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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Since observation supports the idea that the ‘natural’ (physical) laws apply equally throughout the universe, I broadly agree with the definition of ‘universe’ as presented.

Mad props. Thank you.

Are you making a distinction here between the ‘observable universe’ (known) and the parts of the universe further away than 13.6 billion light years (which we can’t see)? Or is the distinction between ‘this’ universe and any other ‘parallel’ universes that we cannot access?

I mean ANY physical reality. In other words, there can be a billion universes out there of which we know NOTHING about...and the argument applies to those universes as well.

The difference is important because we cannot assume that parallel universes (if they exist) must necessarily follow the same physical laws as ‘our’ universe.

That is true, if and only if the argument was a scientific one.

But it isn't. The argument is a philosophical argument, so it is independent of physical laws or cosmologies.

So you can bring on your favorite cosmological model (multiverse, string theories, etc), or you can bring your favorite scientist (Lawrence Krauss)...and neither will be able to light a candle to the mere force/implication of this argument.

And to be quite frank, not even God can save you here.

In your case ‘A’, you have added a couple of conditions which weaken the argument. If you’d simply presented it as ‘A: the universe has a beginning’, then we should agree that cases A and B are the only logical alternatives. As written, what’s to prevent cases where the universe popped into being but caused by something else (e.g. an event spilling over from another universe, alien technology, etc)? That ‘simplified Case A’ is a position supported by an impressive body of scientific observation: the universe did have a beginning, commonly called the Big Bang.

Um, the universe being caused by an "spilling event or alien technology" wouldn't be a case of the universe popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing...which is what case A was.

If anything, inductive reasoning would lead us to reject your Case B as being an unsupported position.

Case B isn't a position that I hold, and I also reject it. So welcome onboard with me for rejecting Case B.

Delving deeper into your original ‘A’, there’s another ill-defined condition which is problematic: ‘nothing’ is a tricky concept that might not mean precisely the same to philosophers as it does to scientists. Before the theory of quantum physics was developed, empty space was deemed to be ‘nothing’, but today it is recognised as consisting of ‘virtual particles’ by virtue of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Paul Dirac was the mathematician who developed much of the theory, later confirmed by very precise measurements of hydrogen’s emission spectrum that predicted its fine structure. The renowned Richard Feynman wrote a paper in 1949 “A Theory of Positrons” which built on Dirac’s work and showed how you might indeed get ‘something from nothing’.

As I stated to benchwarmer..

1. There are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum physics, and not all of them are indeterministic, as the copenhagen interpretation you are positing here.

And btw, no one knows which one of those interpretations are correct...and..

2. These virtual particles come into existence based on specified circumstances or environments (quantum vacuum)...in other words, something has to happen in order for the particles to manifest.

This is not the same thing as something popping into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING. Why? Because the state of "nothingness" doesn't have any predetermining factors, nor is it selective about what pops out or when.

So if the virtual particles pop out of nothing, why don't horses pop out? Why not bikes? Or money? Why is "nothing" so selective, and how can it be so selective? Why is it so selective about when this stuff pops out? Why not sooner? Why not later?

Still leaves more questions than answers...and the fact that people would rather believe in absurdities than God, says a lot about the resistant mind frame of certain peoples.

This still falls far short of a ‘plausible explanation’ of how the universe could begin from ‘nothing’, but the point here is that we cannot ‘safely’ discard it as an explanation simply because we don’t know how it happened.

Even in the quantum scenario you gave, the universe doesn't come from "nothing". "Nothing" here (thanks to Lawrence Krauss) is being equivocated, and of course naturalists who are on the "New Atheist" bandwagon is helping push this false narrative...as you appear to be doing here.

The universe did not pop into being, uncaused, out of a state of nothing. No, it didn't. And the fact that we are sitting here discussing this nonsense just goes to show how much people just are simply closeminded to the "G" word.

"No matter how absurd the idea is, it is still better than the God hypothesis".

That would be to commit the classic logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam: arguing that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it.

Oh, please.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Unfortunately for you, the contradiction remains.

You stated that, according to your timeline, that 0 represents the present. Well, if we've reached the present moment (0), after traversing all of the negative numbers on the timeline, then we've reached infinity.

Uh, no. We do not need to "traverse all the negative numbers to reach zero." We can't. What we can do is go directly to zero without "traversing" any other number. Once there, we can use zero to represent the present.

See how easy that is?

1. We appear to agree that there is in the physical cosmos a finite number of days into the past.
2. However, we still seem to disagree as to the past being potentially finite or infinite

Um, if there is only a finite number of days into the past, doesn't that mean that the past is finite?

Um, I already explained that the universe is not infinitely old but has been dated by scientists to be about 13 billion years old. So the observable past of the cosmos that we can see is finite. Of course, the finite age of the universe does not in any way demonstrate that it cannot be infinitely old. You argued in the OP that mathematically the universe cannot be infinitely old, and I have explained the errors in your math.

