An unstoppable regression ??

This is a secret that should charmingly and explosively intimidate the atheists. If you understand what I am trying to say then take a drum, beat on it and tell people what you have understood. Its one point that is emphatic and you can drill it home convincingly. Mathematics has always revealed that there has to be a God. Why? I'll answer that question. Take any object. Think about it. Where did it originate from? Let’s call the origin A. Where did A originate from? Let’s call that  A1. Where did A1 originate from? Let’s call that A2. Similarly, keep going back in time more and more. This going back in time is called a regression or a return to a former state. Now believe it or not, the regression either terminates or it doesn't.

If the regression terminates then we arrive at a cause which has no other cause. Some call it God. You can call it Sexy but that will be unnecessarily true because God can be very sexy.  But coming to the point, when the regression terminates, you will arrive at an object which is the cause of all causes, a cause that has no other cause. Unfortunately for the atheist such an object can only be called God, a cause that has no other cause, but, is the cause of all that be. But wait, the atheist divines hope; what about the other possibility, the one that the regression never ends? Such a regression is called an infinite regression. What’s the problem with that eventuality?

This is where you can just wear a glove and start winding up your fist to punch a hole in the atheists’ balloon of hope (‘cause that’s all that it is). Here is what happens if you would like to consider that possibility.  The very word ” infinite” makes the atheist feel ungrateful because any theory that hypothesizes an infinity fails the test of a rational theory; for the very reason, that infinity, can never be approached.

Aquinas’ delight:

By the way…, a slight digression. The problem with the infinite regression was pointed put by Thomas Aquinas. I do not know when he was born, but the Wikipedia men informed me that he lived between 1225 – 7 March 1274. So since then this point had been in print as a stark reminder that our Creator could just exist. As you well know some of the best and most militant (and stupid but deceptively so) atheists have walked the earth since then and they have tried to challenge this position. And as always they have cut a sorry figure. If you do not believe me then just pick up my favorite book “The God Delusion” (pages 100 to 102 – paperback version) and read Mr. Dawkins’ refutation of that proof of the existence of God.

I haven’t read all the refutations by every single atheist, but  if any atheist can come up with a refutation of this proof of Thomas Aquinas (of the existence of God), which is appropriately consummate, then I will settle down and rest in peace for the rest of disconsolate time. Anyway, there is a saying that to test whether all the rice in the pot has been cooked, one doesn’t need to devour the entire pot of rice. He needs to just feel one or two grains, to see if they have been cooked properly. Similarly, when Mr. Dawkins cuts an extremely sorry figure trying to refute this point, you can be comfortably convinced that his predecessor atheists have failed to counter that point as well. So 1275 to 2017…, this proof of the existence of God stands unchallenged up until now.  Now you might protest, that after all Mr. Dawkins HAS come up with a refutation. So Mr. Protestor why do you not read that refutation and get back to me? Why do you not read some other refutations, bring on the brigade of scholars and we will see how far you get. It seems Monsieur Atheist, if the regression is to stop, then there has to be a creator, and if there is an infinite regression then its party time, this time only with Mr. infinity. Of course to do him ( Mr. Dawkins) justice I will have to tell you what he has put forward to try and refute Aquinas. So here goes:

" To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown."

Parsimonious humor:

Please note the above statement very carefully. Mr. Dawkins does NOT prove that God cannot be the terminator of Aquinas' regression. He simply says it is more   ”parsimonious”   to conceive of something else. That something else could be a "big bang singularity".  But responsible Mr. Dawkins, how exactly is it more parsimonious to conceive of a big bang singularity as the originator of everything rather than God. Dear reader, just think on one hand you have the all powerful, all potent Almighty who can be thought of as the origin of everything, and on the other hand you have the insentient big bang singularity which is supposed to somehow be more parsimonious or efficient an origin of all that be. Please note, the singularity is an insentient object. It can’t think, it can’t manipulate, it can’t set things into motion. All the insentient things we see are themselves the effects of some other cause.  So Mr. Atheist please explain how a big bang singularity is more parsimonious than God, as the origin of everything.

If I have a billion dollars, and you happen to ask me where I got it, is it more parsimonious to claim that I got it from a cobbler or is the claim more parsimonious if I say that I  got it from a very rich man . No one complains about lack of parsimony when they receive a huge salary bonus. People all over the world thrive on the non-parsimonious contributions of religious institutes (and personalities), yet atheists want to expel the religious head, God, due to parsimony…, because He is not a penniless beggar or a potency-less, insentient singularity.

