CONFRONTING OBJECTIONS

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 JUST as marvelous and precise as is often attributed to the handywork God and the three Goddesses?

 

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.

​

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A SIMULATION

​

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). Often used as a way to avoid recognition of the existence of the Divine it actually supports such a thing. 

 

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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.  

5. If one is to actually believe everything is an incomprehensibly advanced simulation created by some sort of ultra intelligent simulation programmers, then such actually can be equated to the One and Three as said creators who hid knowledge of them in the simulation as some sort of easter egg.

6. In addition, the simulation code would have to know in advance what observations the simulated inhabitants are going to make in any given instant, every decision and every action and reaction they can or will make in advance, and all the innumerable variables therein while somehow managing to avoid a complete failure due to such things as stack overflow and systemic failures and all the factors of consciousness we don't know about.

7. The same would also have to be acknowledged as not bound to the limitations of the simulation itself as the inhabitants are and able to code in anything at will effortlessly without causing other systemic failures, including, but not limited to, all that is being described in said computer.

8. Furthermore, we have to acknowledge that the whole simulation claim is no more sensible or logical as comparing the whole of existence as a mechanical watch or device (as was the tendency also after the industrial revolution) wherein it was also common to describe the various concepts of the Divine as the machine creators and watch makers in more simplified contexts. 

9. Despite this, it is true the world and universe appear incredibly consistent in every detail. This is obvious and observable, and the Sacred Geometry previously presented reflect this and we also see a lot of this same geometry in various ways throughout nature. So that is a given.

10. However, despite all the factors that stand against the "simulation" claims, to try and save it 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.'

11. As far as arguments go, that is an extremely childish, infantile last resort to even propose such a thing which attempts to remove the necessity of the always demanded and required "burdens of proofs" and therefore only loses its credibility. Additionally, it has to be called what it is. A proposition of 'Intelligent Design' with excessive and unnecessary added steps. 

​​

This argument is often perpetuated 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.

 

However, they do not remain on that course and instead rely on circular arguments and often demonstrably fraudulent evidence and claims of claims that are not based on the actual known facts. We, however, can present that 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 and whatever may or may not be beyond the objectively observable and subjectively experienced and contemplated.

​

ABIOGENISIS FICTION

​

Abiogenesis, or more appropriately, Spontaneous Abiogenesis in which living things for from nonliving substances has simply not been demonstrated in a laboratory ever, or through any successful experimentation in or around natural thermal vents, or all the other various hypothetical means as "potential" means to cause it to occur.

 

It's therefore NOT a theoretical fact but a hypothesis that hasn't been proven or demonstrated and repeated independently with the same results making it a science myth of creating life from non-life or self-replicating molecules from some unknown primordial soup. it is also not the same as evolution which is more or less based in the developmental changes of forms of life, and not the origin of it. They are related but they are different. 

 

While we know the chemical and electro-chemical factors of biology (which has also saved many lives many time) such spontaneous generation of life has never been able to be demonstrated or reproduced independently with the same results which is essential for such things to be demonstrable facts. Until such a time it is merely a hypothesis that many decades of attempted experimentation have simply failed repeatedly regardless all the various calculations, tests and chemical compounds involved. 

 

Abiogenesis is not the same as replicating a molecule from scratch which has been done and even creating molecules from light particles has also been achieved. However, these are direct actions of merely copying processes and finding different ways to achieve such creations but is not the same as spontaneous generation of molecules that self-replicate, change, adapt and evolve and become living organisms even of a single cell variety. That makes is a science myth for atheists more or less. 

 

Abiogenesis has not been observed. It remains purely hypothetical and must be subject, if claimed to be achieved has to be subject to independent tests with like results or its again pure fiction. On that same note, unlike Albigensian never being observed, it's a category error fallacy to apply that lack of observation to Super Novas. We don't need to "create such in labs" because we do and have observed them frequently and additionally their remnants are all over the place in space.

 

Thus, observation vs not observed are not synonymous. It is also to be noted this is often used to demonstrate Darwin was incorrect. However, while that may be true to a point Darwin was speaking about origins of differentiated species from common ancestors not the origin of life itself.

​

PANSPERMIA IS JUST ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL

​

Until life is demonstrated irrefutably as coming from somewhere else, and even then, only pushes the question of how life actually originated in the first place and converted from inorganic and organic compounds and then into the most basic self-replicating molecules as life from non-life, and likewise is actually observed, Panspermia does not "explain" or prove" anything as to where, when or how life began. It remains one of many different hypotheses often pushed as though it has been proven irrefutably, even though it hasn't, and most just try and push the problem back when they run into a wall.

