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.

[The Tanager]

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?

With a sequential series you are adding one event to another to another, and so on. It's like counting. You can't count to infinity. Thus, the "core" past of such a series also cannot be an actual infinite. For the past to be an actual infinite you would have to have the "core" (or the whole thing) be an actual infinite to start with. That's the only way the series is an actual infinite.

[Bust Nak]

With a sequential series you are adding one event to another to another, and so on. It's like counting. You can't count to infinity.

I don't see how that answers my question, I was asking about tenseless-ness vs same tense, why would that make a difference here? It's not like being tenseless somehow allows you to count to infinity.

For the past to be an actual infinite you would have to have the "core" (or the whole thing) be an actual infinite to start with. That's the only way the series is an actual infinite.

That's the point. An infinite past is an actual infinite, whether it's tenseless or same tense.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #183]

I’m not sure what you mean about “tenseless-ness vs. same tense”. The tenseless or B-theory of time asserts that tense is subjective; there is no true past, present, future. All of time exists in the same way. The “past” exists currently in the same way the “present” and “future” do. The tensed or A-theory of time asserts that tense is objective; that reality moves through time, where the past no longer exists.

If time is a block, eternally existing, then you and me existing in this part of the block can have the experiences we do, while other beings existing in the infinite past-to-us, an actual infinite ‘distance’ away (if actual infinites are things that can exist) are experiencing what they experience. While we can’t traverse from their experience to our own through a past-present-future “timeline” (our subjective experience of reality) both realities could (at least on the surface) conceivably be real.

If time isn’t a block, but reality moving through time, temporal becoming being a real thing, then reality could never start in an “infinite past” and reach our present moment. To do so, it must be able to traverse an actual infinite series or collection of events (like what counting to infinity is). That logically can’t be done.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I clearly showed the amount is infinity and not finite or "finitude" which I can only assume is your made up way of saying finite.

What you clearly didn't do is answer my question. My point is just not being addressed by any of you, unfortunately.

You guys are dancing around it, going under it...and over it...but no one is touching it.

Your point seemed to be that there is a conundrum where none actually exists.

Let's try a different way:

If you want to reach point B from point A, you must travel the distance between them. Let's call that B - A. If the length of your stride is S, then you can traverse the distance by taking (B - A) / S steps. I think you get that since you talk about taking 1 step to get from A to B. This assumes a stride length of B - A.

Now, what many have tried to explain is that if you decide to cut your stride in half EVERY time you take a step (including the first 1), you are never going to reach B from A.

You seem to be confusing stride lengths.

Sir, with all due respect...none of that "infinite division" stuff means ANYTHING...because all of it is traversed with a single step.

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.

If you are feeling silly and decide to take a step that is always 1/2 the distance remaining to your end goal, you will obviously never reach it.

Example:

Distance to from A to B = 1 meter

1st step: .5000 m Total: .5000 m
2nd step: .2500 m Total: .7500 m
3rd step: .1250 m Total: .8750 m
4th step: .0625 m Total: .9375
...

You can take no amount of steps using this method and reach your goal.

That is kinda the point. If the same distance is being traversed, then the goal should be reached with either method.

This will be equivalent to flying in an airplane and walking on foot. Lets say the distance between point A and B is 900 miles.

You are telling me that I can fly the distance between the two points with no problem...but you also are telling me that if I traversed every single mile by foot, I will never get there.

I'm like, wait a minute, if I can fly there (one huge step), then I should be able to walk there on foot.

The same amount of miles is being traversed, so why am I allowed to do it in one case, but somehow, I am mysteriously forbidden from doing it in the other case.

Makes no sense.

If you get tired of the exercise and decide to go back to a stride length that covers the remaining distance, only then can you reach your goal.

If your point is that there in NOT actually an infinite number of possible segments between any given 2 points (unless they are the same point of course) then you wrong. If your point is that you are confused how this is possible, just do the math. If your point is simply you find the idea of an infinite set within a finite distance 'odd', then OK, but that's the fun of math.

My point is not directly being addressed. Sorry, it isn't. All I see is apparent math whiz's trying to dazzle the audience with numbers and equations.

Still doesn't touch the philosophical problem with infinite regression.

And also, notice my "sandman" analogy hasn't been addressed...and as far as I'm concerned, still stands.

[We_Are_VENOM]

There is no conundrum. This whole thing boils down to countable vs. uncountable infinite sets. When you take the first step, that is part of a countable infinite set (integers) and you could keep stepping and counting each step one by one to (theoretically infinity if you were, say, a god who never died). You can assign each step a number and therefore count them. But the number of intervals or segments within one step is part of an uncountable infinite set (real numbers) as there is no limit to the number of divisions each unit step can be divided into whether the intervals are evenly spaced, or not.

So you can count individual steps using integers, but you cannot count the number of intervals that comprise one step if those are described using real numbers. If you place some limit on the "smallest" interval, then of course you've created another countable infinite set because you've defined the length of an interval.

The example of dividing one step by half so that interval #1 is 1/2 of a step long, then dividing that interval by half so that interval #2 is 1/4 of a step long, etc. is a simple geometric series that converges to exactly 1 (ie. sum(n=1,infinity) of (1/2)^n = 1). But it takes an infinite number of sums to get to 1 (step).