Of course Mr Atheist, I've noticed you squeal that Mr. Dawkins has pointed to some ” as yet UNKNOWN physical concept” .  Now just consider; there are so MANY physical concepts, in wave mechanics, in quantum mechanics, in classical relativity and yet, now, the militant atheists are pointing out, how, some, as yet unknown principle will come to their rescue and save them from Aquinas' regression.

Regressing with Gold:

Mr Dawkins goes on to describe how the regression of piecing Gold ends with the Gold atom. He explains that if we piece the Gold atom we will not get Gold but some other element. Thus if we keep on piecing Gold we just arrive at a “natural terminator” – the Gold atom.   

 Mr Dawkins believes that God is not an apt terminator of Aquinas’ regress, but something else could be.  All through his  arguments you would notice that he insists with determination that God shouldn’t be considered a viable option, but he doesn’t say WHY. Why can’t we consider that God fits the bill especially when our list of maxer scientists do not come up with better options.  Aquinas’ regression has to end. But science doesn’t know how that event can fortunately (or fortuitously) take place. And when someone would like to point out the God option, Dawkins gets awful fidgety for some unknown reason.  Thus rejecting God has nothing to do with science (especially because scientists like Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, Maxwell were perfectly comfortable with accepting a Creator) , it has to do with the fidget problem of people of Dawkins’ caliber.

 Dawkins mentions how the regression of piecing gold ends with the atom.  But that regression and Aquinas’ regression are very different.  The reader already has a very good idea about Aquinas’ regression and should be, very easily, able to figure out, that the two regressions are not at all comparable.  Two phenomena can be compared in an analogous way when there are points of similarity. What is the similarity between piecing gold and finding the cause of everything? It’s a bit like saying that…, I am likely to bump into something if I walk without my eyes open. So, analogously, I am likely to bump into some star if I am launched from some launch pad blindfolded. Is that a grand possibility?  What is far more likely is I am going to come to recognize in a rather desperate way the pernicious effect of gravity.

The Singular Singularity:

Now we are left with the rather queer question as to why the atheists after so many centuries of endeavour, are, not able to come up with better analogies. The simple answer could be that there aren’t too many out there.  Just consider Dawkins’ statement regarding how the Aquinas’ regression could be terminated by a big bang singularity or some other as yet UNKNOWN physical phenomena. Let’s consider the singularity. The singularity doesn’t fit the bill, because as every theoretical physicist knows, the singularity has to BE THERE in the first place.

The following questions are unanswered:

-          why was there a big bang singularity in the first place

-           how did it develop self propelling abilities that enabled it to generate space- time and matter. Consider: there is no space-time, no matter, nothing, and suddenly there is a singularity from which come out space-time, matter, energy. How does all this happen without any cause?  Where, in any experiment has any scientist, of any caliber, actually  DEMONSTRATED that things happen without a cause.  Which mathematical theorizations worth anyone’s salt, honestly demonstrate that from nothing something can come?

-          At the time of creation, the ENTROPY or extent of disorder was far less than is the case now, because entropy can only increase (Seond law of Thermodynamics). Thus at the dawn of time the physical orientation of the Universe HAD to be very ordered or fine tuned ( as some have pointed out). So Mr Dawkins how did this extremely ordered state of things come about?

Future conscious:

The tedious part is that Mr Dawkins cannot present us with a terminator of Aquinas’ regression because if he could, he would have done so by now. But , the future,  my friend, is something we can all look forward to.  In the future, we will over-  come , old age, disease, death,  unemployment, radioactive waste, AIDS, cancer,  war, Aquinas’ regression etc etc etc.

Can’t it stop?

Now of course the question arises, what if there IS an infinite regression. What is the problem with that scenario.  Then, senorita, we are faced with some other problems. As I have mentioned, hypothesizing infinity is problematic. If there is an infinite regression, then

-           we are faced with the extremely difficult situation regarding how to accommodate the fact that time has flowed for an infinite span of time, because it just can’t…

(Law of science – nothing reaches Infinity, even time…sorry – time may be free but cannot equal to infinity. You see,… if time has reached infinity and keeps flowing ON and ON or transgressing the funny barrier of infinity, our conceptions about reality get really absorbingly astonishing J).

-           How do we accommodate infinite amount of matter which has been generated for infinite amount of time.

-          and infinite amount of space-time.

-          This of course generates the question, from where this infinite supply comes.

Mr Dawkins can balk rigorously at how theists can conceive of flying unicorns, but HEY – infinite amount of fine tuned matter, space, time, energy – all from NOWHERE… talking of balking….?

In short Aquinas’ regression has ended, but the atheists’ worries are beginning, because rhetoric and hyperbole fool some of the people some of the time, not all the people all the time.