God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

First off, by "universe", I mean all physical reality govern by natural law. This would include universes that we know/don’t know about.

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is past eternal.

Justification: We know that the universe exist, and if there is no transcendent supernatural cause, then either

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

I think we can safely remove posit A from the equation (unless there is someone who thinks it is a plausible explanation).

Let’s focus on posit B.

Based on posit B, we need not provide any naturalistic explanation as to the cause of our universe, considering the fact that the term “universe” applies (as mentioned earlier) to all physical reality, which means that any naturalistic explanation one provides is already accounted for as “eternal”.

And if God does not exist, then physical reality (the universe) is all there is, and thus must be eternal.

2. If the universe is not past eternal, then God exists.

Justification: If the universe (all physical reality) is NOT eternal, then it had a beginning.

Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary.

If “nature” had a beginning, one cannot logically use nature to explain the origin of nature, and to do so is fallacious.

So, where nature stops, supernatural begins.

3. The universe is not past eternal.

Justification: If the universe is past eternal, then the causal chain of events (cause and effect) within the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because infinity cannot be traversed or “reached”.

If the past is eternal, that would mean that there are an infinite amount of “days” which lead to today. But in order for us to have “arrived” to today, an infinite amount of days would have to be traversed (one by one), which is impossible, because infinite cannot be “reached”.

Consider thought analogy..

Sandman analogy: Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole. By “bottomless”, of course if one was to fall into the hole, he would fall forever and ever and ever.

Now, imagine the man is surrounded by an infinite amount of sand, which is at his disposal.

Imagine if the man has been shoveling sand into this hole for an infinite amount of time (he never began shoveling, or he never stopped shoveling, he has been shoveling forever).

Imagine if the man’s plan was to shovel sand into the hole until he successfully filled the sand from the bottom, all the way to the top of the hole.

How long will it take him to accomplish this? Will he ever accomplish this task? No. Why? Because the sand is bottomless, so no matter how fast he shoveled, or how long he shoveled, the sand will never reach the top.

So lets put it all together…

The sand falling: Represents time travel, and the trajectory of the sand falling south of the top represents time traveling into the past, which is synonymous with past eternity.

The man shoveling: Represents the “present”, as the man is presently shoveling without halt. This is synonymous with our present causal reality. We are presently in a state of constant change, without halt.

Conclusion: If the sand cannot reach the bottom of the hole (because of no boundary/foundation) and it can’t be filled from the bottom-up to the present (man), then how, if there is no past boundary to precedent days, how could we have possibly reached the present day…if there is/was no beginning foundation (day).

However, lets say a gazillion miles down the hole, there is a foundation…then the hole will be filled in a finite amount of time, and it will be filled from the bottom-up.

But ONLY if there is a foundation.

Likewise, we can only reach today if and ONLY IF there is a beginning point of reference, a foundation in the distant past.

4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist: As explained, infinite regression is impossible, so an uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

This UCC cannot logically be a product of any precedent cause or conditions, thus, it exists necessarily (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC cannot logically depend on any external entity for it’s existence (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC is the foundation for any/everything which began to exist, which included by not limited to all physical reality…but mainly, the universe an everything in it.

This UCC would also have to have free will, which explains why the universe began at X point instead of Y point...and the reason is; it began at that point because that is when the UCC decided it should begin...and only a being with free will can decide to do anything.

This UCC would have to have the power to create from nothing (as there was no preexisting physical matter to create from, before it was created).

So, based on the truth value of the argument, what can we conclude of the UCC?

1. It is a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being
2. A being of whom has existed for eternity and can never cease existing
3. A being with the greatest power imaginable (being able to create from nothing)
4. A being with free will, thus, a being with a mind

This being in question is what theists have traditionally recognized as God. God exists.

In closing, I predict the whole "well, based on your argument, God cannot be infinite".

My response to that for now is; first admit the validity of the presented argument, and THEN we will discuss why the objection raised doesn't apply to God.

[benchwarmer]

So dividing by 2 does have you stymied? I couldn't make it any simpler. The basic math was there to prove to you how you are are wrong. Apparently you can't refute it so want to jump ship.

I dont see anything to refute...it is irrelevant, is what it is.

It was entirely relevant to countering your claim that you could reach a point if you followed an infinite series. i.e. you said:

There is no logical reason why you can't reach A to B if you count the points (supposedly an infinite amount) in between those points...but yet you can traverse those same infinite points with a single step.

