A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, i can accept this, but we will need to accept that God 'probably' exists. (if your argument is at its best)

Of course. But the same is true for everything we know scientifically: for all science is merely empirical, not absolute...and that means it can tell us what will most probably be the case, but not what is 100% certain to be the case.

For example, if you do a simple gravity experiment by dropping a ball sixty times, you have good scientific reason to believe the theory that "tennis balls dropped from the hand accelerate toward the earth." But what you don't have is 100% certainty, because you didn't actually perform test 61, 62, 63, 64...and 1,000,001. Absent actually having done all those tests, you'd have a tiny chance that, say, test 75 would prove an anomaly; the ball would rise, or hover, or dart sideways. Now, the chances are vanishingly slim, but you're never going to get closer than 99.9999...% certain about your gravity theory.

No problem with that. Science works almost all the time. Rarely do careful theories pertaining to persistent phenomena get shown wrong. But, of course, it does happen, so we never get 100% certainty.

That alarms some people to realize, if they've come to think of science as absolutely certain. But it's not. It's inductive. High-probability inductive knowledge is a fine, fine thing. But it's not absolute. And we can't expect our knowledge of anything in the external world to be 100%.

So that's stage 2 done: we're comfortable with extremely-high-probability knowing, and not insistent on absolutes.

Ok - i forget which stage you are at - are we about to listen to stage two or have i missed something?

Stage 3 asks, given what we observe in the cosmos and the world around us, what is the most probable explanation for the existence of what we see? Does chance + time look like the most probable explanation, or does power + design look like the better explanation?

[Arising_uk]

... Now, the chances are vanishingly slim, but you're never going to get closer than 99.9999...% certain about your gravity theory. ...

Except that apparently in Mathematics that is very well accepted as 100%.

That alarms some people to realize, if they've come to think of science as absolutely certain. But it's not. It's inductive. High-probability inductive knowledge is a fine, fine thing. But it's not absolute. And we can't expect our knowledge of anything in the external world to be 100%.

So that's stage 2 done: we're comfortable with extremely-high-probability knowing, and not insistent on absolutes. ...

Interesting, so if IC's 'God' interacts with this world then 'it' cannot be an absolute?

Stage 3 asks, given what we observe in the cosmos and the world around us, what is the most probable explanation for the existence of what we see? Does chance + time look like the most probable explanation, or does power + design look like the better explanation?

'Better' in what sense? Should IC have not said which is the more probable. He's also conveniently ignoring that he is conflating the Theory of Evolution of Species with TOE's of Physics.

[ken]

Just to nitpick here: You repeatedly misquote Newton's third law in your posts, and imply that it is fact, which is strange for somebody claiming no beliefs.

If I did imply that it is fact, then that was completely unintentional. I specifically capitalist IF, sometimes, for that very reason that that word itself implies. It was only an IF. NOT a fact.

But you're applying a rule that doesn't exist to temporal cause and effect, which the rule does not mention. Action and reaction are not two things one of which follows the other. Every action is accompanied by the reaction, period, and that makes it simply a law of conservation, with no mention of cause and effect. You're applying the wrong rule.

IF the rule 'every action is accompanied by the reaction' is correct, then this might, on first glance, work in even better. Thanks for that.

If all the rules I am using fit in with all the laws of the natural world, then I am not applying the wrong rules. I am just providing a very simple Theory Of Everything.

The one you want is that every cause-event must eventually be the cause some effect-event, and while there is no such rule, if there was, it would only prove that time cannot end.

If this new rule, which is being created here, proves that time cannot end, and thus is eternal, then that will be that part over and done with.

It makes no statement about all events being effects caused by some prior thing. It does not preclude an initial state.

If all events are the effect of a prior event, then how could there be an initial event? Prescribing to an initial state implies that there was a beginning of 'ALL there is', of which there is absolutely no evidence for.

Why do some people think, assume, and/or believe that an initial state MUST be precluded?

I found that 'If every action causes a reaction is true, then that fitted in perfectly with the other things I was finding and seeing

Assuming you mean cause and effect,

At this very moment either action-reaction or cause-effect will suffice.