Ok, you got me. The timeline is "more than cool". My bad lol.

You really should know what you are doing. If you don't know the number line--a concept normally taught in high school math classes--then you can't understand how mathematicians model linear time.

You just admitted that "it is impossible to count an infinite number of days".

That's correct, and I don't need to to be able to count an infinite number of days. I'm still correct about everything I've posted on this subject.

Yet, you are maintaining that an infinite amount of days (of the past) have been traversed/counted in order to arrive at the present day.

No--I never stated nor implied that an infinite number of days have been traversed to get to the present. It is you who think that doing so is necessary if the past is infinite, and that is your error that I have been trying to correct for several posts now.

I can easily demonstrate to you why you are wrong by having you discover your error for yourself. Please consider these two questions and post your answers:

1. If the universe cannot be infinitely old, then how old can it be?
2. Once the maximal age of the universe has been reached, what prevents it from lasting one more second?

If you dodge these questions, then our discussion is over.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Uh, no. We do not need to "traverse all the negative numbers to reach zero." We can't. What we can do is go directly to zero without "traversing" any other number. Once there, we can use zero to represent the present.

See how easy that is?

Um no. That isn't what happened in reality. In reality, every single day of the past (negative number) was traversed.

The days have come to past. There is was no bypassing all of the negative days (past days) to arrive at today.

Every single day...one by one...had to be traversed. In the same way we have to traverse this week in order to "arrive" at next week..which is something that will be done...day by day....but which is something that can't/won't be done if an infinite amount of days had to be traversed to get there.

So, holla at me when your scenarios reflect reality, instead of hocus pocus.

You really should know what you are doing. If you don't know the number line--a concept normally taught in high school math classes--then you can't understand how mathematicians model linear time.

What I said either went over your head, or you just can't take a joke. Either way, moving along.

That's correct, and I don't need to to be able to count an infinite number of days. I'm still correct about everything I've posted on this subject.

Sorry, you aren't correct. Again, if the past is eternal, an infinite amount of days had to be traversed in order for today to have "arrived".

Do you not understand this??

No--I never stated nor implied that an infinite number of days have been traversed to get to the present.

That is simply not true. You stated, in post #2

"The number line shows us how time can be infinite into the past, and we have no problem representing the present at zero."

If every negative number on the timeline presents every day of the past, and we know that there are an infinite amount of negative numbers on the timeline...therefore, there are an infinite amount of days which had to be traversed, one by one, in order for us to have "arrived" at 0 (present day).

So, you actually implied that an infinite number of days have been traversed to get to the present.

I can easily demonstrate to you why you are wrong by having you discover your error for yourself. Please consider these two questions and post your answers:

1. If the universe cannot be infinitely old, then how old can it be?

The age of the universe is allegedly a finite 13.7 billion years old.

2. Once the maximal age of the universe has been reached, what prevents it from lasting one more second?

It can remain existing forever...it just couldn't have existed forever. You do understand the difference between an potential infinity, and an actual infinity, don't you?

If you dodge these questions, then our discussion is over.

Your questions were easy peasy to answer...but our discussion can still be over...I can care less, either way.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I can easily demonstrate to you why you are wrong by having you discover your error for yourself. Please consider these two questions and post your answers:

1. If the universe cannot be infinitely old, then how old can it be?

The age of the universe is allegedly a finite 13.7 billion years old.

That's not what I asked. What is the oldest the universe can be? If you are correct, then there is an upper limit to the possible age of the cosmos. What is that upper limit?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I can easily demonstrate to you why you are wrong by having you discover your error for yourself. Please consider these two questions and post your answers:

1. If the universe cannot be infinitely old, then how old can it be?

The age of the universe is allegedly a finite 13.7 billion years old.

That's not what I asked. What is the oldest the universe can be? If you are correct, then there is an upper limit to the possible age of the cosmos. What is that upper limit?

Did you keep reading? I stated it (the universe) can remain existing FOREVER.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I can easily demonstrate to you why you are wrong by having you discover your error for yourself. Please consider these two questions and post your answers:

1. If the universe cannot be infinitely old, then how old can it be?

The age of the universe is allegedly a finite 13.7 billion years old.

That's not what I asked. What is the oldest the universe can be? If you are correct, then there is an upper limit to the possible age of the cosmos. What is that upper limit?

Did you keep reading? I stated it (the universe) can remain existing FOREVER.

No. How far back into time is it possible to go? You claim it cannot be infinite, so what is the finite limit?

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. How far back into time is it possible to go? You claim it cannot be infinite, so what is the finite limit?

First you asked how old can the universe be, and after I easily answer your question, now the question is how far back in time is it possible to go.

Obviously, if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, then that (13.7 billion years) is how far back in time we can trace its history.

So what. Where are you going with this?

