View source for Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)