I can think of things that don't ever effect anything. A photon emitted in a direction reasonably free of clutter (dust clouds mostly) stands a better than even chance of never hitting anything ever.

Is that a "reasonably" free of clutter area or a completely free of clutter area?

If it is the former, then we are not really sure of that photon never "hitting" any thing ever. "Stands a better than even chance of never hitting anything ever," is not an accurate way of measuring things. The 'chances' are solely depended upon upon how much 'clutter' there is.

If it is the latter, then your thought expermiment is depended upon the size of the area completely devoid of clutter and of the distance the photon could travel. Obviously a reasonable sized area completely free of clutter is not a part of the natural world.

Anyway, where the photon is being emitted from has a big effect in this discussion also.

Now, and if it has not yet been noticed even if a photon never "hits" any thing ever it actually has already caused an effect on some thing. Can what that is be guessed?

That thing is this discussion. And further to this is that that no hitting photon will also have actually made an impact on every thing else that this discussion causes an effect on.

So there's an except to the rule of every event needing to cause some later effect.

Not yet. If what I just wrote, in reply, stands up to scrutiny, then what I wrote proves the effect even a none hitting phon does actually cause.

By now some would have already noticed the caused-effect event that literally just happened in the literal sense.

Fair enough, I will not use that. But I will just stick with what I have already written regarding an infinite Universe and wait for others to show how and why what is written is wrong, false, and/or incorrect.

Let me try:

There is no need to "try" you have already corrected what I have written. You have helped Me tremendously to improve what I reaaly want to say and express. And I am sure you will continue to do so.

Every rock on earth that is not falling is being held up by the stuff under it, and that stuff held up by yet deeper stuff. There has been no measured exception to this. By the logic of everybody posting on this thread, there must be no limit to that, and Earth must go infinitely down. It is flat-Earth thinking,

But there has already been a measured exception, that is Gravity. Although gravity brings things "down", it also holds things "up". Although gravity brings things closer n it also creates positive and negative forces, which then also repels things away.

From this poster there is limit to this, so there is no infinity in regards to the earth. I thought the issue of gravity was already understood. Gravity is also a part of a Theory Of Everything.

...spacetime has been shown over 100 years ago to be curved (an object with a center just like Earth), and it has a center from which it is impossible to express a deeper point.

But it is NOT impossible to express a deeper point. Learning how to express better that very deepest of center points has been My whole point for being here in this forum.

Spacetime is only a part of 'ALL there is'. The centre of spacetime is no where as interesting as the centre of the Universe.

Finding the right language to show how the very center, at the deepest of points, may seem an impossible task. But inside each human body there is a centre where knowledge and understanding of ALL things lay. Finding the right words, which shows how to find and hear that correct internal language, is just another one of Life's learning experiences, of which collectively the I is on.

It (our spacetime) is no more in need of being caused than Earth is in need of being held up.

It is true that no thing is in NEED of being caused, but every thing, (besides the Everything, 'ALL there is' ) is caused by the prior coming together of at least two things. Coming together, itself, is an action, which is accompanied by a reaction, which JUST IS a caused effect-event.

Does this process happen in one continual event?

Have we ever observed a stop or a start event throughout the continum?

Could there be a start? How could that be possible?

Could there be an end? Where could ALL this clutter go to?

By the way spacetime is not owned by any thing so it is certainly not 'ours'. It 'just is'.

Objects within our spacetime have the property of being in need of causation.

Why do these objects NEED?

I see them as being caused but not necessarily being NEEDED to be caused.

Spacetime itself is not an object in spacetime, and it is a category error to apply the rules of object within it to the container.

I do NOT see spacetime itself as being an object in spacetime. I do not know of anything that is also an object within itself.

Did I make this category error? I just ask people to think about if spacetime could be just another part of 'ALL there is' or 'Everything'. Maybe it is. Maybe it is not.

Also, I ask people to think about whether spacetime began to exist, without a prior cause or action, and/or how does spacetime have an "edge" or "boundary" or similar word, and how these could really be possible in a physical sense? I would be delighted if a reasonable response was given to what defines the "boundary" and what was the actual prior action that was accompanied by the big bang reaction?