[Diagoras]

Are you making a distinction here between the ‘observable universe’ (known) and the parts of the universe further away than 13.6 billion light years (which we can’t see)? Or is the distinction between ‘this’ universe and any other ‘parallel’ universes that we cannot access?

I mean ANY physical reality. In other words, there can be a billion universes out there of which we know NOTHING about...and the argument applies to those universes as well.

The difference is important because we cannot assume that parallel universes (if they exist) must necessarily follow the same physical laws as ‘our’ universe.

That is true, if and only if the argument was a scientific one.

But it isn't. The argument is a philosophical argument, so it is independent of physical laws or cosmologies.

So you can bring on your favorite cosmological model (multiverse, string theories, etc), or you can bring your favorite scientist (Lawrence Krauss)...and neither will be able to light a candle to the mere force/implication of this argument.

Excluding any scientific argument on the basis that it’s not ‘philosophical’ doesn’t make any sense. Scientific inquiry generally proceeds on inductive and abductive argument, so removing those only really leaves deductive argument, doesn’t it? You introduce ‘billions of unseen universes’ at the start of the debate, and then claim the debate can still be ‘independent of physical laws or cosmologies’. That’s inconsistent.

Um, the universe being caused by an "spilling event or alien technology" wouldn't be a case of the universe popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing...which is what case A was.

Perhaps you misunderstood? Let me restate my argument:

Case A: This universe popped into existence out of nothing with no cause.
Case B: This universe popped into existence seemingly out of nothing but caused by an event in another universe.
Case C: This universe popped into existence seemingly out of nothing but caused by time-travelling aliens.
Cases D to Z+: This universe popped into existence seemingly out of nothing but caused by.....etc.

As we can’t make any observation of other universes or time-travelling aliens, we can’t definitely - by logic alone - rule out cases B onwards.

So welcome onboard with me for rejecting Case B.

<‘B’ is an eternal universe>

I think we’re just on different trains that happen to be travelling in similar directions at a point in time. I reject Case B based on scientific evidence, not philosophical reasoning. But nice to be on an ‘agreement track’, even temporarily.

Discussing ‘nothing’:

These virtual particles come into existence based on specified circumstances or environments (quantum vacuum)...in other words, something has to happen in order for the particles to manifest.

This is not the same thing as something popping into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING. Why? Because the state of "nothingness" doesn't have any predetermining factors, nor is it selective about what pops out or when.

Disallowing scientific argument unfairly hobbles this debate. There’s robust scientific evidence to support a case that even the ‘nothing’ you describe does have ‘predetermining factors’ (which might be just another way of saying ‘physical laws’) and furthermore, is actually necessary to have them, in order for our universe to exist as it does.

Still leaves more questions than answers

Scientists love questions. It’s what makes life so exciting!

...and the fact that people would rather believe in absurdities than God, says a lot about the resistant mind frame of certain peoples.

In reply:

For more than two thousand years, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been presented as a challenge to the proposition that our universe - which contains the vast complex of stars, galaxies, humans, and who knows what else­ might have arisen without design, intent, or purpose. While this is usually framed as a philosophical or religious question, it is first and foremost a question about the natural world, and so the appropriate place to try and resolve it, first and foremost, is with science.

The putative position of this interlocutor is that ‘resistance’ is a quality more readily observed in those who dismiss science and cling to supernatural explanations for what we observe.

Even in the quantum scenario you gave, the universe doesn't come from "nothing". "Nothing" here (thanks to Lawrence Krauss) is being equivocated, and of course naturalists who are on the "New Atheist" bandwagon is helping push this false narrative...as you appear to be doing here.

I reject the claim of equivocation. That same author you mentioned points out in the preface to this book (link below) that theologians are fond of continually redefining ‘nothing’ in the face of new evidence. So it’s you that are ‘shifting the goalposts’, rather than scientists equivocating.

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing ... 1451624468

To summarise:

If you wish this discussion to proceed on purely deductive reasoning, then I’m out, sorry. That wasn’t what I thought it said on the tin.

But if you’re interested in the science behind the ‘something from nothing’ argument (‘Case A’), then I’m happy to join in that discussion, but perhaps better taken to the Science forum.

[Paul of Tarsus]

No. How far back into time is it possible to go? You claim it cannot be infinite, so what is the finite limit?

First you asked how old can the universe be, and after I easily answer your question, now the question is how far back in time is it possible to go.

Obviously, if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, then that (13.7 billion years) is how far back in time we can trace its history.

So what. Where are you going with this?

OK, that's enough for me. I don't play question-dodging games. Enjoy being wrong.

[We_Are_VENOM]

OK, that's enough for me. I don't play question-dodging games. Enjoy being wrong.

I get it. You chimed in on the argument, thinking you could refute it...only to find out that you can't rebuttal the truth.

So now, you create this fake reality of me "dodging your questions", when I answered both of your questions as clear as day...it appears you did this just so you can have a reason to end a conversation of which you were clearly in over your head.

In closing, move along to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to VENOM.