 

This becomes another form of the science of the gaps when pawned off as fact, and as such becomes in its own strain a 'faith-based argument' placed on even more unstable ground. It's been proposed, but never demonstrated to be reliable to "true" wherein it also becomes science fiction rather than science fact. It's not a proven. There is no actual reliable evidence. It's merely an idea and it also does not, even if ever demonstrated, contradict these foundations of belief in the One and Three.  

​​

OTHER FAILED ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ONE AND THREE

​

Conway's Game of Life as an argument against a creator:

​​

It should be noted that John Conway himself came to hate the "Game of Life" program mainly because it was always brought up in various mathematical discussions when for the most part it wasn't, in his mind, all that interesting. The most basic point of the project was simply to see how the self-driven, autonomous program bits could possibly develop from some very basic rules into more complex structures or patterns and as possible demonstration how complex life can arise from vary simple life forms when the basic rules or conditions are in place. 

​

1. Some atheists also will try and use Conway's Game of Life as a justification, failing to see it's a bad argument against the concept of a deity of any kind, because someone had to create its rules (programing), build its containment (world), and give it power to start running (power source/life spark).

2. The only thing it really shows is how more complicated structures can arise from simple base ones. That's it. It's basically a visual calculator; however, it is not supportive either of the various spinoff arguments desperately clinging to the Abiogenesis bit.

3. Conway's Game of Life also does not reflect or explain the origin of life or the conversion of nonliving substances into living organisms. It certainly does not prove useful for "explaining away" of any kind of Divine concepts and ultimate sources either. It only demonstrates a concept of how simplicity can give way to complexity. One can sort that simply by counting from 1-9. 

​​​

The Multiverse as an argument against a creator:

​

1. Aside from the fact there have not been observed and likely never will be observed any other "universe" outside of this one, though mathematically it's not remotely impossible, the failing here is one of the main arguments against the existence of such as God is "no outside" to the universe and if there is no outside and God being associated with being outside of its confines he can't exist unless he arose with the universe into being. 

2. By recognizing an outside to the universe in any sense is an acknowledgement that not only can such as God exist as an entity outside and distinct from the universe, and also shows time is not unique to or emergent from that of the universe itself, but by increasing the numbers of diverse kinds of universes and even including a concept all universes are retained in an ultimate mega-verse only further increases the logical probability of the existence of God and the Three Goddesses, and many other diverse things based on the simple logic of increased chance for and increased possibility of such things to either spontaneously exist uniquely or contingently.

3. Additionally, it is a long-established concept that God is considered the ultimate source of anything and everything therein. As a result, the existence of physically independent multiverses is irrelevant in that it doesn't prove or disprove God either though it increases the probability for God rather than against God's existence. It also simply expands upon the creativity of God rather than diminishes it.

​

Religious texts as alleged reliable proofs:

​​

This comes down to the very simple statement you cannot prove a book by the book itself. This is the simplified version of the statement that you cannot prove the truth of a holy book by quoting from the same holy book, and as such it becomes a circular reasoning fallacy. We agree with this and there are additional factors we can demonstrate at any given time to disprove such a text's reliability. 

​

1. Examples of an original text in an original language that does not properly translate into another language, or the later text shows deletions, additions, changes of words to change context, and discounting claims of "divine authorship" when known to have been written by a human being in the language spoken by them in the time in which they existed. 

2. Claims that the particular text is a revelation directly from a particular deity, claimed to be the only deity and claims made about said deity by followers and believers do not line up with what such texts actually demonstrate, not to mention said authors claims of being the sole mouth pieces of the same by claims that cannot be substantiated.   

3. Claims such texts represent a pure, true and original belief and that all others are fiction when the same claims can also be applied in reverse upon those making such claims, and in addition to such, when it is known various identities of different concepts and characters were demonstrably hijacked or appropriated inconsistent with the claimed history and later claimed beliefs or views.

4. Those that would make such a claim that their concept of Divine things is the only valid one and choosing to selectively ignore other much older texts still present and preserved in their books and traditions which represent very different conclusions though they have the same origin. 

​

This is often a factor of consideration when approaching such debates within the confines of Evidentialism. This is a thesis in epistemology (a philosophic approach, that is also sometimes called a theory of knowledge, that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge) which states that one is justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports said belief. This evidence does not have to necessary be remarkable or extraordinary as much as simply clear and consistent and demonstrable in the reasoning and logic behind said belief. Evidentialism is, therefore, a thesis about which beliefs are justified, and which are not. For example, circular arguments and reasoning are not considered justifiable. Another bad argument is "belief" because "everyone else does" or "belief based on tradition" without explanation of the reasoning for said tradition. 

