Wrong. In turn, assertion of a child who when he doesn't like the answer, will ask the question again. And again.
It's too bad that you can't conceive of the inconceivable. Too bad that you can't realize there are things that, in this stage of your existence, it is impossible for you to realize.
Right now, you are limited. You have ONLY your experience in mortality, in time and space, to draw from, so you try to use that as a measuring-stick for everything else.
If you will read up on it you will find that modern physics tells us that at the subatomic level, the universe gets very, very, very strange. It is nearly inexplicable at the level of the average man's understanding. Even concepts such as time and location in space seem to have no meaning.
The elements are eternal. They just ARE, and the notion of "beginning, middle, end" ultimately have no bearing on the way the universe operates.
Too bad you can't at least admit that there is something to that notion.
Yet another assertion without proof that does not answer the first assertion without proof
It's too bad that you can't conceive of the inconceivable. Too bad that you can't realize there are things that, in this stage of your existence, it is impossible for you to realize.
It's not actually "too bad", it is a contradiction. You may believe such a statement is indicative of your "enlightened profundity", but contradiction is really indicative of nonsense. If something is by definition inconcievable, then it is impossible by definition to concieve of it! If one can concieve of it, then it is not inconcievable! If you are going to attempt to argue at this level, you should at least take a basic course in logic!
Right now, you are limited. You have ONLY your experience in mortality, in time and space, to draw from, so you try to use that as a measuring-stick for everything else.
So, what do you do with the examples from mathematics and Physics that were presented to you? BTW, have you ever heard of Bertrand Russell? He didn't seem to have any difficulties concieving of infinite regression. Since he was an agnostic, (one of his principal works was Why I Am Not a Christian) one cannot say or claim that he was one of the "enlightened few" that you and your ilk are claiming to be on this particular subject...sounds a bit like docetic gnosticism.
If you will read up on it you will find that modern physics tells us that at the subatomic level, the universe gets very, very, very strange. It is nearly inexplicable at the level of the average man's understanding. Even concepts such as time and location in space seem to have no meaning.
What are you saying then, that our "physical laws" like the conservation of Mass/Energy no longer apply? If you really want to have your preconceptions about the universe blown, read up on vacuum energy, and variable c theories, as well as variable hc theories. If you wish to continue along this line of argumentation, you saw off the branch that you are sitting on.
The elements are eternal. They just ARE, and the notion of "beginning, middle, end" ultimately have no bearing on the way the universe operates.
So, when we look at the "evidence" it still comes down to your unsupported assertion.