Turtles all the way down sounds more like a proof for God rather than a disproof?

Thanks for a long-winded way of saying "I don't understand, so God did it".

Perhaps you could explain why this sounds more like a proof for God. What caused "God," then? And are you referring to a specific god, like the god of the Abrahamic religions, or of Zoroastrianism, or just a non-specific "creator"? Because all of the specific gods are way too specific to be believed--where did all these details come from? Until we have proof, we don't know, and in the meantime, it's silly to keep believing in man-made gods.

"The only explanation is to have an unknown cause"

Fixed your sentence for you. And on the topic of infinite regress, do you have any evidence this is not exactly what is happening? Fractal patterns and self-similarity are common in nature. I'm not saying I support this idea, I'm saying you have no real basis to reject it other than "I don't like it" and "I already believe my preferred magic man in the sky did it".

I will also gladly hear your well-documented argument with solid support why any unknown or uncaused cause is your preferred unexplained undetectable magic man in the sky.

There's nothing in the physics saying everything must have a cause. Like the idea that something can't come from nothing, within normal human experience that seems true and feels right but is actually wrong.

While the idea they must feels like it must be right it's just human intuition coming into things. Now intuition is a very useful tool, without it we probably wouldn't be able to get on in life like we do, but while practical it is very often just close enough, or right for the wrong reasons, or even totally wrong

Of course 'turtles all the way down' is a proof for god instead of a disproof. I have never heard it as a disproof...

For all these theological and philosophical arguments that lead to infinite loops, God (Primum movens/Prime mover) is the only possible end to the chain. As you said, otherwise it becomes an infinity.

**edit for the people that posted above me**

The reason these infinite chains are a proof for god is because God (as understood in this regard) is a being capable to producing change/creation without having to be created. ie, He was always here. There is not God 1<< God 2 <<God 3<<etc. it is simply Thing 1<< thing 2<< .....<< thing 999,999 << God.

God is the end to the chain. It can not continue after that.

With respect to the turtles, God is what holds the last turtle up.

Human brain works on simple logic.

Since the Universe exists..1. .it must have been created by somebody 2. It must have formed by itself. 3. Not possible to conceive, it is beyond the limits of human brain.

Answers :1. If the Universe is created by somebody, then who created the creator?

2. If it is formed by itself..then the formation should continue eternally. It cannot be onetime formation. 3. This answer is more logical...

yeah it seems like proof for God to me, its like that whole 'nothing can be moved unless its put into motion therefore the first mover must be God' thingo... But i suppose you could refer to whatever the first mover was as 'God' - regardless of whether it is 'the man in the sky' as we believe God to be, or something totally different like the original big bang or something... know what i mean? like whatever/whoever the 'first mover' was is pretty much God.

with both God and science, we'll always be left wondering.... what was BEFORE the beginning? personally I think we're dealing with an eternal God... like God (and possibly our spirits too) have been around forever... no beginning, no end... its not something out minds can comprehend coz i think God wanted to leave us guessing :)

sorry if this is just word vomit, hope it makes sense... thanks for the mind trip! :D

"Sounds like a Proof"?

That's your basis?

Doctor: "Hey, Roger has cancer. Cancer is a big bump. Let's inject him with sandpaper, cause that sounds like a proof for a way to get rid of bumps".

"The only explanation is to have an uncaused cause that is not part of the natural order"

Means:

"I don't know, and rather than admit I don't know, I will make something up, because it sounds like a proof" (See part A).

No, it's not proof for God.

The first thing that ever happened could not, by definition, have had a cause -- otherwise, it wouldn't be the first. That ought to be self-evident.

Still doesn't mean it was your God, though.

"Infinite regress is what you get when you try to explain the existence of the universe by natural causes. "

Same results even if you toss god into the equation.Universe caused by God1,God1 caused by God2,God2 caused by God3,so on,and so on.

we dont need to know

and we never will

so inventing gods is just pointless

at least science is looking for the truth

religion has its head in the sand, insisting it already knows the truth