The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

No, it does not need to have a will. Plus, you have not categorically disproven infinite regression.

I’ve made the argument that it does, which you’ve chosen to ignore upnto this points. Simply saying “nu uh” is not a sufficient rebuttals

Secondly infinite regression is absurd by all stretch of reason. The burden of proof would be on you to prove it, not us to disprove it.

Given that the third premise is false, the conclusion is false.

You’ve failed to demonstrate the third premise as being false, thus your assertion the conclusion is false is invalid.

Also, why does the god give two shits about human behaviour, let alone demand worship?

Nope, full stop. You’re moving the goalposts.

1. You have asserted that a first cause has to have a will. The burden of proof is on whoever asserts it, in this case you.

2. Infinite regression is an eternal chain of creators. Effectively, it is the same as a single eternal creator.

3. Answer the question... ?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem with a naturalistic first cause, as I pointed out earlier, is that if there was a naturalistic first cause, it doesn't explain many things. The problem with the Big Bang, for example, is that it simply shouldn't be physically possible, any singularity shouldn't be able to expand due to force of gravity holding it together.

Actually, a black hole singularity loses mass via Hawking radiation

The problem is the big bang theory and explanation is very different from Hawking radiation.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

2. Infinite regression is an eternal chain of creators. Effectively, it is the same as a single eternal creator.

This is just bad logic.

A single creator terminates infinite regression.

Infinite regression doesn't presuppose multiple creators, it presupposes absurdity.

[Tarsonis]

Hawking radiation is still theoretical at this point

[Tarsonis]

I’ve made the argument that it does, which you’ve chosen to ignore upnto this points. Simply saying “nu uh” is not a sufficient rebuttals

Secondly infinite regression is absurd by all stretch of reason. The burden of proof would be on you to prove it, not us to disprove it.



You’ve failed to demonstrate the third premise as being false, thus your assertion the conclusion is false is invalid.




Nope, full stop. You’re moving the goalposts.

1. You have asserted that a first cause has to have a will. The burden of proof is on whoever asserts it, in this case you.

Yeah, except I already made the argument. Simply saying “nu uh” is not a rebuttalz

2. Infinite regression is an eternal chain of creators. Effectively, it is the same as a single eternal creator.

No it’s not. A single eternal creater exists eternally. Infinite regress proposes an infinite chain of creators that aren’t eternal. As Soldati said: absurdity.

3. Answer the question... ?

The question is irrelevant to the line of inquiry.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Actually, a black hole singularity loses mass via Hawking radiation

The problem is the big bang theory and explanation is very different from Hawking radiation.

They actually are linked via the holographic principle. Everything in the universe has information - information is a property of how the universe is arranged. if I wrote something on a piece of paper, put it in a completely enclosed environment, burn the piece of paper, and have a sufficiently powerful computer analyse the information of the ashes, it could theoretically reconstruct what was written on the paper. if you knew all the information in the universe, you could calculate the whole of history. Information cannot be created or destroyed - however, this theory runs into problems in black holes. A black hole seems to turn all information that enters into the same singularity. There are three possible solutions:

1. Information is lost. If that is true, this means that the core principles of physics, which have held up perfectly for centuries and are the basis of our technological civilisation, all are wrong, and that we have to fundamentally rewrite science.
2. Information is hidden. Perhaps the information is all hidden in a bubble of spacetime which separates from the black hole, perhaps creating a new universe. if that is true, then there's your infinite regression - the information of the universe could have gone through an infinite chain of black holes and Big Bangs.
3. Information is safe. Perhaps information is encoded on the event horizon - and perhaps Hawking radiation takes information off the event horizon. However, if this is true, this links a black hole and the Big Bang, and there is a shocking possibility - everything in our 3D universe could be encoded on a 2D surface at the edge of the universe, and a 3D universe is just our subjective interpretation.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is the big bang theory and explanation is very different from Hawking radiation.

They actually are linked via the holographic principle. Everything in the universe has information - information is a property of how the universe is arranged. if I wrote something on a piece of paper, put it in a completely enclosed environment, burn the piece of paper, and have a sufficiently powerful computer analyse the information of the ashes, it could theoretically reconstruct what was written on the paper. if you knew all the information in the universe, you could calculate the whole of history. Information cannot be created or destroyed - however, this theory runs into problems in black holes. A black hole seems to turn all information that enters into the same singularity. There are three possible solutions:

1. Information is lost. If that is true, this means that the core principles of physics, which have held up perfectly for centuries and are the basis of our technological civilisation, all are wrong, and that we have to fundamentally rewrite science.
2. Information is hidden. Perhaps the information is all hidden in a bubble of spacetime which separates from the black hole, perhaps creating a new universe. if that is true, then there's your infinite regression - the information of the universe could have gone through an infinite chain of black holes and Big Bangs.
3. Information is safe. Perhaps information is encoded on the event horizon - and perhaps Hawking radiation takes information off the event horizon. However, if this is true, this links a black hole and the Big Bang, and there is a shocking possibility - everything in our 3D universe could be encoded on a 2D surface at the edge of the universe, and a 3D universe is just our subjective interpretation.

