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]

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect.

Good. We are all sure about some things.

Two things to note here: (a) Craig confirms that the B-Theory of time posits a finite (rather than infinite) amount of past "events" (his analogy of the meter stick is helpful, I think), and (b) that arguments against infinite temporal regress (which I think are compelling) are predicated on the A-Theory of time.

Two things to note here: (a) Craig advocates for A-theory of time, and (b) again, B-theory of time pertains to time itself, it says nothing about the events within time, which would have to be an infinite amount if one was to apply an integer (in counting) to every single event in the history of the universe.

[Bust Nak]

"If you can prove it, we shall remove it".

Hmm, if I can prove it, then you want to remove something from consideration? How odd.

The "set" of past days to present day is infinite.

The set being infinite doesn't mean you have to reach infinity to have traversed an infinite amount of days.

Otherwise, if all of the numbers within the set were counted (with the present day being the highest number counted)...what number would represent today?

Take your pick, it's arbitrary. Zero is a popular choice. No idea why you think it cannot be done.

Umm, no one said nor implied that he cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit...in fact, that IS the gist of the analogy in the first place.

Well there you go, you can traversed an infinite amount of days (shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit) without reaching infinity (the sand reaching the top) just like I said. How easy was that?

But the sand isn't reaching the top, so an infinite amount of space (the pit) isn't being filled....

The point was an infinite amount sand can be shovelled, i.e. an infinite amount of days can be traversed.

It was an "eternal" will.

Or it was completely random without any will involved?

I am glad you guys said this...because it makes my job a lot easier.

On the number line, 0 represents the present day. There are an infinite amount of negative numbers...to arrive at 0, all of the negative numbers would have to have been traversed.

You say this here yet some how at the beginning of this post, you thought that I couldn't pick a number to represent the present day?

True or false, if today represents 0...an infinite amount of days where traversed to get here, correct?

True.

That is the point, it doesn't matter how long you've been counting, or when you begin counting...you will never arrive at 0. That is the point.

But I have arrived at 0 days ago, I have now counted up to 5 since then, I will count 6 next. If I can arrive at 0, then why can't time?

Ahhh, great. You finished. So, what was the largest number counted?

I told you, there is no largest counted negative number, for every number I counted, there was another number that was one larger. Or perhaps you meant largest in the positive direction? In the context of your question, Is -5 larger or smaller than -3?

I mean after all, you finished, correct?

Correct.

Ok, so when you finish counting all of them, what is the highest number counted? You just said you can count all of them...so what is the highest number counted?

There isn't one, in the negative direction. I've checked them all.

If you can't give me a highest number, then you cannot count "all of them".

Of course I have. If you think I haven't counted all of them, then tell me which one you think I haven't counted.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Hmm, if I can prove it, then you want to remove something from consideration? How odd.

Don't know what's odd about it.

The set being infinite doesn't mean you have to reach infinity to have traversed an infinite amount of days.

Yes it does. All of the past days within the set would have to be traversed, how do you think "today" was reached in the first place without having traversed days of the past?

Take your pick, it's arbitrary. Zero is a popular choice. No idea why you think it cannot be done.

I said "with the present day being the highest number COUNTED"...which isn't arbitrary...it is very specific.

And your response...."0".

Wow. SMH.

Well there you go, you can traversed an infinite amount of days (shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit) without reaching infinity (the sand reaching the top) just like I said. How easy was that?

So, on one hand the present day was "reached"...but on the other hand, the sand never "reached" the top?

Please explain why the present day can be reached, but the sand never reaches the top? When we have "bottomless" cases in both scenarios.

Makes no sense.

The point was an infinite amount sand can be shovelled, i.e. an infinite amount of days can be traversed.

No, the point is you can't reach infinity, which is why the sand cannot reach the top from past infinity.

Or it was completely random without any will involved?

I think my response of "it was an eternal will" means that a will was involved.

