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]

Excluding any scientific argument on the basis that it’s not ‘philosophical’ doesn’t make any sense. Scientific inquiry generally proceeds on inductive and abductive argument, so removing those only really leaves deductive argument, doesn’t it? You introduce ‘billions of unseen universes’ at the start of the debate, and then claim the debate can still be ‘independent of physical laws or cosmologies’. That’s inconsistent.

Sorry Dia, but you clearly misunderstood what I said. I am not "excluding" any scientific argument. Rather, I am saying scientific arguments are subjected to the conclusion of the argument, so it just simply doesn't matter what scientific argument you present, or which scientist you appeal to.

Perhaps you misunderstood? Let me restate my argument:

Case A: This universe popped into existence out of nothing with no cause.

Impossible for reasons already mentioned.

Case B: This universe popped into existence seemingly out of nothing but caused by an event in another universe.

Which would be just one step backwards on an infinite regressive timeline; an idea that is subjected to my argument against infinite regression.

Case C: This universe popped into existence seemingly out of nothing but caused by time-travelling aliens.

Which would be just one step backwards on an infinite regressive timeline; an idea that is subjected to my argument against infinite regression.

Cases D to Z+: This universe popped into existence seemingly out of nothing but caused by.....etc.

If "a timeless entity" isn't what is posited, then this "etc" cause would also be one step backwards on an infinite regressive timeline; an idea that is subjected to my argument against infinite regression.

So for the most part, all of your cases have problems, my man.

As we can’t make any observation of other universes or time-travelling aliens, we can’t definitely - by logic alone - rule out cases B onwards.

The argument rules out any cause that can be said to have been "within time".

In other words, all temporal causes can be safely ruled out, because the argument against infinite regression applies to all temporal causes.

Which is why a timeless (atemporal) cause is necessary...and only God (to your dismay) fits the bill.

I think we’re just on different trains that happen to be travelling in similar directions at a point in time. I reject Case B based on scientific evidence, not philosophical reasoning. But nice to be on an ‘agreement track’, even temporarily.

I am glad you mentioned the scientific evidence as it pertains to the rejection of Case B...because I plan to create a thread outlining the scientific reasons we have for a finite universe...I just have to work out some kinks with it first.

Disallowing scientific argument unfairly hobbles this debate. There’s robust scientific evidence to support a case that even the ‘nothing’ you describe does have ‘predetermining factors’ (which might be just another way of saying ‘physical laws’) and furthermore, is actually necessary to have them, in order for our universe to exist as it does.

Right, so the "predetermining factors" can be said to be the cause...correct?

Scientists love questions. It’s what makes life so exciting!

That's cool. But science isn't the end-all-be-all to knowledge and understanding....is it?

...and the fact that people would rather believe in absurdities than God, says a lot about the resistant mind frame of certain peoples.

I reject the claim of equivocation. That same author you mentioned points out in the preface to this book (link below) that theologians are fond of continually redefining ‘nothing’ in the face of new evidence. So it’s you that are ‘shifting the goalposts’, rather than scientists equivocating.

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing ... 1451624468

To summarise:

If you wish this discussion to proceed on purely deductive reasoning, then I’m out, sorry. That wasn’t what I thought it said on the tin.

But if you’re interested in the science behind the ‘something from nothing’ argument (‘Case A’), then I’m happy to join in that discussion, but perhaps better taken to the Science forum.

First off, Lawrence Krauss, in particular, has been called out on his equivocation of "nothing". He isn't saying that the universe came from a state of literal "nothingness" (in the traditional sense), he is describing something (the quantum vacuum) as nothing, which is logically absurd.

Now, science fan-boys take stuff like that and run with it...but philosophers understand that this is absurd (and it shouldn't take a philosopher to notice the absurdity).

I am not aware of any theologian equivocating "nothing", and if they are, then shame on them. But Krauss is known for his illogical quibbles...and even deception, for that matter.

[Paul of Tarsus]

In closing, move along to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to VENOM.

Before you bounce me out of your territory here, I can't resist one more question...

I get it. You chimed in on the argument, thinking you could refute it...only to find out that you can't rebuttal the truth.

So now, you create this fake reality of me "dodging your questions", when I answered both of your questions as clear as day...it appears you did this just so you can have a reason to end a conversation of which you were clearly in over your head.