I know the theory and how it works.

I am not disputing the theory, I am disputing your use of it in this discussion and your link to the big bang, considering that doesn't really explain the big bang as well as you think it does.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. You have asserted that a first cause has to have a will. The burden of proof is on whoever asserts it, in this case you.

Yeah, except I already made the argument. Simply saying “nu uh” is not a rebuttalz

2. Infinite regression is an eternal chain of creators. Effectively, it is the same as a single eternal creator.

No it’s not. A single eternal creater exists eternally. Infinite regress proposes an infinite chain of creators that aren’t eternal. As Soldati said: absurdity.

3. Answer the question... ?

The question is irrelevant to the line of inquiry.

1. The burden of proof is on whoever made the assertion. If I made the assertion, the burden of proof is on me. If you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. You made the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

2. Let's hypothetically say there is an infinite chain of creators, which each lasted 500 years before creating the next creator. 500 years X ∞ creators = ∞ years, aka eternity.

3. Well, whenever I hear people argue that a god exists, they jump to the conclusion that it is their god.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Hawking radiation is still theoretical at this point

Hawking radiation has been mathematically proven

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yeah, except I already made the argument. Simply saying “nu uh” is not a rebuttalz


No it’s not. A single eternal creater exists eternally. Infinite regress proposes an infinite chain of creators that aren’t eternal. As Soldati said: absurdity.



The question is irrelevant to the line of inquiry.

1. The burden of proof is on whoever made the assertion. If I made the assertion, the burden of proof is on me. If you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. You made the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

2. Let's hypothetically say there is an infinite chain of creators, which each lasted 500 years before creating the next creator. 500 years X ∞ creators = ∞ years, aka eternity.

3. Well, whenever I hear people argue that a god exists, they jump to the conclusion that it is their god.

That is not how philosophy works, at all.

In philosophical discourse, the burden of proof is not on he to provide material proof. Formal proof is enough, and he has provided formal proof for his own statement. Your rebuttal should disprove his proof via a counterargument (or a counterexample, if you can find one).

You're trying to use science on philosophy, and that's just bad philosophy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hawking radiation is still theoretical at this point

Hawking radiation has been mathematically proven

Again, a formal proof.

This doesn't tell us it actually exists or that it is observable, just that within the confines of our universe it is entirely possible that it can happen.

And before you say "well neither does your proof actually justify God!" I know that, the problem here is that Hawkings radiation is a natural process and therefore must be observable. The proof of God offered are philosophical questions, so they must be answered differently.

[Tarsonis]

Yeah, except I already made the argument. Simply saying “nu uh” is not a rebuttalz


No it’s not. A single eternal creater exists eternally. Infinite regress proposes an infinite chain of creators that aren’t eternal. As Soldati said: absurdity.



The question is irrelevant to the line of inquiry.

1. The burden of proof is on whoever made the assertion. If I made the assertion, the burden of proof is on me. If you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. You made the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Yeah that’s not how this works. Once again, I made the assertion and I made the argument defending the assertion. Unless you can demonstrate why the argument is wrong or invalid it stands as a valid asetion. I’ve met my burden necessary. Simply saying no, is not a rebuttal. And repeatedly trying to hide behind some imaginary standard of proof telegraphs your inability to counter the argument.

2. Let's hypothetically say there is an infinite chain of creators, which each lasted 500 years before creating the next creator. 500 years X ∞ creators = ∞ years, aka eternity.

That’s an eternal line of creators not an eternal creator that has eternal existence. Infinite regression is an argument absurdity, arguing that there is no first creator. If there is no first creator there is no infinite line of creators, nor creation.

3. Well, whenever I hear people argue that a god exists, they jump to the conclusion that it is their god.

And I’ve said nearly a dozen fucking times now, that is a seperate question (though predicated on this question.)

[Tarsonis]

Hawking radiation has been mathematically proven

Again, a formal proof.