Nonsense, with all due respect.

"but you cannot count the number of intervals that compromise one step if those numbers are described using real numbers".

What is stopping me from counting the intervals in one step using real numbers?

What/Who is stopping me?

I can place a real number on every single interval that I traverse, and there is nothing stopping me (mathematically) from doing so.

Thanks for addressing my point, but nothing is solved.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #186]

Nonsense, with all due respect.

No need for the "all due respect" part ... giving me way too much credit (and we all know what that phrase usually means).

What is stopping me from counting the intervals in one step using real numbers?

I can place a real number on every single interval that I traverse, and there is nothing stopping me (mathematically) from doing so.

You can start counting them, but you can't count ALL of them if there are an infinite number. You can never complete the count unless there is a last interval that has a finite length, and in the sequence 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... there is no final interval with a finite length.

[benchwarmer]

Your point seemed to be that there is a conundrum where none actually exists.

That's completely backwards and seems to be quoting exactly what I said.

I said:

Your point seemed to be that there is a conundrum where none actually exists.

Sir, with all due respect...none of that "infinite division" stuff means ANYTHING...because all of it is traversed with a single step.

I never claimed you couldn't traverse all of them with a single step. I was simply showing there are indeed an infinite number of intervals between any 2 points. You either don't understand that or are now purposely avoiding it.

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.

Yes, there is. The logical reason is that if your stride length is LESS than the total distance, you cannot possibly reach the end point. I'm hoping that much is clear.

Now, if you continually take steps that are not the total distance (i.e. half the previous step length as has been discussed) you will NEVER reach the end. I'm not sure how to explain that any clearer.

This comes back to the basic question posed to you that you avoided answering: Is there a distance between 2 different points that can't be cut in half?

If you are feeling silly and decide to take a step that is always 1/2 the distance remaining to your end goal, you will obviously never reach it.

Example:

Distance to from A to B = 1 meter

1st step: .5000 m Total: .5000 m
2nd step: .2500 m Total: .7500 m
3rd step: .1250 m Total: .8750 m
4th step: .0625 m Total: .9375
...

You can take no amount of steps using this method and reach your goal.

That is kinda the point. If the same distance is being traversed, then the goal should be reached with either method.

No, that's just plain wrong. How can you possibly reach the end goal if you keep taking steps that are only half the distance to the end goal? Please help us out here and explain how that's possible.

This will be equivalent to flying in an airplane and walking on foot. Lets say the distance between point A and B is 900 miles.

You are telling me that I can fly the distance between the two points with no problem...but you also are telling me that if I traversed every single mile by foot, I will never get there..

Wrong. That is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that if your first 'step' is 450 miles, your second 'step' is 225 miles, etc with each step only half the distance as the last one, you will never get there.

I'm like, wait a minute, if I can fly there (one huge step), then I should be able to walk there on foot.

Of course you can if you walk normally. Are we talking about walking normally? Did you miss the whole discussion on 'half of the last step each time'?

The same amount of miles is being traversed, so why am I allowed to do it in one case, but somehow, I am mysteriously forbidden from doing it in the other case.

Because in the case of only using a step that is half the remaining distance, you can never get there unless you have discovered a distance that can't be cut in half.

Makes no sense.

I understand you are confused, I'm just not sure why. You seem to missing the point on purpose now unless you don't understand what 'half' means.

My point is not directly being addressed. Sorry, it isn't. All I see is apparent math whiz's trying to dazzle the audience with numbers and equations.

You think I'm trying to 'dazzle' anyone with a simple series and talking about dividing by 2? That's funny.

Still doesn't touch the philosophical problem with infinite regression.

And also, notice my "sandman" analogy hasn't been addressed...and as far as I'm concerned, still stands.

So you either don't understand infinite series or don't want to admit to it after having it explained to you?

Fine, let's jump back to your sandman and your conclusion:

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

Please explain to the class how your god got to the point of deciding to 'cause' the universe. If it's always existed, it must have reached that point somehow. Or are you now claiming your god also had a beginning?

Let the special pleading fallacy commence.....

[Bust Nak]

...while other beings existing in the infinite past-to-us, an actual infinite ‘distance’ away (if actual infinites are things that can exist)

Woah there, this is very important. Lets sort this out before we continue. This is flat-out incorrect. The distance between any two points in an infinity (actual or potential) is finite.

[The Tanager]

Woah there, this is very important. Lets sort this out before we continue. This is flat-out incorrect. The distance between any two points in an infinity (actual or potential) is finite.

Yes, that makes sense. I shouldn't have talked about the distance between our points of experience but that wasn't the focus of my point. I'm sorry for that added confusion. If B-theory is true, then it doesn't matter that we can't traverse an actual infinite because all of time currently exists. We don't need to move through time to get to a certain point. If A-theory is true, then the "past" is an actual infinite. To get to this present moment we would need to traverse the whole "past," i.e., traverse the whole of an actual infinite.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #190]

Okay, back to the original point, any reason why you think it's impossible to traverse the whole of an actual infinity, if you accept that there is a finite distance between any two points in an infinity? It doesn't seem to involve creating an actual infinity via successive addition.