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/dont 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).

Lets 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 mans 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 cant 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 dayif there is/was no beginning foundation (day).

However, lets say a gazillion miles down the hole, there is a foundationthen 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 its 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 realitybut 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]

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.

Wrong quote, amigo.

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.

Reading comprehension. I never claimed you stated that it couldn't be traversed with a single step.

I was merely pointing out the fact that this is the case.

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.

No, it isn't 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.

Still not clear.

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?

This is irrelevant, because the points are being traversed anyway.

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.

You keep talking about half this, and half that...when the point is; ALL of the points are being traversed...from half to full.

This is equivilant to, lets say I had an infinite amount of $100 bills....and you tell me..

You: I just found out that your wife is attempting to take half of your money in you guys' divorce decree.

Me: It doesn't matter, I will still have an infinite amount of money. She can have it.

Every time you mention "half" this and half that, that is what I am getting out of it.

An infinite amount of points is being traversed regardless of how many halves you'd like to think is within the set.

And the same, an infinite amount of $100 bills is still in my bank account regardless of how many halves my wife wins in the divorce settlement.

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.

Conclusion: Infinity cannot be traversed? Glad you are finally joining me there.

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'?

Oh, I got it. I am not sure of the relevance, though. It still doesn't scratch that itch of mines...as it pertains to this discussion.

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.

Irrelevant.

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.

Yeah, sure. I don't know what "half" means. Lets go with that one.

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

Pretty much, yeah.

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

Mark me down for not understanding the relevance of "half" of infinity, when infinity is being traversed in the first place.

Makes no sense to me. So forgive me for being unable to make sense of the insensible.

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.....

I thought we were jumping back to the sandman analogy? That wasn't a jump...that was a walk-around.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No need for the "all due respect" part ... giving me way too much credit

(and we all know what that phrase usually means).

No, tell the audience in the studio and our viewers at home what that phrase usually means.

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.

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

[JoeyKnothead]

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.
...

Naw, it can't possibly be your inability to grasp the data put before you, na-ah, no way no how!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #193]

No, tell the audience in the studio and our viewers at home what that phrase usually means.

I like this description from grammarist.com:

With all due respect has become an overused phrase, it is now often used sarcastically to mean the exact opposite of what it states. Political debaters and others may preface a rebuttal to an argument with, with all due respect. In this case, a subtle disrespect is intended.

In 2008, the Oxford dictionary compiled a list of the most irritating phrases in the English language, the phrase with all due respect came in as the fifth most irritating phrase in the English language. Perhaps because of its changing function from a phrase meant to mitigate hard feelings to a phrase that allows a subtle disrespect, cloaked in courtesy.

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

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

[benchwarmer]

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.

No, it isn't clear.

Ok, let's take this one step (sorry for the pun) at a time.

You are standing at point A. Clear?

Your end goal is point B. Clear?

Can you reach point B from point A if you only traverse half the distance between them? Don't worry about how many physical steps it takes, can you reach B if you only cross half the distance from point A to point B?

If your answer to the above is no then continue below. If your answer to the above is yes then stop. We need to discuss how to divide by 2.


-------------------------


Ok, so we've travelled half the distance from A to B. Let's call our new current position C. We still have to cover (B - A) / 2, but if that's too much math, just forget about the remaining distance in relation to the original A and B.

We are standing at C and again traverse HALF the distance from C to B. If we do that, do we reach B? Did we travel the same distance as the first traversal?

If you answer yes to either, stop. If you answer no, back up to the "------------" and repeat the above replacing C with D or whatever you like for the new current position.

Using this method, do you ever reach B?

This method creates an infinite series. At no point can you NOT cut the remaining distance in half.


So, assuming you followed so far, we have shown that we can create an infinite series between 2 points. We can also traverse the distance OVER this infinite series if we travel the sum of that series or simply B - A.

If A is 1 and B is 2, the distance is 1. The sum of the infinite series is 1. We can traverse 1. We can traverse OVER the infinite series. HOWEVER, we CANNOT traverse the distance if we only take steps that match each item IN the series. i.e. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ... infinity.


If you truly are confused, I think maybe you are thinking each step is always the same distance.

[William]

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.
...

Naw, it can't possibly be your inability to grasp the data put before you, na-ah, no way no how!

I thought I did an fairly good job of 'touching it' with my own posts, which were largely untouched. [ignored]

Thinking on [the idea of] infinity and reading the posts to do with counting steps, I am still mystified as to why people are using numbers in relation to the idea [of infinity]

...0...

Over the days since this thread started, I have thought about it and [at this point] it seems to me that infinity-past never had a beginning point in the same way that infinity-future doesn't have an end point.

Therefore the numbers used along a timeline [including the timeline the numbers are within] are for the purpose of signifying beginnings and endings which occur on the field of infinity.

Infinite regress [in relation to infinity] is an acceptable idea [not a fallacy] because it has to be, otherwise "no infinity".

So then - if that is acceptable logic, how is one to approach the thread heading premise;

"God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible"

Does that mean "God must not exist"?

Can a "First Source" exist [if by that, "God" is meant]?

For how can there exist a "Creator of All That Is" - IF infinity is counted as a "thing"?

There is the claim that "God" is infinite. Perhaps if the claim was changed to "God is Infinity". then an argument could be salvaged.

And what then, of the thread heading premise?

"God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Possible"

[JoeyKnothead]

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.
...

Naw, it can't possibly be your inability to grasp the data put before you, na-ah, no way no how!

I thought I did an fairly good job of 'touching it' with my own posts, which were largely untouched. [ignored]

Thinking on [the idea of] infinity and reading the posts to do with counting steps, I am still mystified as to why people are using numbers in relation to the idea [of infinity]

...0...

Over the days since this thread started, I have thought about it and [at this point] it seems to me that infinity-past never had a beginning point in the same way that infinity-future doesn't have an end point.

Therefore the numbers used along a timeline [including the timeline the numbers are within] are for the purpose of signifying beginnings and endings which occur on the field of infinity.

Infinite regress [in relation to infinity] is an acceptable idea [not a fallacy] because it has to be, otherwise "no infinity".

So then - if that is acceptable logic, how is one to approach the thread heading premise;

"God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible"

Does that mean "God must not exist"?

Can a "First Source" exist [if by that, "God" is meant]?

For how can there exist a "Creator of All That Is" - IF infinity is counted as a "thing"?

There is the claim that "God" is infinite. Perhaps if the claim was changed to "God is Infinity". then an argument could be salvaged.

And what then, of the thread heading premise?

"God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Possible"

I'm still stuck on using God / god as an explanation, when any property attributed to a god could be applied to the universe, invoking Occam's beard shaving apparatus.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #198]

I'm still stuck on using God / god as an explanation, when any property attributed to a god could be applied to the universe, invoking Occam's beard shaving apparatus.

I am of the opinion that both Christian and non-theist explanations that the universe came into existence from 'nothing' is a magical explanation only, and therefore Occam's Razor shouldn't be used.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #198]
I am of the opinion that both Christian and non-theist explanations that the universe came into existence from 'nothing' is a magical explanation only, and therefore Occam's Razor shouldn't be used.

It is a fortunate thing, then, that many non-theist hypotheses for the existence of the universe do not claim it emerged from nothing.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #198]
I am of the opinion that both Christian and non-theist explanations that the universe came into existence from 'nothing' is a magical explanation only, and therefore Occam's Razor shouldn't be used.

It is a fortunate thing, then, that many non-theist hypotheses for the existence of the universe do not claim it emerged from nothing.

It is a thing one could logically expect.