You say this here yet some how at the beginning of this post, you thought that I couldn't pick a number to represent the present day?

SMH. Here is the task; if all of the negative numbers on the timeline were placed inside a giant box, and scrambled (keyword; SCRAMBLED), and you were tasked to count all of the numbers inside the box....what would be the highest number counted upon completion?

You already stated that you completed this task...so it one more time....for the road.

True or false, if today represents 0...an infinite amount of days where traversed to get here, correct?

True.

So, you acknowledge that you can traverse an infinite amount of days, yet...above you stated..

"The set being infinite doesn't mean you have to reach infinity"

Yet, to reach infinity you would have to "traverse an infinite amount of days". How else would you do it? LOL.

You are contradicting yourself, is what I am trying to say

But I have arrived at 0 days ago, I have now counted up to 5 since then, I will count 6 next. If I can arrive at 0, then why can't time?

I asked you to tell me the highest number counted...and you were unable to do so. But, since there may have been some confusion (on your part), I restated the task...see above.

I told you, there is no largest counted negative number, for every number I counted, there was another number that was one larger. Or perhaps you meant largest in the positive direction? In the context of your question, Is -5 larger or smaller than -3?

See restated task above.

Of course I have. If you think I haven't counted all of them, then tell me which one you think I haven't counted.

It isn't a matter of picking a number that I "think" you haven't counted...because you already admitted that you didn't count the highest number.

So, you've answered your own question....and if you didn't count the highest number, you never completed the task as you disingenuously stated you did.

[Bust Nak]

Don't know what's odd about it.

Well, you do you.

All of the past days within the set would have to be traversed, how do you think "today" was reached in the first place without having traversed days of the past?

Why are you asking me about "without?" I keep telling you exactly how "today" was reach: by traversing an infinitely number of days, one day at a time. That's the only way "today" could be reached. There is no way to reach today without having traversed all the days of the past.

I said "with the present day being the highest number COUNTED"...which isn't arbitrary...it is very specific.

With the number line representing time, time passes in the positive direction. Any old number would fit that description, I could pick 0 as you have, or pick 5 or 12 instead, hence arbitrary.

So, on one hand the present day was "reached"...but on the other hand, the sand never "reached" the top?

Yes. Now we are getting somewhere.

Please explain why the present day can be reached, but the sand never reaches the top?

The sand never reaches the top because the pit is bottomless, that much is trivial. The only way the present day can be reached is by traversing an infinite amount of days, analogous to shoveling an infinite amount of sand. You've already conceded that it is possible to shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit, i.e. we can indeed traverse an infinite amount of days. If we can traverse an infinite amount of days, then we can reach the present day. This explains why the present day can be reached, but the sand never reaches the top.

No, the point is you can't reach infinity, which is why the sand cannot reach the top from past infinity.

Is that really the point? Not much of a point when it doesn't disprove an infinite past.

I think my response of "it was an eternal will" means that a will was involved.

Or maybe it wasn't? This is a recurring question I keep finding myself asking you: can you demonstrate your claim with something more than mere insistence?

SMH. Here is the task; if all of the negative numbers on the timeline were placed inside a giant box, and scrambled (keyword; SCRAMBLED), and you were tasked to count all of the numbers inside the box....what would be the highest number counted upon completion?

There isn't one highest negative number. You will get the same answer no matter how many ways you rephrase it. Do you think the fact that I cannot tell you what the largest negative number is, implies that I could not have possibly counted all the numbers inside the box?

So, you acknowledge that you can traverse an infinite amount of days, yet...above you stated..

"The set being infinite doesn't mean you have to reach infinity"

Yet, to reach infinity you would have to "traverse an infinite amount of days". How else would you do it?

You wouldn't, like I keep telling you, it's impossible to reach infinity. What is very possible however is to reach the present day, you do that by traversing an infinite amount of days, one day at a time. Read that again, reach the present day, as opposed to reach infinity. Quit asking me how I could reach infinity, I can never tell you one way, let alone "how else," because it is impossible to reach infinity.

