God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

[William]

I find there are far simpler reasons to discount god beliefs.

I don't think either a finite or an infinite universe discounts that we exist within a creation.

Yeah, I never found either of it very compelling as relates to proving / disproving much of anything. If God's god and all, I'd think how long he's been around is kinda moot. I just happen to think he ain't never been around.

But, as relates to the OP, I hear often that "God always existed", and that does engage the whole infinite past deal. But again, considering the paucity of evidence, I still conclude gods are the product of human thought and imagination.

That said, I think you do, here and elsewhere, present some innovative thinking and arguments that have taught me a good bunch about how a god could potentially, possibly exist within a reasoned and logical set of rules or ideas. I find em a bit difficult to argue against, beyond "na-ah!" You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is.

Well that is good. Also you don't appear to be overly surprised Joey. Perhaps underneath it all you have always been Agnostic.

[Maybe that is the true default setting of a new born human?]

It is gratifying to read how my words have helped you with realization.

The thing about words [and the exchanges of words] is that when feedback occurs, it leads on to more and it really isn't just a case of me throwing out wonderful innovative meals of words, because I can only feedback from what is also fed to me, so it would discourteous of me to receive all the praise when the buffet is more than just I what contribute to the table.

So my gratitude to you for your willingness to interact with me in a sensible and serious manner without losing your wonderful sense of humor. You have taught me things too. I enjoy the challenge of intelligent innovated musings...

[Time for another brew I think. Gets up and puts the pot to boil]

[The Tanager]

[Bust Nak]

They were ways to ask the same thing. I asked because I think that is what our disagreement logically hinges on. If the A-theory of time is true, then the past is a sequential series of events that pass one after the other...

Sure, I don't see what the problem is with this, why can't a sequential series of events that pass one after the other be an actual infinity? The "core" of the past events eternally, co-exist in both theories; in A they co-exist in the same tense, in B they co-exist tenselessly. Why must actual infinity be tenseless?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Take a step.

Measure that step.

Start dividing that measurent by twos.

You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.

Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.

Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.

Makes no sense.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).

However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.

Yet, this can be accomplished with a single step.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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?

I dont know the precise amount...but the answer must lie in the "finitude".

[bluegreenearth]

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?

I dont know the precise amount...but the answer must lie in the "finitude".

Are you suggesting that the distance between your starting point and your first step can be divided into a finite number of segments where each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?

[We_Are_VENOM]

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?

I dont know the precise amount...but the answer must lie in the "finitude".

Are you suggesting that the distance between your starting point and your first step can be divided into a finite number of segments where each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?

Yeah, since the fact that I can obviously succeed in taking my first step only concludes that there is a finite distance between my starting point and my first step.

[benchwarmer]

Yeah, since the fact that I can obviously succeed in taking my first step only concludes that there is a finite distance between my starting point and my first step.

I think the point being missed is that even a finite distance can be subdivided into an infinite number of segments. That's just simple math and easy to show. Starting from the start point, make a segment half the distance to the end point. That's segment 1. For each subsequent segment, repeat the process. From the end of segment N, create a new segment that is half the distance to the end point. N is infinite unless you have found a distance that can't be cut in half.

Have you found a distance that can't be cut in half? Only then would the NUMBER of segments be finite.

Clearly the size of each subsequent segment approaches 0, but it's always possible to cut any segment in half. If you only ever walk half way from your current position to the final position you will never reach the end.

Obviously if you don't walk half the distance, but the full distance, you will reach the end. That doesn't negate the fact that there are an infinite number of segments that can be created.

[JoeyKnothead]

Take a step.
Measure that step.
Start dividing that measurent by twos.
You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.
Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.

Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.
Makes no sense.

All I can do is present the data, I can't make you understand it.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).
However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.
...

Anything that can be measured can be subdivided an infinite amount of times.
I really can't tell it no plainern that.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Take a step.
Measure that step.
Start dividing that measurent by twos.
You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.
Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.

Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.
Makes no sense.

All I can do is present the data, I can't make you understand it.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).
However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.
...

Anything that can be measured can be subdivided an infinite amount of times.
I really can't tell it no plainern that.

Sure, you can explain it until the cows come home...but notice how you are saying EVERYTHING but replying directly to my point.

Instead of trying to make sense of what is absurd, you need to understand why it is absurd in the first place.

Because on one hand, the idea is that there are an infinite amount of points between step 1 and step 2.

So when I take one step, Ive successfully traversed all of the points between 1 and 2 (an infinite amount).

However, if I was tasked to count every single point (in numerical order) between 1 and 2, for some "reason", I will never arrive at the second point.

Yet, I had no problem arriving at 2 when I took the step, despite traversing the same amount of points that is preventing me from arriving at the second point if I was to begin counting.

You've yet to address this conundrum.

To your point, anything measured can be divided an infinite number of times...this is theoretically true....but when you apply that concept to the real world, you get contradictory results...because if what you say is true, motion would be impossible...as one would never be able to reach any single point, if that were the case.

Not only that, but even if I were to successfully traverse infinity with a single step, I would traverse infinity in a finite proper time, which is equally absurd, but for a completely different reason.

So either way, the entire concept is fundamentally flawed.