DD:
That is your presupposition not mine or those who ascribe to string theory.
*Sigh* No. That is not a "presupposition". It's a fact based on the definition of the word, and it has absolutely nothing to do with string theory.
Don't you love it when they start talking down to us.
Sorry... I shouldn't have phrased it that way.
BTS:
Logic underpins what we deem as "Laws", not the other way around. First comes logic, and we use logic to come up with natural laws
That is so fractally wrong.
We do not "use" logic to "come up" with natural laws. Natural "laws" are based on one thing and one thing only: Observation. We call them "laws" because we have observed that nature will tend to behave in a consistant fashion. If logic underpinned our natural laws we would have to chuck quantum mechanics out the window. You seem to forget that a statement can be logically sound and still be incorrect. For example: "All dogs are grey. Mary has a dog. Mary's dog is grey." That syllogism is logically sound but factually incorrect due to the initial false premise.
Logic "works" only because nature behaves in a consistent and predictable fashion.
An infinite regression is illogical in and of itself because we end up with the problem of transgressing an infinite past. If everything that ever happened before today lacked a moment of time where T = 0 then an infinite past brings about the impossibility of ever getting to the present date.
Wrong again. There is nothing inherently illogical about an infinite regress. It is counter-intuitive because of our limited frame of refrence. There are two problems with that argument. First of all you're trying to impose an abstract philosophical and mathematical concept onto reality. Second of all, you assume that it would be impossible to to exist on any given point on an infinite timline. Yes, that IS an assumption, and is more than likely a false one.
Look at it this way... There is undeniably an infinite set of real numbers extending both directions, positive and negative, from zero. This is a basic mathematical concept. What you're saying is similar to stating that because that infinite set exists, then we can never count to 3. Yet: 1... 2... 3. Do you now see the problem with your argument?
And no, no special pleading here. If an uncaused cause did not begin to exist (i.e. is eternal) then it doesn't need a cause; and exactly the same applies for the Universe. If the Universe is eternal, then it doesn't need a cause either. This is why the argument is actually not special pleading for "God", because this reasoning has been used by many atheists for the natural Universe itself.
Ok, you are actually partially right on this one. One may apply the argument to God or to the universe. However, there's one HUGE difference between God and the universe: We know the universe exists. You're making an equivocation fallacy. Simply because the atheistic argument involves a similar facet, doesn't mean the theistic application is not special pleading. It is special pleading only in the theistic argument because "all things must have a cause" is NOT a necessary premise in the atheistic argument. You've created a "law" and then defined your God to be immune to that law. That is the definition of special pleading.
In the real world, they [infinities] do not exist.
You're making quite a claim here. Prove it. :) You are assuming that an infinite regress is an actual problem. It's only a "problem" because we can't comprehend it.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when all other possibilities have been exhausted, that which remains must be true.
I've never liked that saying. It just doesn't work well in the real world. Yes it sounds good, but it also assumes that you are aware of all possibilities. Such is rarely, if ever, the case. Particularly in subjects as complicated as this.
If the Universe is eternal, then it doesn't need a cause either.
It clearly can't be, because it is a series of causal events. See Kant's quote above.
Kant is a philosopher. Simply because he says it cannot be so, does not make it not so. He was citing his opinion, not a fact. Other philosophers might (and do) disagree with him. The very paper you link to as proof that it "can't be" says in the very first paragraph that the issue is "anything but settled". However, I would not be justified in citing the opposing opinion and declaring that "it clearly CAN be." Bottom line: We don't know.
Even if I accepted the premise that infinities are impossible, consistency and the rules of logic demand you apply the same reasoning to God. Otherwise it's simply special pleading.
So far, you are only proving the point I made in my original post.