You are contradicting yourself, is what I am trying to say

So you kept insisting, how about you demonstrate your claim by reformulating what I said into a literal contradiction in the form of A &¬A?

I asked you to tell me the highest number counted...and you were unable to do so.

That's right, I can't because there isn't one. No confusion here.

See restated task above.

You still didn't say largest in which direction though. I am just going to carry on presuming you mean largest in the negative direction.

It isn't a matter of picking a number that I "think" you haven't counted...because you already admitted that you didn't count the highest number.

Not so. I counted every single one of the negative number, none of which is the highest, because there is no such thing as the highest negative number.

Lets try a analogy: I've recited all 50 states from Alabama to West Virginia. Would "but you didn't say Puerto Rico" be a valid counter-example to my claim?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Why are you asking me about "without?" I keep telling you exactly how "today" was reach: by traversing an infinitely number of days, one day at a time.

But the problem with that is simple; you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp the concept of; if you can traverse an infinite number of days (which you just stated), then upon completion of this infinite number of days, you've reached infinity.

There is an obvious disconnect with you there...and again, I don't know whether you are being deliberately disingenuous, or if you just don't understand the implication of what you are saying.

It is sad, either way.

With the number line representing time, time passes in the positive direction. Any old number would fit that description, I could pick 0 as you have, or pick 5 or 12 instead, hence arbitrary.

Which is completely irrelevant to you picking and counting all of the numbers within the set.

Yes. Now we are getting somewhere.
The sand never reaches the top because the pit is bottomless, that much is trivial.

Yeah, but the problem is; the past is "bottomless" too. If you can't reach the top of the hole with sand, you can't reach the present day with time.

It is the exact same concept both ways...and to believe in one and not the other is the taxi cab fallacy.

The only way the present day can be reached is by traversing an infinite amount of days, analogous to shoveling an infinite amount of sand. You've already conceded that it is possible to shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit, i.e.

Actually, neither is possible...I am just using one impossible scenario to prove the other impossible scenario.

we can indeed traverse an infinite amount of days. If we can traverse an infinite amount of days, then we can reach the present day. This explains why the present day can be reached, but the sand never reaches the top.

Again, the sand never reaches the top because there is no foundation. Yet, the past also has no foundation, but it can reach the top (the present).

Taxi cab fallacy.

Is that really the point? Not much of a point when it doesn't disprove an infinite past.

If the past was infinite, the present cannot be reached. Infinity cannot be reached.

Or maybe it wasn't? This is a recurring question I keep finding myself asking you: can you demonstrate your claim with something more than mere insistence?

Mere insistence? You asked a question, and I provided an answer. I wasn't aware of insisting anything.

There isn't one highest negative number.

I agree. Which is why you haven't "finished" counting anything, contrary to your claim that you did.

You will get the same answer no matter how many ways you rephrase it.

That is the problem; I will get the same irrational answer.

Do you think the fact that I cannot tell you what the largest negative number is, implies that I could not have possibly counted all the numbers inside the box?

There would always be a higher number than the one you "finished" counting. So, the fact that you stated you counted all the numbers is a blatant lie.

You wouldn't, like I keep telling you, it's impossible to reach infinity. What is very possible however is to reach the present day, you do that by traversing an infinite amount of days, one day at a time.

Thus, you would reach infinity, one day at a time. Contradicting yourself.

Read that again, reach the present day, as opposed to reach infinity. Quit asking me how I could reach infinity, I can never tell you one way, let alone "how else," because it is impossible to reach infinity.

Nonsense. If infinity can be traversed, it is being "reached". No way around it.

So you kept insisting, how about you demonstrate your claim by reformulating what I said into a literal contradiction in the form of A &¬A?

Not necessary, amigo.

You still didn't say largest in which direction though. I am just going to carry on presuming you mean largest in the negative direction.