Does any of this demonstrate that God exists? All you have is a jumble of words that you can only argue about. What you posted in the OP is a bundle of arguments that you obviously got from some Christian apologists. When does "the rubber meet the road," and we actually have God? I can argue all day that the cute girl working down at the supermarket loves me, but until she's dating me, I don't have a leg to stand on.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In closing, move along to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to VENOM.

Before you bounce me out of your territory here, I can't resist one more question...

Does any of this demonstrate that God exists?

Yes. Did you not see the conclusion?

All you have is a jumble of words that you can only argue about. What you posted in the OP is a bundle of arguments that you obviously got from some Christian apologists.

First off, it isn't a "bundle of arguments". It is one argument, against infinite regression.

Second, the argument against actual infinites can be historically traced back to Islamic thinker Al Ghazali...so, if anything, props should go to him and not any "Christian Apologist".

Third, it doesn't matter where I "got" the argument from. What matters is its soundness and validity.

But when you can't refute the argument, I guess you have to focus on other things...apparently.

When does "the rubber meet the road," and we actually have God? I can argue all day that the cute girl working down at the supermarket loves me, but until she's dating me, I don't have a leg to stand on.

I already covered that all of that good stuff in the argument. You stated that you were done with it...so, be done with it.

[Paul of Tarsus]

In closing, move along to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to VENOM.

Before you bounce me out of your territory here, I can't resist one more question...

Does any of this demonstrate that God exists?

Yes. Did you not see the conclusion?

I saw the conclusion, but where's God? I'm not really looking for conclusions; I have already seen them.

I already covered that all of that good stuff in the argument. You stated that you were done with it...so, be done with it.

I'm done explaining the mathematics of infinity to you. I'm allowing you to conclude that the set of negative numbers cannot be infinite because if they were, then we could never traverse them to get to zero.

[historia]

In closing, move along to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to VENOM.

I do like the cut of your jib, Venom.

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

This does presume an A-theory of time. If, on the other hand, the B-theory of time is correct, then all of space-time could exist eternally as a single, four-dimensional 'block'.

[Bust Nak]

I think we can safely remove posit A (popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing) from the equation (unless there is someone who thinks it is a plausible explanation).

Can we still safely remove this from the equation when there are people like me who thinks it is a possible (as opposed to plausible) explanation?

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”.

This doesn't follow, you don't need to reach infinity to have traversed an infinite amount of days.

Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole... 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.

This analogy is useless for your argument, since the fact that the sand will never reach the top, doesn't imply he hasn't already, or cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit.

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).

By traversing an infinite number of days, analogous with shovelling an infinite amount of sand into the pit (as opposed to filling the sand pit.)

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.

Or it was completely random without any decision involved?



And now responses to comment made to Paul of Tarsus who made similar argument as I have:

If there is no past boundary, then there is an infinite amount of time between two points in time.

Trivially false: consider the number line, there is no boundary on either side, yet there is always a finite gap between every pair of numbers.

If there is no past boundary and there are an finite number of days as you claim, then please enlighten me as to how many finite number of days there are.

You are missing the all important between any two points in time clause. Given the premise of no past boundary, there is an infinite number of days AND a finite number of days between any two points in time. Tell me which two points in time you had in mind, and I will tell you how many finite number of days there are between them.

Here is your task; using the negative side of the number line (since the past represents negative), I want you to count all of the negative numbers on the timeline, with the last number counted being 0.

Can I presume that you are granting me the same concession as the sandman in your analogy? That I never began, nor ever stopped counting, has been counting forever? If so then...

Let me know when you've completed counting all of the numbers. Also, please tell me the largest number counted in the negative number "set".

I've finished an hour ago, there is no largest counted negative number, for every number I counted, there was another number that was one larger. I know this because I've counted every single one of them.

... the totality of all of the negative numbers on the timeline is an infinite amount (of negative numbers). So, infinity has been reached after all.

That still doesn't follow. Again consider the number line, every single one of them is finite, infinity is not on the number line. You can count all of them without counting infinity.

[Diagoras]

Which is why a timeless (atemporal) cause is necessary...and only God (to your dismay) fits the bill.

Apologies for the delay - life has a habit of intruding.