Which I've now shown is wrong. Not sure why you can't simply admit that and move on. Frankly it kind of destroys any point you might be trying to make talking about infinite regression when you clearly don't understand a simple infinite series.

I already addressed the sandman analogy in post #187. It leads to you committing the special pleading fallacy when you presumably try to tap dance around having your god make a decision at some point to create the universe, yet your god is eternal. You either defeat your own argument or start pleading a special case. Which is it?

So you address it by saying "yeah but, this applies to you, too!!".

That is what you call "addressing it"?

My point stands.

Yes, that's what I call addressing it. I'm pointing out that either way you argue things leads you into an issue around the entire point of this whole OP.

You: God Must Exist: Infinite regression is Impossible

Me: If god is eternal, god has the same problem, he could never reach the point of making the decision to create the universe which you are trying to argue must have been created by something outside of it that has always existed.

You: ..... My point stands.

I'm not sure what your point is anymore.

My take on the larger picture:

1) Time in this universe began with the initial expansion of our space/time in this universe.

2) We have no clue what state the energy of this universe had prior to this expansion.

Possibilities:

1) A god/gods/whatever did it

2) The energy has always existed in some form or other and its current form is our universe

3) Some other possibility. We don't know.

Now, (1) just introduces a new problem and needs to claim with absolutely no sensible logic that god/gods/whatever somehow always existed, but the energy of our universe didn't. This is textbook special pleading.

(2) is simply (1) without the extra insertion of religion or special pleading.

(3) is IMHO the best answer. We have no observable data to predict at this point what actually happened. Guessing is fun, but not going to give us an answer.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #203]

WAV: That is kinda of my point. How can you reach any given "day" within a finite time...based upon a past eternal universe?

DNG: Start counting backwards from today until you reach the day of interest (assuming that isn't day zero).

WAV: The day of interest is the point where you've traverse an infinite amount to reach that day.

If you're defining a day in a "past eternal universe" (which presumably means there was never a beginning and it has always existed), then the only day that you can never theoretically reach in finite time is day 0, because by definition there is no t = 0 (time = 0) in this hypothetical universe. But you can certainly start counting backwards in that direction from today, numbering the days as you do so, and get to any other prior day in finite time.

[The Tanager]

Why would going through every point within the actual infinity involved "counting to infinity," when every single one of those point is a finite distance away from the current moment?

I see what you are saying. But what I'm saying is also true when dealing with the infinite set of past events. Actual infinites create paradoxes like this. That's a reason to think actual infinites can't exist in reality, or at least in the context of time, if A-theory is true.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Which I've now shown is wrong. Not sure why you can't simply admit that and move on. Frankly it kind of destroys any point you might be trying to make talking about infinite regression when you clearly don't understand a simple infinite series.

1. There are an infinite amount of points between step A and step B.

2. You cannot reach step B from A if you traversed every single point (an infinite amount) between A and B.

3. However, you can traverse the infinite amount of points between step A and B, if you take a single step from A to B.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, which is the only thing "clear" about this simple infinite series.

The fact that I am sitting here trying to make sense of this nonsense is actually more insulting to me.

Yes, that's what I call addressing it.

Then me and you apparently have two different opinions on what it means to "address" a point.

I'm pointing out that either way you argue things leads you into an issue around the entire point of this whole OP.

You: God Must Exist: Infinite regression is Impossible

Me: If god is eternal, god has the same problem, he could never reach the point of making the decision to create the universe which you are trying to argue must have been created by something outside of it that has always existed.

You: ..... My point stands.

I'm not sure what your point is anymore.

First of all, I would love to dispel the notion that "god has the same problem"...but right now, we are talking about the universe.

The sooner you can knock out the sandman analogy, the sooner we can discuss god and infinite regression.

That is a good deal, right?

My take on the larger picture:

1) Time in this universe began with the initial expansion of our space/time in this universe.

2) We have no clue what state the energy of this universe had prior to this expansion.

Possibilities:

1) A god/gods/whatever did it

2) The energy has always existed in some form or other and its current form is our universe

3) Some other possibility. We don't know.

1)

Now, (1) just introduces a new problem and needs to claim with absolutely no sensible logic that god/gods/whatever somehow always existed, but the energy of our universe didn't. This is textbook special pleading.

(2) is simply (1) without the extra insertion of religion or special pleading.

(3) is IMHO the best answer. We have no observable data to predict at this point what actually happened. Guessing is fun, but not going to give us an answer.