If what is being said here is true, then great that fits in with a theory of everything that I was seeing.

Fits, yes. Proves, no, but it counters the argument that the universe must be infinite else it would violate the conservation of energy principle (which is a property of our spacetime, not necessarily of a different universe, so again, a category error to raise the objection in the first place).

[/quote]

How does what I said here counter the argument that the Universe must be infinite?

I will have to reiterate, from My context there is no different Universes. There is only One, Universe. The sum of every thing equals One - 'Everything' or 'ALL there is', this is what the Universe once meant, and that is what I am sticking with, for now.

What violates the conservation of energy principle in the part of the Universe some call spacetime does NOT necessarily mean the Universe can not be infinite.

Also, how I read what you wrote here about positive and negative energy cancelling out, which I am guessing you are saying exists in spacetime, means that it may work well and good in forming a bases for a Theory Of Everything.

[Dontaskme]

Great postings Ken. You pack a powerful message. I love reading, it's like being in the arms of the beloved.

If only people responding and replying to you would wash out their ears occasionally, maybe use some cotton buds to reach those stubborn areas, then they too will rest in the arms of the beloved.

[Noax]

If all the rules I am using fit in with all the laws of the natural world, then I am not applying the wrong rules. I am just providing a very simple Theory Of Everything.

I know you put IF in front of your statement, but it would be a more plausible theory if you used laws that science actually acknowledges, or back up your law if you're going to make one up, like "every action causes a reaction".

Also, remember we're talking cosmology here, and Newtonian laws hardly apply on the scale of cosmology. Newtonian laws about causality only work when you average things out, and are shown to be false on discreet observations.

The one you want is that every cause-event must eventually be the cause some effect-event, and while there is no such rule, if there was, it would only prove that time cannot end.

If this new rule, which is being created here, proves that time cannot end, and thus is eternal, then that will be that part over and done with.

So I say "If A, then B", but A is not true, so B (time cannot end) is left as unproven as ever.

It makes no statement about all events being effects caused by some prior thing. It does not preclude an initial state.

If all events are the effect of a prior event, then how could there be an initial event?

When did I ever say all events are effects of prior events? I can think of many counterexamples.

Prescribing to an initial state implies that there was a beginning of 'ALL there is', of which there is absolutely no evidence for.

Well, calling it a 'beginning' is a category error again. But several of us has posted quite a bit of evidence for the case (the same evidence that there is a 'bottom' to the pile of rocks holding up my mailbox). I cannot help it that you turn a blind eye to that and declare it 'no evidence', only choosing evidence that support a conclusion that you already know.

Why do some people think, assume, and/or believe that an initial state MUST be precluded?

Closed minded, I know. But here you are seeming to do exactly that.

Assuming you mean cause and effect,

At this very moment either action-reaction or cause-effect will suffice.

They're completely different things. Very confusing to interchange the words.

I can think of things that don't ever effect anything. A photon emitted in a direction reasonably free of clutter (dust clouds mostly) stands a better than even chance of never hitting anything ever.

Is that a "reasonably" free of clutter area or a completely free of clutter area?

The former. Nowhere is completely free of clutter, but at some point the density of the universe became such that a typical photon would probably just go forever instead of probably hit something nearby.

If it is the former, then we are not really sure of that photon never "hitting" any thing ever. "Stands a better than even chance of never hitting anything ever," is not an accurate way of measuring things. The 'chances' are solely depended upon upon how much 'clutter' there is.

From which probability of hitting something can be computed. It is almost zero if the photon has made it away from its point of origin. Consider the typical photon in the sun. Almost none of them make it out, but the few that do will probably never hit anything. Earth is hardly blocking a significant portion of them.

Now, and if it has not yet been noticed even if a photon never "hits" any thing ever it actually has already caused an effect on some thing. Can what that is be guessed?

That thing is this discussion. And further to this is that that no hitting photon will also have actually made an impact on every thing else that this discussion causes an effect on.

Here I thought you were going to make a point. You're confusing the map with the territory. Discussion of a photon is not affected by any actual photon that never hits anything.