All of your reasoning here sidesteps the main issue: we simply don’t know how the universe began, when the physical laws we observe and use every day aren’t sufficient to describe conditions in the very first femtoseconds of the universe’s existence. However, from what we do know, it’s evident that invoking some atemporal entity doesn’t in fact answer anything. Einstein’s Special Relativity theory shows that ‘time’ isn’t separate from ‘space’. Instead we have ‘spacetime’, and the physics behind this help explain why the speed of light is the fastest speed you can travel in the universe.

Denoting something as ‘outside time’ is simply breaking the laws of physics without good reason.

But science isn't the end-all-be-all to knowledge and understanding....is it?

No, it isn’t. But as a method of investigation into the natural world, it’s still demonstrably more useful than any religious explanation.

Now, science fan-boys take stuff like that and run with it...but philosophers understand that this is absurd (and it shouldn't take a philosopher to notice the absurdity).

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with things that are counter-intuitive: (‘absurd’ in your words), but some of science’s most spectacular advances have come from the realisation that the universe works in very surprising ways that go against what we might feel as reasonable. Clocks can slow down and you get ‘heavier’ the faster you run. Light-particle duality, gravity waves, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle... trying to persuade an enlightened and intelligent person in the 1600’s (or even the 1800’s) of these things would be very difficult. Why can’t the same difficulty apply here - to you?

I’m happy to be called a ‘science fan-boy’ - while you may have meant it in a slightly deprecating way, I see no shame in being curious and open-minded - and excited by the possibilities offered by future scientific discoveries.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In closing, move along to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to VENOM.

I do like the cut of your jib, Venom.

This does presume an A-theory of time. If, on the other hand, the B-theory of time is correct, then all of space-time could exist eternally as a single, four-dimensional 'block'.

Yeah, but there would still have to be an infinite amount of "events" even under such a B-theory of time, and there couldn't have been an infinite amount of past events which lead up to present events.

Same logic will apply.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Can we still safely remove this from the equation when there are people like me who thinks it is a possible (as opposed to plausible) explanation?

*Johnnie Cochran voice*

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

This doesn't follow, you don't need to reach infinity to have traversed an infinite amount of days.

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

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?

Can't do it, because there is no such thing as the highest number on the number line...yet, that is precisely what the present day would represent.

This analogy is useless for your argument, since the fact that the sand will never reach the top, doesn't imply he hasn't already, or cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit.

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.

By traversing an infinite number of days, analogous with shovelling an infinite amount of sand into the pit (as opposed to filling the sand pit.)

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

Or it was completely random without any decision involved?

It was an "eternal" will.

And now responses to comment made to Paul of Tarsus who made similar argument as I have:
Trivially false: consider the number line, there is no boundary on either side, yet there is always a finite gap between every pair of numbers.

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.

Can't do it. It is not possible to count "down" from infinity to arrive at 0.

You are missing the all important between any two points in time clause. Given the premise of no past boundary, there is an infinite number of days AND a finite number of days between any two points in time. Tell me which two points in time you had in mind, and I will tell you how many finite number of days there are between them.

Ok, lets take this slow

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

Can I presume that you are granting me the same concession as the sandman in your analogy? That I never began, nor ever stopped counting, has been counting forever? If so then...

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.

So if you will never arrive at 0, then how can time?

I've finished an hour ago, there is no largest counted negative number

I agree.

, for every number I counted, there was another number that was one larger.

Yes, the way the chain rattles.

I know this because I've counted every single one of them.

Ahhh, great. You finished. So, what was the largest number counted? I mean after all, you finished, correct?

So, out of all the numbers you counted on this infinitely long timeline, what was the largest number counted upon "completion"?

That still doesn't follow. Again consider the number line, every single one of them is finite, infinity is not on the number line. You can count all of them without counting infinity.

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?

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

[historia]

This does presume an A-theory of time. If, on the other hand, the B-theory of time is correct, then all of space-time could exist eternally as a single, four-dimensional 'block'.

Yeah, but there would still have to be an infinite amount of "events" even under such a B-theory of time, and there couldn't have been an infinite amount of past events which lead up to present events.

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect.

Since you mentioned Al-Ghazali above, let me turn to his foremost, modern-day interpreter, William Lane Craig, on this point.

See William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2012), pgs. 183-84:

From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction.

If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived . . . since on tenseless theories of time the universe did not begin to exist in virtue of having a first event anymore than a meter stick begins to exist in virtue of having a first centimeter.

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.