infinite regress

a fallacy in which the argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained — and indeed it stands in need of the same kind of explanation. so it is tempting to apply the explanation to itself.
given the cosmological argument, the universe must have a beginning. the notion that the universe’s origin came about by the random forming of particles in sp-ce, there must have been something to first put those particles there. whatever that something is, it must exist outside of time and always exist, lest you get into a series of arguments going further and further back until you have infinite regress.

example: the being ‘linda’ created all the particles that formed the earth, but who created linda? the being ‘bill’ created linda, but who created bill? etc. the argument goes on forever until there is a beginning, which was initially required according to the cosmological argument.
before disussing the properties of a creator we have to -ssess if the universe was a created.

the cosmological argument -ssumes that there was a beginning, but it can again be contradicted simply by pointing out that the the matter which composes my body is eternal, never going to be created nor to be destroyed.

if we can`t prove that the universe was created, then we don`t need to think that actually a creator exists.

second; the definition of g-d implies a being that is sentient. an eternal universe is absolutely not equal to a g-d because it lacks the capability of thinking.

aristotele for example, believed that both g-d and matter always existed, but yet he considered them to separate beings.

so i don`t really think that i’m calling the same thing under different names…

and i’ll also ignore that puerile comment..
“there is no doer behind the doing” ~ nietzsche
the recursive redaction of an old religious-philosophical argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
no, reverend phalwell, taken to its infinite regress the king james 1611 edition proves inerrantly that 16,751 angels could fit on the head of a pin but they’d dance only at the risk of eternal d-mnation and h-llfire!
just noting that god exists outside of the universe, and is thus not subject to its laws; given that he created them along with the universe itself. any creation or destruction of the universe or anything in it is done by god outside of the universe itself see: hebrew word ‘barra’ meaning ‘to create from nothing’.

oh. and if the universe simply existed, the universe would be god. you’re just calling it a different name. read a book, kid.
if you look up infinite regress anywhere other than this site, you will get the same definition as listed above. cheers.
total sadness and remorse.
yolanda gots infinite regress fo’ slappin’ pearleen at paw-paws funerile.