Doesn't matter which direction....the numbers are infinite.

Not so. I counted every single one of the negative number, none of which is the highest, because there is no such thing as the highest negative number.

Right, so there would still be a higher number than the one you stopped at which you "finished", and you didn't count that number.

Anyways. You can have the last word. Too many lies, contradictions, and disingenuousness.

[historia]

(a) Craig advocates for A-theory of time

Indeed, Craig recognizes that arguments against infinite temporal regression presuppose the A-Theory of time, and so to be a proponent of the former is to be a proponent of the latter.

(b) again, B-theory of time pertains to time itself, it says nothing about the events within time

This is surely mistaken. The thing that distinguishes the A- and B-theories is precisely how each one conceives of the nature and relationship of events within time.

On the A-Theory, only events in the present are real -- past events no longer exist, and future events have yet to come into existence.

On such a theory, for the universe to be past eternal, there would have to be an infinite series of past events, each one having come into and then passed out of existence -- which, as you've explained above, is problematic.

On the B-Theory, however, all events (past, present, and future) are equally real. They all exist. The apparent flow of time we experience is just an illusion -- a purely subjective psychological feature of human consciousness.

On such a theory, there does not have to be an infinite number of past (or rather 'earlier than') events for the universe to be eternal, since on this theory the entirety of the universe (past, present, and future) just exists eternally as a four-dimensional space-time block.

Craig has already confirmed that in the quote above, and surely we should accept his expert understanding over the objections of Eddie Brock.

[Bust Nak]

But the problem with that is simple; you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp the concept of; if you can traverse an infinite number of days (which you just stated), then upon completion of this infinite number of days, you've reached infinity.

Unable or unwilling, I reject that because it's literally nonsense. It is NOT the case that you can traverse an infinite number of days and reach infinity. The very notion of infinity forbids it ever being reached, it is literally the first thing being taught on this topic in high school.

Which is completely irrelevant to you picking and counting all of the numbers within the set.

You asked me to pick a number to represent "today," now you say it's completely irrelevant. Perhaps you should stop asking irrelevant questions. Suffice to say here, irrelevant or not, your question was answered.

Yeah, but the problem is; the past is "bottomless" too. If you can't reach the top of the hole with sand, you can't reach the present day with time.

Again, not so, you don't need to reach the top of the hole with sand to reach the present day with time, as they are not the same concept, the former is an example of "reaching infinity," which is impossible; while reaching the present day does not involve reaching infinity, as the present day is just one arbitrary point on an infinite time line, instead it merely requires traversing an infinite number of days, which you have already conceded as possible.

Actually, neither is possible...

Well that's not what you said before. And I quote "Umm, no one said nor implied that he cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit...in fact, that IS the gist of the analogy in the first place." Why have you suddenly decided that neither reaching the top nor shuffling infinite sand into the pit is possible?

Again, the sand never reaches the top because there is no foundation. Yet, the past also has no foundation, but it can reach the top (the present).

Exactly, there two concepts here, 1) reaching the top with sand, and 2) shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit. You cannot do 1) because there is no foundation, yet you can still do 2) because the guy has an infinity supply of sand.

If the past was infinite, the present cannot be reached. Infinity cannot be reached.

But you said that wasn't your point, you said the point was you can't reach infinity and that sand cannot reach the top. Make up your mind.

Mere insistence? You asked a question, and I provided an answer. I wasn't aware of insisting anything.

Well, unsupported claim, bare assertion, insistence, I don't really care what you are aware or unaware of. The point was you didn't make a case for why it involved a will as opposed to random, despite multiple prompts for you to back up your claims.

I agree. Which is why you haven't "finished" counting anything, contrary to your claim that you did.

That doesn't follow, I have finished counting all the negative numbers, and I can tell you from there is no largest negative number because I've personally checked them all. You were tasked with naming a negative number I've not count, you failed.

