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.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #131]

The logic is sound, anything that can be measured can be divided by an infinite number.

But Infinity cannot be measured so cannot be considered something which can be divided by any number. As a consequence there can be no such thing as an "infinite number"

I should have said an infinite number of divisions.

It won't make the problem go away. Perhaps "an infinity of divisions"?

Sounds about the same, but okay.

Okay. Because there is not an infinite number of any thing so even 'divisions' [which are something and therefore can be counted] are of no use...that is the problem with the OP argument.

My [ignored] Post #120 offers another way of looking at an infinite 'timeline'...

That post seems to posit time looping back on itself, something which we don't know occurs. I propose time is a linear, non-looping event.

[JoeyKnothead]

Because there is not an infinite number of any thing...

How about "infinite amount?" Avoids the word "number," more straight forward than "an infinity of..."

I'd adjust, amend, alter, append, stipulate, restate, reconfigure, change, adulterate, or otherwise relandscape my use of the word "numbers" to this new nomenclaturial paradigm.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #131]

The logic is sound, anything that can be measured can be divided by an infinite number.

But Infinity cannot be measured so cannot be considered something which can be divided by any number. As a consequence there can be no such thing as an "infinite number"

I should have said an infinite number of divisions.

It won't make the problem go away. Perhaps "an infinity of divisions"?

Sounds about the same, but okay.

Okay. Because there is not an infinite number of any thing so even 'divisions' [which are something and therefore can be counted] are of no use...that is the problem with the OP argument.

My [ignored] Post #120 offers another way of looking at an infinite 'timeline'...

That post seems to posit time looping back on itself, something which we don't know occurs. I propose time is a linear, non-looping event.

What I am saying in that post is that it can explain how the Universe can recreate itself so has a beginning and an end, which can be regarded as a 'cycle' and as such offers a better visual representation than the linear infinite line does. Especially when one end of that line has a beginning [the end where the sand is shoveled into it.

That post also shows how absurd the idea of a bottomless pit is in relation to infinite.

[William]

DP

[bluegreenearth]

So let me rephrase the question...if I were counting all of the segments in numerical order with ever step, and I stopped counting once I arrived at the street corner, which number would represent the "corner segment"?

Your first step traverses infinite segments between your starting point and the spot where you are standing regardless of the length of that single step. Therefore, according to your logic, how were you able to take a single step in order to have traversed infinite segments?

If I can traverse an infinite amount of segments, then I should be able to COUNT each segment that I traversed.

So how is it that I can traverse infinite segments with no problem with a single step...but I am unable to reach a single step if I count all of the segments between the first and second step?

That is my question as well. I don't know the answer. Do you have an answer? Regardless, though, we both seem to agree that you can arrive at the street corner despite having to traverse infinite segments to get there.

[William]

So let me rephrase the question...if I were counting all of the segments in numerical order with ever step, and I stopped counting once I arrived at the street corner, which number would represent the "corner segment"?

Your first step traverses infinite segments between your starting point and the spot where you are standing regardless of the length of that single step. Therefore, according to your logic, how were you able to take a single step in order to have traversed infinite segments?

If I can traverse an infinite amount of segments, then I should be able to COUNT each segment that I traversed.

So how is it that I can traverse infinite segments with no problem with a single step...but I am unable to reach a single step if I count all of the segments between the first and second step?

That is my question as well. I don't know the answer. Do you have an answer? Regardless, though, we both seem to agree that you can arrive at the street corner despite having to traverse infinite segments to get there.

I think the answer is simply to remove the segments as they only confuse what it is that infinity represents - not the stuff happening within it...but the concept itself. It cannot measure itself as 'segments' unless there are beginnings and endings [signifying a segment] Infinity must have to loop back in on itself in order to become infinite... to lose the segments...

[We_Are_VENOM]

That is my question as well. I don't know the answer. Do you have an answer? Regardless, though, we both seem to agree that you can arrive at the street corner despite having to traverse infinite segments to get there.

Nahhh, we dont agree...because I understand that infinity cannot be traversed, nor is it an amount that can be possessed (having an infinite amount of marbles, for example).

If i cant successfully count all of the infinite amount of segments to get to a single segment, then I cant traverse infinity to arrive at single segment (with one step).

If i cant do one, I cant do the other.

[bluegreenearth]

That is my question as well. I don't know the answer. Do you have an answer? Regardless, though, we both seem to agree that you can arrive at the street corner despite having to traverse infinite segments to get there.

Nahhh, we dont agree...because I understand that infinity cannot be traversed, nor is it an amount that can be possessed (having an infinite amount of marbles, for example).

If i cant successfully count all of the infinite amount of segments to get to a single segment, then I cant traverse infinity to arrive at single segment (with one step).

If i cant do one, I cant do the other.

Yet you are able to take one step and the additional steps necessary to find yourself at the street corner nonetheless. How do you explain this reality?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yet you are able to take one step and the additional steps necessary to find yourself at the street corner nonetheless. How do you explain this reality?

This reality is explained by coming to the realization that infinity isn't being traversed with each step.

If you think otherwise, then my original question remains.

[bluegreenearth]

Yet you are able to take one step and the additional steps necessary to find yourself at the street corner nonetheless. How do you explain this reality?

This reality is explained by coming to the realization that infinity isn't being traversed with each step.

If you think otherwise, then my original question remains.

If infinite segments are not traversed, then how many segments are traversed with each step when each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?