Every rock on earth that is not falling is being held up by the stuff under it, and that stuff held up by yet deeper stuff. There has been no measured exception to this. By the logic of everybody posting on this thread, there must be no limit to that, and Earth must go infinitely down. It is flat-Earth thinking,

But there has already been a measured exception, that is Gravity. Although gravity brings things "down", it also holds things "up". Although gravity brings things closer n it also creates positive and negative forces, which then also repels things away.

Gravity repels as well? News to me. Is this made up or can you back this claim with perhaps an example? Or is this just a distraction from the point?
My point was that using the logic of "everything on Earth needing to be held up by something under it" is the same logic being used in the cosmological argument. Earth must be turtles all the way down

It (our spacetime) is no more in need of being caused than Earth is in need of being held up.

By the way spacetime is not owned by any thing so it is certainly not 'ours'. It 'just is'.

Seriously??? That's how you interpret that statement? Ownership??? Do you honestly think that is what I was trying to express with that statement?

Objects within our spacetime have the property of being in need of causation.

Why do these objects NEED?
I see them as being caused but not necessarily being NEEDED to be caused.

Because without being caused, they would not exist. The objects need the cause for their existence. Again, you seem to be deliberately ascribing the inappropriate meaning to an unimportant word. It seems to be your only defense when confronted with conflicting statements.

Spacetime itself is not an object in spacetime, and it is a category error to apply the rules of object within it to the container.

I do NOT see spacetime itself as being an object in spacetime. I do not know of anything that is also an object within itself.

And yet the cosmological argument rests upon doing exactly that: Applying the properties of objects in spacetime to the spacetime itself.

Did I make this category error? I just ask people to think about if spacetime could be just another part of 'ALL there is' or 'Everything'. Maybe it is. Maybe it is not.

Yes, you made this error, as does Craig, who very much knows better, but also knows the naivety of his audience that pays him to bolster their known view.
In the set of 'all there is', there is no rule of causation at all. There isn't such a rule in spacetime either, but that point is at least debatable. The proponents of the cosmological argument typically include God as part of 'all there is', and yet God is immune from the necessity of being caused. So there is apparently no requirement for members of the set of 'all there is' to be caused.

Also, I ask people to think about whether spacetime began to exist, without a prior cause or action, and/or how does spacetime have an "edge" or "boundary" or similar word, and how these could really be possible in a physical sense? I would be delighted if a reasonable response was given to what defines the "boundary" and what was the actual prior action that was accompanied by the big bang reaction?

It is an error to say it began to exist, because that means there was a time before it existed. Time is part of spacetime, so if spacetime does not exist, there is no place or time where it isn't existing. The error is in the naive assumption that time is separate from, well, from the rest I guess, and thus there was a time when the rest was not there. But all the matter and energy and stuff of this existence is what defines time.

As for boundaries, there is just the big bang, which is sort of like the south pole in that you can't be further south than that, but that doesn't mean you bump into a barrier when you get to the south pole. There is no boundary to space. Think of objective spacetime (vastly simplified to remove relativity) as a two-dimensional infinite plane with polar coordinates . So any point on this plane can be expressed by two values, the radial distance from the center (time), and the angular value (space). The angular value can be positive or negative without limit (no boundary), but the radial value is only positive. So things are further apart the larger the radial value. Time 13.7 billion years is a larger circle than the much smaller circle that represents 1 billion years. The picture does not change and thus is not something that 'happens'. Time is part of the picture, not something within which the picture exists.
In reality, there are three spatial dimensions making the whole map a 4-D hyper-polar coordinate system and relativity complicates things since it makes it non-Euclidean for one thing, but most of the model works just fine with just that simplified 2-D abstraction.

Not sure if you find this response reasonable, but I really tried. It is by no means proof of non-creation, just a picture that helps illustrate the invalidity of the concept of 'before time zero'. There is nowhere in that picture or off the edge of it (it doesn't have edges) that has a negative radial value.

How does what I said here counter the argument that the Universe must be infinite?

How do you define universe here? If it is 'all there is', yes, I don't think that is a finite set and never claimed otherwise. If you're changing the definition mid-post, then clarify the question please. I also think spacetime is infinite, in that there is nowhere you can be that is populated with objects only on one side. The picture I described above is consistent with that.

