Free Will and God, the issue..

At the very base of theistic belief is that there is an immaterial solution to the question "Where did everything come from?" And from that, the termination of the infinite regress of cause and effect is formulated, and in turn, that is named God.
The logical answer to this question dictates the ontological properties of God, and through the determination of these ontological properties that it is concluded, God MUST exist.

The question on whether or not there is evidence is laughable. Why should there be evidence? Not everything must be proven through evidence. The fact that number theory exists is a clear answer to such a question. What evidence must I produce to show that 2+2=4? Any evidence you can produce is preceded by number theory, not proof of it.

Lastly, I would love to know what conclusive evidence we have that extends observation to the very limiting corners of existence and time itself so as to determine that all things are within these absolute laws you speak of and lead us to the capability of looking at where God is claimed to be and say "I see no God."
Last I heard atheists thought were just products of probability and dust, now we know the nature of all existence itself?

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here. Clear language instead of 'the termination of the infinite regress of cause and effect is formulated' might help.



Evidence is an excellent way of understanding the world. Before scientific theory, any hypothesis could reasonably be entertained. But now, a hypothesis would require rigourous evidence for said hypothesis, or else it cannot reasonably be entertained.

The evidence for 2+2=4 is very simple. You could show it by combining 2 groups of 2 pencils, now you have 4.

Im not sure how useful it is to argue whether numbers/maths exists, because we then arrive at whether we exist, whether reality exists, etc, which tends to be a dead end.



We don't know the nature of reality, or the answer to all the questions. There is a great void of between human knowledge and all knowledge.

However, as of yet science fails to see the need for a god, just as it fails to see the need for unicorns, or invisible immaterial pink elephants. A lack of knowledge does not imply a deity, only the unknown.

Just as I said. Any evidence you can give me is preceded by number theory, not proof of it. Your proof isn't simple, just wrong.
Say if you had one apple in each hand, and then you said "I have a total of 2 apples." Does the sum of 1+1=2 precede that? Of course it does. Otherwise you would have to claim that the sum of 1+1=2 would not be true in a world where nothing happened to exist in amounts summable as such. 1+1=2, regardless of whether or not that sum can physically manifest, is a true statement.
This proves by contradiction that evidence is, in fact, not required in proving theory.

Infinite regress is defined as the following is a logical fallacy that is constantly iterative, the mechanism involved depends upon itself for its own explanation, therefore being, by definition, incoherent.

The infinite regress in the typical "scientific" approach is the idea that the creation of the universe, from start to finish, is a purely material progression, whereby creation of material, depends on preceding material, and therefore an infinite regress of "material creates material which creates material..." is created. Where does this regress end? It's inherent to it's logic that it can't because it's logic denies that there is a beginning.

Just as I said. Any evidence you can give me is preceded by number theory, not proof of it. Your proof isn't simple, just wrong.
Say if you had one apple in each hand, and then you said "I have a total of 2 apples." Does the sum of 1+1=2 precede that? Of course it does. Otherwise you would have to claim that the sum of 1+1=2 would not be true in a world where nothing happened to exist in amounts summable as such. 1+1=2, regardless of whether or not that sum can physically manifest, is a true statement.
This proves by contradiction that evidence is, in fact, not required in proving theory.

The infinite regress in the typical "scientific" approach is the idea that the creation of the universe, from start to finish, is a purely material progression, whereby creation of material, depends on preceding material, and therefore an infinite regress of "material creates material which creates material..." is created. Where does this regress end? It's inherent to it's logic that it can't because it's logic denies that there is a beginning.

To say that all evidence is preceded by number theory is nonsense. To say that evidence is not required to prove theory is frankly ridiculous.

How about I theorise that immaterial pink elephants exist everywhere? What's my evidence? None, evidence not required. Bam, I have just proved my theory according to you. If this is not a proof by logical contradiction that what you said is nonsense, then I don't know what is. But argue whether 1+1 really equals 2 all you like. It doesn't matter.

Evidence-based analysis has led to the best understanding of the world that humanity has ever experienced. It has proved itself through results, culminating in the fact that we've been able to design computers that we now argue on, and many more achievements.

There is no evidence-based reason to believe in a God.

You can point to all these things we don't know and say that must imply a god, but no. Before we understood the stars, you pointed to god. Before evolution, god. Before any human understanding, god. God is a placeholder for what we don't yet understand, and it grows steadily smaller and smaller.



You're asserting that science has said that the creation of the universe is purely material. It hasn't. All it has said is that it appears that all the matter originated from a single point, the big bang. Before that, science says nothing. It is unknown. The fact that it is unknown doesn't require or prove a deity.

But in number theory, the evidence is the answer itself. However, with God there is no evidence and the evidence is not God. There is also observable evidence to support number theory, such as the one apple plus one apple equals two apples.

However, the main point you are forgetting, is that its just that a theory, a theory supported with evidence but a theory nonetheless.
People act as though God is not a theory but rather the truth. That is where the problem lies. God is merely a theory that people interpret as a fact.

Evidence cannot be the answer itself. Otherwise that creates an infinite regress, 1+1=2 because 1+1=2 because 1+1=2. That is by definition a logical fallacy and incoherent. As I said, the apples is a physical manifestation of an immaterial statement. The number theory precedes the manifestation, otherwise you would be claiming that in a world where no things exist in amounts larger than one, the number theory stating 1+1=2 would not be true. Think about it. What came first? 1+1=2 or the apples? Just as time existed before it could be recognized on a clock. Just as truth existed before there were human minds to perceive acknowledge it.

Again, it is an unprovable theory, logically. However, you can observe its truths and value.

Logic is a form of proof. This is a key premise to mathematical proofs for example.
Otherwise mathematical proofs would rely on producing evidence on every possible input and output, of which there are often infinite.
Proof by induction pretty much sums that up in further maths for example

Again, no God is not a placeholder, because I've already explained the logical progression towards what terminates the infinite regress. That termination is absolute in it's position and nature, because it's a termination, nothing goes any further and it can only be singular and absolute, so it cannot be a placeholder to be moved back and forth depending on current scientific advancements. This is all logical definition. You even state yourself that there is a termination, and by stating that you must accept if there is a termination, it is absolute, and it's definition is absolute, and that absolute's nature is known because it's logically definable. Just as infinite quantity is logically definable, yet not provable through physical means.

I fail to see your point. So you agree there is proof of number theory?

Logical proofs manifest within it. Maths in its entirety relies on given absolutes.
So no.

A theists answer to the problem of infinite regress would be that God is the prime mover. However, a god doesn't really solve this problem at all.

The obvious question would be 'what created god?'. A theist might answer that god always existed, and has no cause. But this isn't reasonable. You don't get to say that everything except god must have a cause. So we are back at the problem of infinite regress: what created the thing that created the thing that created the thing ... that created us?

Being without cause is a definitive property of the termination. All things within the regress excluding the termination itself have a cause, otherwise it's not a termination.

Why must there be an answer to the question: 'What created the universe?'. The question assumes there was a time before the universe. Yet, it appears that time began at the instant of the big bang, making the question of what happened before quite meaningless. It's like asking what's north of the north pole. You may think this benefits your argument, however it just posits that the question is meaningless, and so is the answer.

Even if we accept that there is a termination, a single first cause, we do not automatically arrive at a theistic god. Why should this first cause be a being, omnipotent, omniscient, all loving? Especially, why should this first cause be X god of X religion? There's no reason at all.