This doesn't tell us it actually exists or that it is observable, just that within the confines of our universe it is entirely possible that it can happen.

And before you say "well neither does your proof actually justify God!" I know that, the problem here is that Hawkings radiation is a natural process and therefore must be observable. The proof of God offered are philosophical questions, so they must be answered differently.

As a side note, This is ultimately why Dawkins is such crap philosopher .

[Lower Nubia]

Oh for goodness sakes, if Galileo was executed for believing the heliocentric modal, then Copernicus too should have been executed, along with Pope Paul V, Johannes Kepler, a vast chunk of the Jesuit’s order. There is clearly more to this than your simplistic, Wikipedia source, nonsense, that he was executed for heliocentrism. Has it not occurred that his heliocentrism was merely a scapegoat by his accusers (the academics of his time who believed Ptolemy’s spheres mode) to have him executed, while in reality he was removed for simply threatening the established power groups of his time? Why is there such inconsistency? Why was only Galileo executed? And not the growing number of Bishops and cardinals, who had enjoyed Copernicus’s ideas? Indeed, the final account of execution may have been over his “heresy” but anyone with a brain can see that is why he wasn’t executed, it was just an excuse. So obvious is this fact, that only a couple decades later the Church was devoted to heliocentric teachings!

It was quite clear, that Galileo, who proved nothing, in his crass arrogance, made enemies of both the academics of his time (which were often the Jesuits themselves, and Johannes Kepler statement below proves it was for intrigue, otherwise they would condemn their own beliefs!), and personally of the pope himself. To which they found excuse in his “heresy” and offed him.

To prove your point, find me another soul damned for that belief, and that belief alone. Good. Luck. With. That. Here’s such a soul, Johannes Kepler:

“The Jesuits themselves were more Copernican than Galileo was; it is now well recognized that the reason why Chinese astronomy advanced more rapidly than European astronomy was simply because Jesuit missionaries communicated to them their Copernican views.”

Or the account of Galileo and Pope Paul V on his discoveries:

“Now Galileo’s discoveries have been acknowledged by the greatest astronomical and religious authorities of his time. Pope Paul V received him in private audience and showed him so much reverence, that he did not allow him to kneel down in front of him, as was usual. Some weeks later the whole Collegio Romano gathered in the presence of Galileo officially to celebrate his discoveries. At the same time, Galileo met all the Roman intellectuals, and one of the most famous among them, Prince Federico des Cesi, asked him to become the sixth member of the Accademia dei Lincei (Academy of the Lynxes), which he had founded.”

Even Cardinal Barberini himself would praise Galileo’s letters which laid out the heliocentric modal in his letters on sunspots.

It wasn’t heresy, just a classic quality of the courts, your enemy needs to be put down? What better method than an accusation of “heresy”?

Go learn of the nuances of intrigue in renaissance persons before you make ridiculous assumptions that he was executed for a belief which many shared with him at the time, while they, shockingly, weren’t executed!

Oh and what you underlined, was meaningless extrapolation over the course of a century, utterly irrelevant for a discussion on the modern day. What has the year 2100 got to do with a 2018 deal between the Vatican and China? You just shoved it in there as an incessant dig. In your own simple language:

“Perhaps stop denying the fucking truth?”

Why do you keep saying CTM was saying Galileo was executed? He was put under house arrest for the rest of his life by Pope Paul V (the very same one you claim was a heliocentrist) for the heresy of "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".

As for the question of why Copernicus wasn't similarly persecuted, that's because his model wasn't published until shortly before his death in 1543. In fact, by 1532, he had finished his work, but kept it unpublished for the next 11 years for fear of the very scorn Galileo later earned. There is some speculation that the primary reason it wasn't condemned by the Catholic Church was because of a preface that acknowledged that the hypothesis might be wrong, but it was still useful for astronomical calculations. Indeed, up until Galileo and Kepler came forward with substantial evidence in favor of heliocentrism, most astronomers in Europe rejected Copernicus's conclusions. So even if he had lived past the publication of his book, he likely wouldn't have been persecuted, because he wouldn't have been perceived as a threat.

