The Human Question

a conditioned response that is derived from a conditioned response that is derived from a conditioned response...etc.... can't work ad infinitum.  Must start with an unconditioned response.  Sure, this argument goes backward in time.  But it makes the logical point, at least.  And it shows that some terms imply the existence of another term (conditioned implies unconditioned).

Bill Dembski has a witty argument that, if you posit an infinite number worlds exist, all talk about probability breaks down. I may not have his argument just right, but here goes. In one possible universe, Rubenstein sits down an hits keys randomly on the piano, but beautiful music comes out. How do you know that you are not in that universe? Etc. He seems to be onto something. But what would he say about the possibility that we live in an infinitely old and oscillating universe? With an infinite number of future possible universe scenarios, wouldn't the same thing happen as he described with an infinite number of universes? So if he were confronted with this question would he be forced to argue as well that we live in a finitely aged universe? If he said "no," would this response weaken the point he made with the Arthur Rubinstein example? (mentioned in earlier post)