That is the problem; I will get the same irrational answer.

Listen to yourself, you've just called "it is impossible to reach infinity" an irrational answer. So now you would have us believe that it is possible to reach infinity? If I were you, I'd be more careful with the attempts at witty responses.

There would always be a higher number than the one you "finished" counting.

Of course, in the positive direction, it's 14, by the way, but that's not a negative number so it's not the gotcha that you were fishing for: not counting 14 that doesn't imply that I haven't finished counting all the negative numbers.

Thus, you would reach infinity, one day at a time.

No, you wouldn't, you would never reach infinity by traversing infinity time, no matter how much you insist on this.

Nonsense. If infinity can be traversed, it is being "reached".

So you keep insisting. How about you have a go at proving that instead of relaying on your intuition?

Not necessary, amigo.

We can chalk that up as yet another one of your unsupported (and more importantly false) assertions. I keep giving you prompt after prompt to prove your point, you never took the time.

Doesn't matter which direction....the numbers are infinite.

Of course it matters, there is a largest number I've counted in the positive direction, it's now 15 incidentally; yet there isn't a largest number I've counted in the negative direction.

Right, so there would still be a higher number than the one you stopped at which you "finished", and you didn't count that number.

You mean 16? I've just finish counting that too. Each step, I go one higher in the positive direction; when I finish, just like you said, there would still be a higher number in the positive direction that I haven't counted. The number I stopped on is higher in the positive direction than all the other numbers I counted. Surely you are not having trouble with the concept of counting up?

Anyways. You can have the last word. Too many lies, contradictions, and disingenuousness.

Sure, you know how much I like having the last word. My counter argument is simple as it doesn't involve any of the more complex aspects of infinity. It only involve basic concept taught to early teens, such as the fact that "there are infinitely many integer, yet each one is finite." My opponent's argument fail to even take even this basic concept into account, relying on simplistic thinking along the lines of counting all the numbers mean you have counted to infinity. A number of my challenges remains unmet, and questions unanswered. While my opponent's one remining challenge is a contradiction in itself, demanding to know the largest negative number, when anyone with a casual understanding of the number line would know there is no such thing; all other coherent questions and challenges have been answered by me. My opponent's final remark is possibly an accurate description of our conversation, just not in the way he intended.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

There is a fundamental flaw in your original thinking.

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).

Statement A is inaccurate. The universe is not "out of nothing". The universe, to be mathematically specific, IS nothing. All the positive and negative charges in the universe equal nothing. Add up all the rotation in the universe and you get zero. Take all the positive energy (light, mass kinetic ,heat, etc) and subtract the negative energy (gravity) and you get zero. The universe adds up to zero.

A visual example of this would be 1+1-1-1=0. If "0" means nothing, then you can see that both sides equal nothing. The left side (the 1+1-1-1 side) is just a different representation of nothing. Our universe is still nothing, but it is a nothing that is broken up into offsetting pieces.

[brunumb]

If we start from now, an infinite future can never be reached. If we consider the past, any time we choose before now is a finite distance back. We can always go further back. Now is always a finite distance ahead of that time. With an infinite past, now has to be an infinite distance in the future, but an infinite future can never be reached. So, now can never be reached if we have an infinite past. Have I mucked up somewhere?

[Kenisaw]

If we start from now, an infinite future can never be reached. If we consider the past, any time we choose before now is a finite distance back. We can always go further back. Now is always a finite distance ahead of that time. With an infinite past, now has to be an infinite distance in the future, but an infinite future can never be reached. So, now can never be reached if we have an infinite past. Have I mucked up somewhere?

Here's how I look at it - there is no such thing as the middle of infinity. It takes an infinite amount of time to get to any point along an infinite time line, in either direction. Going from now back in the past you will never reach a starting point (because there isn't one) and the same thing applies heading forward into the future (no ending point). If this universe has a starting point but no ending point, then it is technically not infinite, at least based on how I understand the word.