Given that Pope Paul V was the one who persecuted Galileo for heliocentrism, we can safely say he was not, in fact, a heliocentrist. So lets move on to Kepler. His books were also banned for advocating heliocentrism, but apparently Galileo ignored Kepler's work. Its also notable that Kepler was the assistant and successor to Tycho Brahe, one of the most noted and respected astronomers of his time (admittedly, Brahe didn't advocate heliocentrism, but rather his own system, geo-heliocentrism which is basically geocentrism, but acknowledging that every other body in the solar system orbits the sun except the moon), in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II, who wasn't exactly the most devout Catholic, and was quite tolerant of Protestants (which Kepler was). Essentially, the Catholic Church couldn't do much to Kepler like they could to Galileo, at least until Rudolph abdicated, and even then, he was fully aware of the dangers of being a Protestant and potentially finding a new job under Catholic jurisdiction.He sought employment in an area with more religious freedom, and went to Linz, and then later to Ulm due to the Thirty Years' War. So, basically, Kepler wasn't persecuted, because he made sure to stay firmly out of the Catholic Church's grasp.

I mean, he was executed, I don't understand why I wouldn't say he was.

Indeed, Galileo was put under house arrest in 1633, which is quite important, because he published his letter on Sunspots in 1613, and these outlined his heliocentrism. In 1615 when the inquisition court was called against Galileo, it was the expert Jesuit judges, who ruled in favour of Galileo, that ended his first trial against him, even though it was clear he presented Heliocentric views. Indeed, his ideas went by without the bat of an eye, and indeed enjoyed support, Cardinal Barberini congratulated him on it, in fact. In 1623, the future Pope Urban VIII, who was a cardinal at this time, wrote in homage of Galileo in 1623(!) 10 years after his "heresy" was clearly known. Indeed, the problem was not that the idea itself was heretical, but to present it as beyond a mere hypothesis, was the real issue, indeed at the time there was no evidence of a Copernican system, not until the time of Johannes Keplar, and after his discovery the Church wasn't bothered. Copernicus' hypothesis was used in prior time by the Church, it was simply that it had to be maintained as just an hypothesis, unless evidence could be used to prove it, which eventually happened. With Galileo's tide experiments being incapable to support his hypothesis, there was no reason to believe Copernicus' modal any more than Brahe's modal. Yet, Galileo continued to mock his opponents and this created him a number of life long enemies, and eventually the Pope himself.

When the complaint to the inquisition was filed in 1615, it was actually rejected (thanks to the Jesuits), and indeed, Galileo continued to be a free man between 1613 to 1632, one has to wonder why he was given 20 years of down time for a "heresy" that was clearly identified in at least 1615 and published, himself, in 1613? One has to wonder. The problem with the idea that Galileo was executed for just his ideas is the huge inconsistency, if Galileo was producing this heresy, why wait? If his heresy was so clearly maligned by the church, why befriend him? Unless something latter in life, like his arrogance about his own convictions and his continued production of life-long enemies, began to present Galileo as prideful, rude, unreasonable and arrogant. Galileo eventually turned his friendship into hatred with Urban VIII, when he published his Dialogo, in this work he bi-passed the Papal censorship and put arguments which were very similar to Urban's arguments against Copernicus into the mouth of a character called Simplicio (literally meaning simpleton, and would be the equivalent of calling someone an idiot (or worse) today). Urban always suspected that Simplicio was a caricature of himself, though this wasn't Galileo's intention. Indeed Galileo is a classic example of poor timing, he would eventually be tried by Pope Urban VIII, a pope who would consistently fail in his papacy and was exceeding in nepotism. Indeed if anything the reason for this debacle can be laced with Urban, who as an individual Pope, caused a scientific stagnation of his own accord and will, by both his vanity and greed.

As further confirmation of my point, in 1655 observations were made in the Cathedral of Bologna by Giovanni Cassini to give concrete proof of Kepler's ideas. He showed that Kepler was right and Ptolemy was not. How could the Church see Copernican ideas as heretical but then supply a Cathedral to find evidence in support of it? It's quite clear that it was not Copernican theory itself that was heretical but that to claim it as fact without evidence was where the problem began, even here, however, it took poor circumstance as in Galileo's case to actually be convicted of 'heresy' for it.

Galileo went as far as to not present his discoveries to other scientists of the time, even to Johannes Kepler and believed he was the only one who could make valid discoveries. Quite clear is this fact that Galileo refused to give Kepler one of his telescopes, even though he gave them out to political entities. He ignored Kepler's works and wrote his treatise to Kepler in anagrams. Indeed, Galileo was not experimental in practice and made no critical experimental deduction to prove his hypothesis. The only reason we celebrate Galileo in this area is hindsight, not actual merit, because his attempts to prove Heliocentrism (not that he really tried to) were all failures, these achievements go to Kepler. When Cardinal Bellarmine was conducting the court of inquisition, asked Galileo for evidence to which Galileo refused and had no evidence. When Galileo eventually defended his ideas, he always defended with ideas which had been outdated by Kepler's research, indeed he defended his tides idea until the very end, even though this was clearly incapable as proof. When the Jesuit astronomer Grassi observed comets and claimed them as distant flying objects, Galileo's explanation that they were actually mere reflections of light caused people to abandon Fassi's hypothesis. A clear example of Galileo's distinct lack of respect for evidence.

