note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from?

Of course this whole argument can go nowhere.Ultimately all these questions come down to the nature of the objects involved. It is in the nature of masses to mutually attract - probably through the exchange of gravitons.THe only way to answer questions of this sort by any sort of external agency will of necessity appeal to the nature of that external agency and raise the same sort of questions.The scientific approach can avoid this by building models which can be supported by demonstrating their superiority (e.g. by unifying previously seperate observations, making predictions, by producing the same results as previous models in a simpler or more natural way, by making fewer assumptions).The theological approach replaces these by either ignoring the question or declaring it answered by fiat. These can never produce a valid argument, simply a pseudo-argument which falsely convinces naive believers that they have a real case.There is not even a possiblity of producing a valid argument for God here.Instead we must acknowledge that there must be some point where the regress ends. We must acknowledge that we cannot justify asking the question over and over again until we get the answer that we want. We must acknowledge that any proposed answer must be justified on better grounds than its fit with religious dogma. Together these points make this whole exercise pointless.

Gravitational mass is different from weight, but the two are inextricably linked..The weight is just the gravitational force acting on the mass - which is proportional to the quantity of mass. Which is why weight varies where mass does not.

I think you mean Teilhard de Chardin - his Omega Point idea of God could be said to involve a causal loop.But no, my point does not involve any sort of causal circle, just an infinite regress of argument which is arbitrarily ended by fiat at the preferred answer. It is an invalid form of argument since it is more parsimonious to simply stop with things we know to exist.

I'm not avoiding your question. I am confronting the deeper issues it raises. Why do you want to keep thigns at a superficial level rather than dealing with the more important issues ?

Yes, ti is invalid because it relies on making arbitrary assumptions to terminate the regress in the place you happen to want it. It's a cheat. You might as well say "'cos I say so!" is a valid argument - it would certainly be more honest.And if it is valid to arbitrarily terminate the regress then it is valid to terminate it with things we know to exist. Or to propsoe other non-God explanations and terminate there. So your claim that there is no other answer implcitly accepts that your answer is invalid. So either there are many possiblle answers or none. Either way, your argument fails.

quote:

---

Claiming a creator is far different from "cos I say so"

---

Of course it is - the first is the content of the claim while the second is the "reason" for supporting it. Thus your statement here is not a valid objection. I simply point out that arbitrarily rejecting all answers but the one you want is equivalent to "'cos I say so". And that is true no matter what the content of that answer might be.

quote:

---

There is no explanation for the nature of the universe and everything inside of it. It seems to exist along with everthing else with definitions. These "definitions" must be explained.

---

Any explanation must be in terms of other things - whether simpler entities or other external entities. But those would equally demand explanation. Thus the regress. The only way to avoid it is to show that there is an entity which does not require explanation - and by "show" I do not mean simply declaring it to be so.

quote:

---

I will think that one would agree that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. If this is so there had to be a beginning and there had to be some defining.

​

Now what would do this defining?

---

By definition. nothing would. The most basic level must simply be, requireing no external definition. The only "defining" to be done would be the after-the-fact definition used to construct scientific models.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What could possibly be "the most basic level"?

---

If there is no infinite regress there must be some basic level or reality which has no external explanation. I make no claim to know what it is but in my view it would be something very simple, with complexity produced by the interaction of simple elements.

quote:

---

In your argument, there is no reason for the existence and inherent nature of the most basic level?

​

I find that in this question a flawed argument is exposed.

---

You would only be correct if you mean your own argument. The most basic level of reality, by it's place as the most basic cannot have any external reason for it's own existence - because any such reason would be part of a MORE basic level.

quote:

---

You are correct to say that there is no explanation on "the most basic level".

---

To be accurate I stated that there could be no explanation FOR the basic level of reality.

quote:

---

Your view however, cannot be supported in light of this.

---

I think that you will find that you are wrong.

quote:

---

As you say "elements"; there must be a reason for the existence of these elements.

---

You are absolutely wrong. Indeed, since these hypothetical elements would constitute the basic level of reality there can be no explanation. SImply demanding that anything other than your preferred answer must have an explanation is the exact strategy I identified as fallacious in my earleir posts - and here you are, using it again.

quote:

---

"The most basic level" must be better defined. Yet what can be outside of defining?

---

This comment makes no sense. Do you mean that we must describe the real "most basic level" more accurately ? Or are you still on the idea that reality requires external definition.

quote:

---

A God now becomes a much more plausible explanation.

---

You mean "remains a highly implausible explanation". A God is a complex ordered entity - precisely the sort of thing that should have an explanation. Certainly it is more in need of one than my preferred answer. Yet you demand an explanation for the latter - and not the former.In short your whole strategy of argument is rigged to come out with your preferred answer. There is no rational basis to it at all.

On reading your post it seems that you are just throwing out objections that make no sense at all

quote:

---

Your premise on what you coined the "most basic level" is inadequate. But this was entirely expected.

---

What premise are you referring to ?

quote:

---

The "most basic level" must lack definition because those things that can be defined have origin.

---

If I understand your usage of definition correcty this may be correct. However it is not relevant to my argument - it simply indicates that your earlier statement was incorrect:

quote:

---

I will think that one would agree that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. If this is so there had to be a beginning and there had to be some defining.
Now what would do this defining?

---

quote:

---

The "most basic level" therefore must be devoid of any physical matter for matter must surely have origin.

---

I disagree. If you accept conservation of mass/energy and if you asusme that the total mass/energy of our universe is non-zero it would imply that mass/energy had no origin.

quote:

---

God is something that is beyond definition and human comprehension.God is an adequate explanation for the impetus of all things because it can not be defined or known

---

If God is truly unknowable that God cannot be an adequate explanation for anything. We could never know what God would do - thus we could never reliably attribute anything to God. What you are saying is that we should be wilfully ignorant and simply accept your views as fact - because you say so.

quote:

---

In this description of "God" one finds an answer to origins.

---

On the contrary - all we find is a refusal to look for answers.

quote:

---

A God cannot have an explanation for it is outside the limits of our cognitive ability.

---

And there's just the tactic I referred to.

quote:

---

This exchange is going well again and I thank you for it.

---

No, it's completely non-productive. I identified the flaw in your argument right back at the start and you haven't got past it.