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.

[Bust Nak]

I thought you agreed that all of the infinite past's elements were successively added at some time. Did you not?

I did.

And, yes, we are assuming A-theory is an actual infinite and seeing if contradictions arise. That's different than what you were just doing. You were saying that we have an actual infinite and then are successively adding more elements. That is analyzing adding elements to an already infinite past, not analyzing the infinite past itself.

Don't see what you are getting at here. I am analyzing the concept of an A-theory actual infinite past. A-theory past means successively adding more elements to it, along with assumption that said A-theory past is an actual infinity, would trivially be a case of having an actual infinite and then are successively adding more elements, wouldn't it? I am just putting two ideas together, actual infinity and successive addition.

The contradiction is that all elements of the past were successively added at one point, that an actual infinite cannot be formed in this way, and that the past is an actual infinite. Not all three of those can be true.

Why can't they? I think they can be all true thus: all elements of the past were successively added at one point, that an actual infinite cannot be formed in this way, and that the past is an actual infinite - one that isn't formed by successive addition.

[The Tanager]

Don't see what you are getting at here. I am analyzing the concept of an A-theory actual infinite past. A-theory past means successively adding more elements to it, along with assumption that said A-theory past is an actual infinity, would trivially be a case of having an actual infinite and then are successively adding more elements, wouldn't it? I am just putting two ideas together, actual infinity and successive addition.

You are analyzing the adding more elements part, not the A-theory past being an actual infinite. You say above “A-theory past means successively adding more elements to it..”. To what? There is nothing to add to, we are just talking about the A-theory past. You are treating the A-theory past as what is added to something already there.

Why can't they? I think they can be all true thus: all elements of the past were successively added at one point, that an actual infinite cannot be formed in this way, and that the past is an actual infinite - one that isn't formed by successive addition.

1. “All elements of the past were successively added at one point” is identical to saying the set we call the A-theory past is formed by successive addition.

2. “The past is an actual infinite” is identical to saying the set we call the A-theory past is not formed by successive addition.

These two statements directly contradict each other. They can’t both be true.

[Bust Nak]

You are analyzing the adding more elements part, not the A-theory past being an actual infinite. You say above “A-theory past means successively adding more elements to it..”. To what?

To the past.

There is nothing to add to, we are just talking about the A-theory past.

Where did this come from?! Why isn't there anything to add to in the A-theory past?

You are treating the A-theory past as what is added to something already there.

Yeah, I am: there is definitely something already there, I added yesterday to the set that includes the day before yesterday, and that goes back to at least the beginning the this universe.

1. “All elements of the past were successively added at one point” is identical to saying the set we call the A-theory past is formed by successive addition.

How is it identical? Didn't you accept that there is a difference between an actual infinity formed via successive addition and an actual infinity where new elements are successively added back here? So why is successively added automatically the former and not the latter?

2. “The past is an actual infinite” is identical to saying the set we call the A-theory past is not formed by successive addition.

Agreed.

[The Tanager]

There is nothing to add to, we are just talking about the A-theory past.

Where did this come from?! Why isn't there anything to add to in the A-theory past?

Because we are talking about the past as a whole.

You are treating the A-theory past as what is added to something already there.

Yeah, I am: there is definitely something already there, I added yesterday to the set that includes the day before yesterday, and that goes back to at least the beginning the this universe.

There isn't something already there because we are talking about the whole past, not just the elements added to the past since yesterday (or whatever date you want to use). Here you are talking about a different concept than the infinite past; you are talking about an individual within time adding new elements to an already infinite past. That isn't the concept we are discussing; we are discussing the infinite past, itself.

1. “All elements of the past were successively added at one point” is identical to saying the set we call the A-theory past is formed by successive addition.

How is it identical? Didn't you accept that there is a difference between an actual infinity formed via successive addition and an actual infinity where new elements are successively added back here?

Yes, there is a difference between these two things. The latter doesn't describe A-theory but a view of time that has a B-theory core followed by an A-theory existence (as I said in that post). We are talking about time that is purely A-theory in nature.

[Bust Nak]

Because we are talking about the past as a whole.

Then what's this talk about adding successive elements, when the past as a whole isn't the thing being added to something else?

There isn't something already there because we are talking about the whole past, not just the elements added to the past since yesterday (or whatever date you want to use). Here you are talking about a different concept than the infinite past; you are talking about an individual within time adding new elements to an already infinite past. That isn't the concept we are discussing; we are discussing the infinite past, itself.

Okay, I was indeed talking about adding new elements to an already infinite past, and it looked like you too were talking about that re: all elements were successively = infinity formed via successive addition. I still don't understand what you are trying to say here, what's is it that I should be thinking about with the infinite past itself?

Yes, there is a difference between these two things. The latter doesn't describe A-theory but a view of time that has a B-theory core followed by an A-theory existence (as I said in that post). We are talking about time that is purely A-theory in nature.

But that still doesn't tell me why you think "all elements of the past were successively added at one point" is identical to "the A-theory past is formed by successive addition," made all the more strange as you yet again acknowledge that there is a difference between "an actual infinity formed via successive addition" and "an actual infinity where new elements are successively." Doesn't that automatically mean "all elements were successively added" is not identical to "infinity formed via successive addition," but is either "infinity formed via successive addition" or "infinity where new elements are added?"

If you are merely saying that they are not always the same, just the same in this instance (A-theory,) then please explain why this is the case in more detail.

[The Tanager]

Then what's this talk about adding successive elements, when the past as a whole isn't the thing being added to something else?