When the day came for his final trial, Galileo did the utterly unthinkable, and contradicted himself numerous times, even after he was given time to prepare a defence. Galileo stated of his Dialogo that what it is believed to have been said, was actually the opposite, the idea that Dialogo was actual a refutation of Copernicus was clearly deceitful, the judge, and jury, new that Galileo was lying, but instead of showing this clearly by presenting his own letters and books against him, all the court did was require his signature for deposition. His defence of himself would stand in no trial. For he was clearly lying.

Also because I hate these irritating Wikipedia hyperlinks How about I play the game, shall we? Wait? Wikipedia saying something I've been saying for a while? No. That Copernican ideals were aactually fine, but that to present them as truth without evidence was wrong. say what?

As for this:

To prove your point, find me another soul damned for that belief, and that belief alone. Good. Luck. With. That.

Allow me to introduce you to Giordano Bruno. Truly a man who was a visionary, and ahead of his time. He hypothesized an infinite universe with no central body, where the stars weren't simply points of light, but other suns, around which other planets orbited, possibly even with their own forms of life. For this, he was tried and convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church, and promptly burned at the stake.

I think I have the sixth sense, because when I made that comment I knew they would say: Bruno! Bruno was a narcissistic nut case. He loved Hermetic Magic and which can be summed up as, well read it for yourself (it's utter nonsense) he also rejected the core Christian teachings and it is this that would get him finally executed. You present a false syllogism, Bruno held heretical doctrine (abandoned the trintiy, and christology), he also held Heliocentrism, he was executed, therefore, he was executed for his heliocentrism; classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Bruno also presented no evidence for his ideas, evidence which Kepler had began to accumulate in the early 1600's, Bruno's heresy's are what killed him, and Galileo's arrogance and poor timing that killed him. I'm sure I could find a list of Heliocentrist's which were hardly bothered between 1550 and 1642 and they all died of natural deaths for the time: plague, cholera, maybe old age, you'know the usual, but execution? Unlikely.

It is quite clear that Copernican ideas were controversial, but not in and of themselves heretical. That it was used by their detractors as a weapon to dispense with personal grudges, hatreds, and desires, as with Galileo. The idea that the Church persecuted the sciences of it's day? Lacking. The idea that Popes abused their position for power which caused scientific stagnation? Likely.

[Lord Dominator]

You said, “I expected more from a Yale professor.” I don’t think he needs to perform for you, he’s taking the time to answer your questions and to debate, as a good professor would do. And like a good professor, he has seen arguing with a person who doesn’t want answers is pointless and has moved forward.

I should note that I'm not a professor, but I do have a job interview Monday in Boston so, any prayers would be much appreciated.

Will do

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. The burden of proof is on whoever made the assertion. If I made the assertion, the burden of proof is on me. If you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. You made the assertion, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Yeah that’s not how this works. Once again, I made the assertion and I made the argument defending the assertion. Unless you can demonstrate why the argument is wrong or invalid it stands as a valid asetion. I’ve met my burden necessary. Simply saying no, is not a rebuttal. And repeatedly trying to hide behind some imaginary standard of proof telegraphs your inability to counter the argument.

2. Let's hypothetically say there is an infinite chain of creators, which each lasted 500 years before creating the next creator. 500 years X ∞ creators = ∞ years, aka eternity.

That’s an eternal line of creators not an eternal creator that has eternal existence. Infinite regression is an argument absurdity, arguing that there is no first creator. If there is no first creator there is no infinite line of creators, nor creation.

3. Well, whenever I hear people argue that a god exists, they jump to the conclusion that it is their god.

And I’ve said nearly a dozen fucking times now, that is a seperate question (though predicated on this question.)

1 and 3. OK

2. One of the creators exists because the previous creator created it, which exists because the previous creator created it, because the previous creator created it...

Yes, there is no first creator. Instead, there is a never-ending chain of creators. Quite frankly, I think that religion has shaped your perception of reality to the extent that it blinds you to the possibility of there being no first creator.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yeah that’s not how this works. Once again, I made the assertion and I made the argument defending the assertion. Unless you can demonstrate why the argument is wrong or invalid it stands as a valid asetion. I’ve met my burden necessary. Simply saying no, is not a rebuttal. And repeatedly trying to hide behind some imaginary standard of proof telegraphs your inability to counter the argument.