[attofishpi]

Yes, i can accept this, but we will need to accept that God 'probably' exists. (if your argument is at its best)

Of course. But the same is true for everything we know scientifically: for all science is merely empirical, not absolute...and that means it can tell us what will most probably be the case, but not what is 100% certain to be the case.

For example, if you do a simple gravity experiment by dropping a ball sixty times, you have good scientific reason to believe the theory that "tennis balls dropped from the hand accelerate toward the earth." But what you don't have is 100% certainty, because you didn't actually perform test 61, 62, 63, 64...and 1,000,001. Absent actually having done all those tests, you'd have a tiny chance that, say, test 75 would prove an anomaly; the ball would rise, or hover, or dart sideways. Now, the chances are vanishingly slim, but you're never going to get closer than 99.9999...% certain about your gravity theory.

No problem with that. Science works almost all the time. Rarely do careful theories pertaining to persistent phenomena get shown wrong. But, of course, it does happen, so we never get 100% certainty.

That alarms some people to realize, if they've come to think of science as absolutely certain. But it's not. It's inductive. High-probability inductive knowledge is a fine, fine thing. But it's not absolute. And we can't expect our knowledge of anything in the external world to be 100%.

So that's stage 2 done: we're comfortable with extremely-high-probability knowing, and not insistent on absolutes.

No. I don't have any probability in your stage 1 argument toward there being a 'God'.

Ok - i forget which stage you are at - are we about to listen to stage two or have i missed something?

Stage 3 asks, given what we observe in the cosmos and the world around us, what is the most probable explanation for the existence of what we see? Does chance + time look like the most probable explanation, or does power + design look like the better explanation?

Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I don't have any probability in your stage 1 argument toward there being a 'God'.

Do you mean, by that phrase, "I don't know what the actual probability is," or "I don't believe there's a probability at all"? Your wording reads either way there, so you'll have to clear it up for me.

Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

How so? Because there are things "outside the universe" that are still "real"?

Plausible; but what makes you think so?

[attofishpi]

No. I don't have any probability in your stage 1 argument toward there being a 'God'.

Do you mean, by that phrase, "I don't know what the actual probability is," or "I don't believe there's a probability at all"? Your wording reads either way there, so you'll have to clear it up for me.

Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.

Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

How so? Because there are things "outside the universe" that are still "real"?

Plausible; but what makes you think so?

No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe. All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...(see your stage 3) and ultimately if you are only relying on experience - experience is a result of the reality whether provided by a 'God' or not. It does not necessarily pertain to an entity that created our universe.
You state:-Stage 3 asks, given what we observe in the cosmos and the world around us, what is the most probable explanation for the existence of what we see? Does chance + time look like the most probable explanation, or does power + design look like the better explanation?

How can i see it other_wise? REAL_IT_Y can be provided by an A.I. that we have evolved within - or a reality with no intelligent backing as atheists see it. Take your pick.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.

No problem.

But now you're saying you think there IS such a thing as an infinite causal regress? That's odd, because you had seemed alright with stage 1 before...

Well, could you explain how an infinite causal regress is possible, then?

You wrote:

Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

But now you write:

No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe.

So...in your view, the universe is not coextensive with "the real," but "the real" is that which "exists within the confines of a universe"? You're going to have to clear that up for me.

It looks very much like a self-contradiction.

All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...

Not at all. I have never referred to my experience in this argument so far. I premise nothing on it...not stage 1, nor stage 2, nor stage 3.

At stage 3, all I asked is what you thought was the most plausible explanation. I was waiting for your answer, not advancing a statement about my own experience. I didn't even tell you what I wanted you to conclude, and I definitely did not refer you to "my experience" in order to do so.

So I'm a bit surprised by your claim there. It's manifestly untrue. If I can read you charitably, it seems that you are (wrongly) anticipating what you expect my argument to be. Perhaps a little patience...?

[attofishpi]

Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.

No problem.

But now you're saying you think there IS such a thing as an infinite causal regress? That's odd, because you had seemed alright with stage 1 before...

Well, could you explain how an infinite causal regress is possible, then?

You wrote:

Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

But now you write:

No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe.