​

The military Historian C. Sanders also proposed three main ways to determine the 'authenticity' of various texts and the trustworthiness of any historical document. While they are useful in that respect it does not mean what is claimed within the same is necessarily reliable to begin with. It's simply a record of such content that can be demonstrated as of reasonable historical value but not necessarily actual reality.  

​

1. The bibliographical test: The bibliographical test maintains that as there are more handwritten manuscript copies of an ancient historical document, the more reliable it is. It also states that the closer in time the oldest surviving manuscript is to the original first copy (autograph) of the author, the more reliable that document is. There is less time for distortions to creep into the text by scribes down through the generations copying by hand. However, all this proves is consistency of the information being copied properly and not the content or context or claims of said works. In other words, it only attests by the Number of copies the popularity not veracity.  

2. The internal evidence test: The internal evidence test involves analyzing the document itself for contradictions and self-evident absurdities. How close in time and place the writer of the document was to the events and people he describes is examined: The bigger the gap, the less likely it is reliable. However, this is not reliable either because even ancient texts intentionally have retained various absurdities as intentional expressions of either mockery or humor or the apparent absurdities themselves are not understood properly by the reader of later generations that will simply not understand unrecorded or lost references. 

3. The external evidence test: The external evidence test checks the document's reliability by comparing it to other documents on the same subjects, seeing whether its claims are different from theirs. Archeological evidence also figures into this test, since archeological discoveries, if found to be described and match with what the texts state or claim can then build on the authenticity of said author having had some firsthand knowledge about said thing. It does not, however, prove the claims or opinions said author expresses in regard to such subjects.   

​

​

This goes back to the previous statement you cannot prove a book by the book by quoting from the book about the book itself or its content. Furthermore, the age of the claims made in any text does not in and of themselves from these three "tests" that what is written is itself true or false and its age, be it thousands of years old or written moments ago does not alone validate the truth or fallacy of the content. Finally, the first proof is not reliable for scrutiny because of the failure of recognition of what is defined as rare and hard to find. There are plenty modern things that were once numerous and well known and now rare to impossible to find if someone is actively seeking it and another may have possession of such a thing and not realize its significance as a historical, though relatively modern, artifact. 

​

In any case, if such text present views  as the following, one cannot conclude that because they are 'Old' that they can be claimed to be right, or if there are specific practices that are not suitable to the overall culture that they have to be brought back and observed because a book and it's author demands it and claims their concept of a deity demands it "or else." It's simply not justifiable and as such things go, are more worthy of being forgotten all together. 

​

1. Confusing their own demands of "you are not listening to me" with "you need to agree with me."

2. Arguing a point saying, "because this book says so it must be so."

3. Assuming belief by stating "if you don't believe this you believe in that and that makes you "good" or "bad."

4. Stating "do as I say, not as a do" because... (add whatever hypocritical excuse thereafter).

5. Do as I say, not as I do is a statement and demand that stinks of unrestrained hypocrisy. 

6. The argument of ignorance as a justification such as: "Some things are not meant for us to understand."

​

This last one is particularly annoying to me because it holds a few back handed avoidances of addressing the initial questions. Unfortunately, far too many theists and atheists' resort to similar ploys, though more often than not you do encounter it most by various clergy. This also requires a simple explanation why it annoys me particularly. 

​

1. If it wasn't meant to be understood it wouldn't have been written down, even if it is encoded, as it was intended to be decoded by someone. 

2. If such a clergy member doesn't understand the subject being questioned which such a statement is essentially such an admission to than any claimed value for such being taught is lost and they shouldn't be preaching what they cannot teach with clarity.  

3. If one claims it is not meant to be understood though they do understand it very well and then do not answer the question about that subject when asked, then they are lying about not knowing the meaning and have shown clearly, they are not trustworthy as you won't be able to be certain about what else they lie about.

 

​Finally, as far as such things, what cannot be counted as valid or as a reasonable justification of the truth of any text is to claim that such and such text, though being composed and passing to and from human hands, recently or over any period of time is infallible and ineffable because the same book states it is infallible and ineffable because it comes from and is protected by a Divine source that prevents it from being subject to error or mistranslation. It's just as nonsensical and claiming one's own language is somehow more special than all others or as some indeed to claim, said language is the "true language" of said deity or divine source which is blatant nonsense.