That’s an eternal line of creators not an eternal creator that has eternal existence. Infinite regression is an argument absurdity, arguing that there is no first creator. If there is no first creator there is no infinite line of creators, nor creation.



And I’ve said nearly a dozen fucking times now, that is a seperate question (though predicated on this question.)

1 and 3. OK

2. One of the creators exists because the previous creator created it, which exists because the previous creator created it, because the previous creator created it...

Yes, there is no first creator. Instead, there is a never-ending chain of creators. Quite frankly, I think that religion has shaped your perception of reality to the extent that it blinds you to the possibility of there being no first creator.

There must be a first creator because, as he pointed out, an infinite regression is absurd and not even possible. All things that begin must have a beginning.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1 and 3. OK

2. One of the creators exists because the previous creator created it, which exists because the previous creator created it, because the previous creator created it...

Yes, there is no first creator. Instead, there is a never-ending chain of creators. Quite frankly, I think that religion has shaped your perception of reality to the extent that it blinds you to the possibility of there being no first creator.

There must be a first creator because, as he pointed out, an infinite regression is absurd and not even possible. All things that begin must have a beginning.

Well, each creator has a beginning; the previous creator. Saying that an infinite regression is absurd because it does not have a first creator is just like saying that an eternally existing entity is absurd as it does not have a beginning.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There must be a first creator because, as he pointed out, an infinite regression is absurd and not even possible. All things that begin must have a beginning.

Well, each creator has a beginning; the previous creator. Saying that an infinite regression is absurd because it does not have a first creator is just like saying that an eternally existing entity is absurd as it does not have a beginning.

The only way an eternally existing creator wouldn't be absurd is if there exists things beyond space-time, which is what I've been saying about God. The reason an eternal regression of 500-year creators couldn't work is that time doesn't regress infinitely.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Well, each creator has a beginning; the previous creator. Saying that an infinite regression is absurd because it does not have a first creator is just like saying that an eternally existing entity is absurd as it does not have a beginning.

The only way an eternally existing creator wouldn't be absurd is if there exists things beyond space-time, which is what I've been saying about God. The reason an eternal regression of 500-year creators couldn't work is that time doesn't regress infinitely.

What if the infinite regression loops back on itself, as in the bootstrap paradox?

edit: The paradox is not the existence of the causal loop itself, but where the origin is - which is what you're trying to answer if you apply the same solution you used for an infinite linear chain to a causal loop.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The only way an eternally existing creator wouldn't be absurd is if there exists things beyond space-time, which is what I've been saying about God. The reason an eternal regression of 500-year creators couldn't work is that time doesn't regress infinitely.

What if the infinite regression loops back on itself, as in the bootstrap paradox?

Doesn't work when there is no spacetime (remember, space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang, in fact, we can't even conceive of a "before" the Big Bang because time didn't exist).

[Lower Nubia]

There must be a first creator because, as he pointed out, an infinite regression is absurd and not even possible. All things that begin must have a beginning.

Well, each creator has a beginning; the previous creator. Saying that an infinite regression is absurd because it does not have a first creator is just like saying that an eternally existing entity is absurd as it does not have a beginning.

No, an infinite regress is absurd because if all things have a beginning through which an infinite regress occurs, it logically begs the question about the cause, of the cause, of the cause... ad infinitum. The problem derives from the fact, that if it has a beginning it has a cause, therefore to stop an infinite regress, you need an uncaused cause, but who could that be but God?

[Northern Davincia]

2. Infinite regression is an eternal chain of creators. Effectively, it is the same as a single eternal creator.

This is just bad logic.

A single creator terminates infinite regression.

Infinite regression doesn't presuppose multiple creators, it presupposes absurdity.

It's turtles all the way down.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

What if the infinite regression loops back on itself, as in the bootstrap paradox?

Doesn't work when there is no spacetime (remember, space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang, in fact, we can't even conceive of a "before" the Big Bang because time didn't exist).

If the creators are beyond space and time, there is nothing stopping the causal chain from looping back on itself

[Lower Nubia]

Doesn't work when there is no spacetime (remember, space and time didn't exist before the Big Bang, in fact, we can't even conceive of a "before" the Big Bang because time didn't exist).

If the creators are beyond space and time, there is nothing stopping the causal chain from looping back on itself

The creators?