in more simplified contexts. 

4. Despite this, it is true the world and universe appear incredibly consistent in every detail. But to try and save the claim as a last-ditch effort and pretending not to appeal to a metaphysical agency which such programmers would indeed be, such will present the argument that it’s possible that the program accounts for that by 'erasing our awareness of the inconsistencies.' As far as arguments go, that is an extremely childish, infantile last resort to even propose such a thing.

​

This argument is often perpetuated by claims loosely based on elements of quantum physics where there is clear mathematics, geometric correspondences to everything, and the fact that quantum correlations occur instantaneously over arbitrary distances despite the speed of light barrier, and the realities of the underlining mathematical code of quantum mechanics determines the outcome of correlated outcomes light years apart instantaneously and irrelevant how far apart these correlated objects are simply demonstrates what has been stated before. The One and Three are not limited by the mathematics because they define it all through their activities. Perhaps it is enough that the world and universe is wonderfully strange and our best option is to live life as fully as we can before the inevitable.