Outlining the possibilities doesn't solve the problem. It is called critical thinking. Use it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you're defining a day in a "past eternal universe" (which presumably means there was never a beginning and it has always existed), then the only day that you can never theoretically reach in finite time is day 0, because by definition there is no t = 0 (time = 0) in this hypothetical universe. But you can certainly start counting backwards in that direction from today, numbering the days as you do so, and get to any other prior day in finite time.

Ok, so lets imagine that there was never a beginning to the universe, as it has always existed...

1. The universe has always existed.

Ok, now lets say that, in this past eternal universe, every past day was traversed to reach the present day.

2. Every day of the past-eternal universe has been traversed, in numerical order, and now we've arrived at today.

Follow me so far?

Now, lets call today X. What is the number of X? We don't know, right? So, lets continue calling it X, since its number (on the count) is unknown.

But lets stop at X, because we've traversed ALL of the days of the past to arrive at X, correct?

Now, if the task was to fast-forward to the future, covering equal (equidistant) distance into the future, and stopping at the equidistant day (Y day)....where and when would we stop?

There is just no answer to this...it is impossible, because there is no equidistant to infinity. So if you can't reach equidistant into the future, you certainly can't reach equidistant to the past.

Therefore, the past must be finite, otherwise there should be a value on Y...but it is impossible place to a value on Y, if there is no value for X.

You can't solve for X here.

So, it is literally impossible for there to be an eternal past...which means there had to be a beginning of all beginnings.

It is inescapable, and the implications are damning for the naturalist.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #214]

Are there true paradoxes though, or counter intuitive facts? Take Hilbert's hotel for example, "the hotel is full" doesn't strictly contradict with "we can fit more guests in by reassigning room." It only feels wrong because we are only familiar with finite hotels; the math and reasoning given by Hilbert makes perfect sense.

[JoeyKnothead]

(tag edits)

Which I've now shown is wrong. Not sure why you can't simply admit that and move on. Frankly it kind of destroys any point you might be trying to make talking about infinite regression when you clearly don't understand a simple infinite series.

1. There are an infinite amount of points between step A and step B.

There ya go.

2. You cannot reach step B from A if you traversed every single point (an infinite amount) between A and B.

Kinda. But if ya take the step before ya start mathing, you can then divide it into an infinite amount of "here we are, we're ataking us this part of the step.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, which is the only thing "clear" about this simple infinite series.

To declare something "makes no sense" is to expose our inability to understand it.

Remember, take the step, then measure.

Follow? So I can pick me up a yardstick - a step already taken, and then I can divide it an infinite amount of times (if only in the mathematical sense, my saws ain't that sharp).

The fact that I am sitting here trying to make sense of this nonsense is actually more insulting to me.
...

If it makes ya feel better, some folks just don't understand some stuff. Like me, I don't understand why my clothes hafta match, nor why the pretty thing makes me change when they don't.

Outlining the possibilities doesn't solve the problem. It is called critical thinking. Use it.

Now you're really staring to get it!

And we'll all of us be so proud when ya start down the path of critical thinking.


Seriously though We_Are_VENOM, I think if you'll look at it from the perspective of having already taken a step, then dividing it, you'll see that an infinite series of divisions, of "mini steps", can be had.

[benchwarmer]

Which I've now shown is wrong. Not sure why you can't simply admit that and move on. Frankly it kind of destroys any point you might be trying to make talking about infinite regression when you clearly don't understand a simple infinite series.

1. There are an infinite amount of points between step A and step B.

Yes.

2. You cannot reach step B from A if you traversed every single point (an infinite amount) between A and B.

Yes, because if you are only stepping from your current position to a position in an infinite series, there is no end to the number of steps to take.

3. However, you can traverse the infinite amount of points between step A and B, if you take a single step from A to B.

Yes, you can traverse OVER the infinite number of points.

Let's try this and see if it helps:

You have to step 1 foot. You can always just take 1 step that is 1 foot long to traverse it.

Now cut the distance into 4 equal pieces. You can either take 4 steps that match the number of pieces, or take 1 step OVER the pieces.

Now cut the distance into 8 equal pieces. You can either take 8 steps that match the number of pieces, or take 1 step OVER the pieces.

See where this is going? You can divide the distance between the start and end point into as many pieces as you want, you can still step OVER all the pieces. You seem to be getting stuck thinking there is some number of pieces you can't step OVER.