So...in your view, the universe is not coextensive with "the real," but "the real" is that which "exists within the confines of a universe"? You're going to have to clear that up for me.

It looks very much like a self-contradiction.

All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...

Not at all. I have never referred to my experience in this argument so far. I premise nothing on it...not stage 1, nor stage 2, nor stage 3.

At stage 3, all I asked is what you thought was the most plausible explanation. I was waiting for your answer, not advancing a statement about my own experience. I didn't even tell you what I wanted you to conclude, and I definitely did not refer you to "my experience" in order to do so.

So I'm a bit surprised by your claim there. It's manifestly untrue. If I can read you charitably, it seems that you are (wrongly) anticipating what you expect my argument to be. Perhaps a little patience...?

You are as tedious as a simple minded shortsighted atheist - if you are going to address me, then kindly quote me correctly - that includes our entire conversation as i have had the courtesy to do with U, otherwise things get out of context - and we can't have that happening,..and besides that -if u dont- then i dont fucking care.

[Immanuel Can]

You are as tedious as a simple minded shortsighted atheist - if you are going to address me, then kindly quote me correctly - that includes our entire conversation.

Well, now...is your "scroll up feature broken"?

I actually quoted you exactly, using your own words...

But of course I'm not going to include the entirety of every message you write, nor would I expect you to quote every message I send you in its completeness; because

a) we both know very well that you can scroll up and check yourself, if in doubt, and

b) quoting everything you say would entail that every successive message became twice as long as the one before; and that clearly won't work for anybody.

So, if you want to get personal, okay; we can stop talking, because in almost every case, getting personal (i.e. resorting to the ad hominem fallacy) signals the bankruptcy of a person's ideas. But I see no reason for you to become snippy, as you have been done no injustice. I did not try to harm you or misrepresent you in any way. I just asked if you could explain. And that seems fair.

Continue or quit? Your choice.

[attofishpi]

You are as tedious as a simple minded shortsighted atheist - if you are going to address me, then kindly quote me correctly - that includes our entire conversation.

Well, now...is your "scroll up feature broken"?

I actually quoted you exactly, using your own words...

But of course I'm not going to include the entirety of every message you write, nor would I expect you to quote every message I send you in its completeness; because

a) we both know very well that you can scroll up and check yourself, if in doubt, and

b) quoting everything you say would entail that every successive message became twice as long as the one before; and that clearly won't work for anybody.

So, if you want to get personal, okay; we can stop talking, because in almost every case, getting personal (i.e. resorting to the ad hominem fallacy) signals the bankruptcy of a person's ideas. But I see no reason for you to become snippy, as you have been done no injustice. I did not try to harm you or misrepresent you in any way. I just asked if you could explain. And that seems fair.

Continue or quit? Your choice.

Errrrrr, no ya didnt - IT MUST INCLUDE YOUR POST - so fuckit. Learn simple forum script methodology.

[Immanuel Can]

Continue or quit? Your choice.

Errrrrr, no ya didnt - IT MUST INCLUDE YOUR POST - so fuckit. Learn simple forum script methodology.

Ah.

Quit it is, then.

No hard feelings.

[thedoc]

Continue or quit? Your choice.

Errrrrr, no ya didnt - IT MUST INCLUDE YOUR POST - so fuckit. Learn simple forum script methodology.

Ah.

Quit it is, then.

No hard feelings.

Oh well, another one bites the dust. I do agree that it is only necessary to re-post the part that is being addresses, and not the whole post. Often I will only quote the pertinent parts of a post and delete the rest if it does not pertain to my reply.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh well, another one bites the dust. I do agree that it is only necessary to re-post the part that is being addresses, and not the whole post. Often I will only quote the pertinent parts of a post and delete the rest if it does not pertain to my reply.

Yep. People do it to me all the time; and I never whine...if I need to correct their interpretation to reflect my intention, then I try to do that. He really had no grounds to be upset, and I think he really knew that.

The truth is that I think atto was getting concerned and just wanted to get us off the main topic and onto the "meta" disagreement over how one posts -- not at all relevant to the OP, but it's one way to get oneself "off the hook" when one has logically painted oneself into a corner. I couldn't see any place his argument could go from where he left it.