We are talking about the whole past and only the past, so it can’t be adding the past to something else. On A-theory, moments succeed each other, and as they do the set grows. You agree every element of the set is added in this way. If so, then there can’t be an actual infinite core you are adding them to.

But that still doesn't tell me why you think "all elements of the past were successively added at one point" is identical to "the A-theory past is formed by successive addition," made all the more strange as you yet again acknowledge that there is a difference between "an actual infinity formed via successive addition" and "an actual infinity where new elements are successively." Doesn't that automatically mean "all elements were successively added" is not identical to "infinity formed via successive addition," but is either "infinity formed via successive addition" or "infinity where new elements are added?"

I acknowledged there is a difference between “an actual infinity formed via successive addition” and “an actual infinity where new elements are successively added,” where I understand, in the latter one, to mean that there already exists an actual infinity that has new elements added to it. What is identical is “an actual infinity formed via successive addition” and “all elements of the past were successively added at one point”.

[Bust Nak]

We are talking about the whole past and only the past, so it can’t be adding the past to something else.

Okay, and the point of this is? What's the significance of this when up to this point we were talking about adding elements to the past, as opposed to adding the past to something else?

On A-theory, moments succeed each other, and as they do the set grows. You agree every element of the set is added in this way. If so, then there can’t be an actual infinite core you are adding them to.

Why not?

I acknowledged there is a difference between “an actual infinity formed via successive addition” and “an actual infinity where new elements are successively added,” where I understand, in the latter one, to mean that there already exists an actual infinity that has new elements added to it. What is identical is “an actual infinity formed via successive addition” and “all elements of the past were successively added at one point”.

I guess that would make sense given the premise that "all elements of the past were successively added at one point" somehow means there can't be an already existing actual infinity that has new elements added to it. So just explain why every element of the set being added in this way implies there can’t be an actual infinite core you are adding them.

[The Tanager]

Okay, and the point of this is? What's the significance of this when up to this point we were talking about adding elements to the past, as opposed to adding the past to something else?

We weren’t talking about adding elements to the past before. For some reason you thought we were, even though I was talking about the past as a whole, whether it could be actually infinite or not.

On A-theory, moments succeed each other, and as they do the set grows. You agree every element of the set is added in this way. If so, then there can’t be an actual infinite core you are adding them to.

Why not?

Because then we aren’t talking about the past (a whole thing), but the past plus something else or part of the past plus a different part of the past which have different natures.

I guess that would make sense given the premise that "all elements of the past were successively added at one point" somehow means there can't be an already existing actual infinity that has new elements added to it. So just explain why every element of the set being added in this way implies there can’t be an actual infinite core you are adding them.

How did the members of the actually infinite core become a member of that core? How were they included in the set? If you agree (you did already, but you can change your mind) that all elements are successively added at one point, then how could the collection of those elements result in an actual infinite core?

[Bust Nak]

We weren’t talking about adding elements to the past before. For some reason you thought we were, even though I was talking about the past as a whole, whether it could be actually infinite or not.

But you were the one who brought up successively addition as an argument against the idea of an actual infinite though, and if you weren't talking about adding elements to the past, and you weren't talking about adding the past as a whole to anything, then what on Earth are you referring to with successive addition?

Because then we aren’t talking about the past (a whole thing), but the past plus something else or part of the past plus a different part of the past which have different natures.

I think we need to rewind, what things are we successively adding, and what other thing are we adding to? I've been talking about adding elements to the past the whole time. This is what you said a few weeks ago "On A-theory, time, whether actually or potentially infinite, would be a collection of events via successive addition. It's one event followed by another event." To me that is still reading like we were talking about adding elements to the past: the latest events in time are the elements being added, the collection of events being added to is the past.

How did the members of the actually infinite core become a member of that core? How were they included in the set?

Successively through the passage of time. While we are here, this is talking about adding elements to the past, right?

If you agree (you did already, but you can change your mind) that all elements are successively added at one point, then how could the collection of those elements result in an actual infinite core?

It didn't result in an actual infinite core though - there was already an existing actual infinite core. Previously I use the phrase "the actual infinite wasn't formed via successive addition" to express the same idea.

[The Tanager]

But you were the one who brought up successively addition as an argument against the idea of an actual infinite though, and if you weren't talking about adding elements to the past, and you weren't talking about adding the past as a whole to anything, then what on Earth are you referring to with successive addition?

Because we are adding all the past elements together into the concept of the A-theory set called the “past”. We aren’t starting with a past already and adding more past elements. We are starting with nothing. Then we add together all the past elements, as they come into existence and pass from existence to get the set called the "past". We start with nothing and add all elements.

How did the members of the actually infinite core become a member of that core? How were they included in the set?

Successively through the passage of time. While we are here, this is talking about adding elements to the past, right?

No, not adding elements to a past that is already there but how the “past” entire was formed. Successive. You agree the members are successively added to form the core that later past events can then be added to. How can that core, then, be actually infinite? You are claiming here that an actually infinite core was formed through successively adding the elements that make it up. Something you agreed is logically impossible.

It didn't result in an actual infinite core though - there was already an existing actual infinite core.

What is that core? It’s not the past since we were trying to talk about how the past (as a set) was formed. Not how a set that was already formed had elements added to it. We aren't talking about a part of the past and how that could change the nature of the set, but the entire past.

Previously I use the phrase "the actual infinite wasn't formed via successive addition" to express the same idea.

If it wasn’t formed via successive addition, then that core can’t be the “past” because you’ve agreed the past events are all successively added.