In the infinite series example, each piece is half the size of the one before it. In other words the pieces are shrinking in size, but the method used to create all the pieces causes an infinite number of them. The size of each piece is converging to 0, but never gets there. However, the sum of all the pieces is still 1 (i.e. the original distance) by definition.

So, you can create as many pieces of the original distance as you want, but still step OVER them all. Think of it like drawing lines between the 2 points. Someone can draw as many lines that don't mathematically touch as they want. This doesn't stop you from just simply stepping over all the lines they drew.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, which is the only thing "clear" about this simple infinite series.

The fact that I am sitting here trying to make sense of this nonsense is actually more insulting to me.

Why are you insulted just because you don't understand some basic math? I suggest googling infinite series. Perhaps that will help.

I understand it's hard to grasp the first time you see it, but unless you can find a distance that can't be cut in half (or cut by some other fraction if that suits your fancy), you are proving to yourself that it is possible to create such an infinite series between any 2 points.

Yes, that's what I call addressing it.

Then me and you apparently have two different opinions on what it means to "address" a point.

Apparently. That's fine, we are allowed to disagree. Remember, I'm not trying to convince you or 'win', I'm just debating points for readers to consider. If we make some progress such that we both learn something, that's great.

I'm pointing out that either way you argue things leads you into an issue around the entire point of this whole OP.

You: God Must Exist: Infinite regression is Impossible

Me: If god is eternal, god has the same problem, he could never reach the point of making the decision to create the universe which you are trying to argue must have been created by something outside of it that has always existed.

You: ..... My point stands.

I'm not sure what your point is anymore.

First of all, I would love to dispel the notion that "god has the same problem"...but right now, we are talking about the universe.

Dispel away. Without doing so, you are committing the special pleading fallacy. You seem to like to point out when others are committing logical fallacies, I think it's only fair you tackle the ones aimed at you.

The sooner you can knock out the sandman analogy, the sooner we can discuss god and infinite regression.

That is a good deal, right?

Again, I've already addressed it. That fact that you don't feel it's "knocked out" is not my issue. Not sure why you seem to always have to frame everything as some sort of "winning" or another. You do realize that we could BOTH be wrong don't you? I'm hoping you are humble enough to understand that.

My take on the larger picture:

1) Time in this universe began with the initial expansion of our space/time in this universe.

2) We have no clue what state the energy of this universe had prior to this expansion.

Possibilities:

1) A god/gods/whatever did it

2) The energy has always existed in some form or other and its current form is our universe

3) Some other possibility. We don't know.

1)

Color me shocked I have no problem with you believing that. I only have a problem when you ASSERT it with no logical backing.

Now, (1) just introduces a new problem and needs to claim with absolutely no sensible logic that god/gods/whatever somehow always existed, but the energy of our universe didn't. This is textbook special pleading.

(2) is simply (1) without the extra insertion of religion or special pleading.

(3) is IMHO the best answer. We have no observable data to predict at this point what actually happened. Guessing is fun, but not going to give us an answer.

Outlining the possibilities doesn't solve the problem. It is called critical thinking. Use it.

Attempting to insult me by saying I'm not critically thinking while you simply pick a possibility with no support, offer no others of your own, and basically claim yourself the "winner" all the time is delicious irony.

[The Tanager]

Are there true paradoxes though, or counter intuitive facts? Take Hilbert's hotel for example, "the hotel is full" doesn't strictly contradict with "we can fit more guests in by reassigning room." It only feels wrong because we are only familiar with finite hotels; the math and reasoning given by Hilbert makes perfect sense.

Hilbert didn't believe they could exist in reality. These facts of an actual infinite seem to contradict to me. You can't traverse an infinite, yet you can.

[Bust Nak]

Hilbert didn't believe they could exist in reality.

Sure, being counter intuitive can be a good reason to side with one position over another, but do you think he would go as far as to say actual infinity logically cannot exist? There is a huge difference between "I don't believe it and here is why" and "I can disprove it thus..."

These facts of an actual infinite seem to contradict to me. You can't traverse an infinite, yet you can.

"You can't, yet you can" would indeed be a straight up contradiction, but where are you getting the "you can't" from in the first place though? When I first ask you this, you spoke of "successive addition" and "counting to infinity;" and when I said traversing an infinite doesn't seem to involve any successive addition or counting to infinity, you said you get what I was saying. Does that mean you have another reason other than "successive addition" and "counting to infinity" to think one can't traverse an infinite?