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]

Both starting with an empty set and starting with an already existing set is starting with something and then adding the past to it. But we are analyzing only the past, not these additional things together with the past.

What additional things though? I am adding elements to the past, which either begun as an empty set, or is an actual infinity without a beginning. You seem to be saying this set is something extra, when I am saying it is the past.

Starting with an empty set would denote the past having a beginning. Since we are analyzing the possibility of an actual infinite past (one with no beginning), we can’t start with the empty set or we would be begging the question against the past being an actual infinite, defining it in a way that has a beginning, when it doesn’t.

Sure.

Yet, we also can’t start with an infinite set because this begs the question the other way...

That's not begging the question - we are analysing the possibility of an actual infinite past, to do that we assume that it is infinite to see what, if any contradiction results from that assumption; given said assumption, of course we would start with an infinite set. It would only be a begging the question fallacy if one assumes that it is infinite in order to argue that it is indeed infinite. We are not debating whether the past is infinite or not, we are debating a very different question - whether it is possible for the past to be infinite.

and is really analyzing an infinite set plus the set we call the ‘past’.

There is only one set here - the infinite set which we call the past, assuming A-theory infinite past.

No, every set must be formed. Even in B-theory the set is “formed,” it's just formed "all at once" for lack of a better term. In both, we start with nothing and then “form” the set and analyze the set, not the set plus other things.

No, only our mental image has to be formed, the sets that exists outside our mind need not be, they are not if they didn't have a beginning. You've affirmed that the B-theory infinite past would have always existed. How do you reconciled the idea of of "always existed" with "formed," the set existed before it was formed?

Yes, the past (as an actual set) would have always existed if it is actually infinite. Still, it is also true that every element of that set has not always been part of the past. Every element was successively added at one point.

So far so good.

Thus, the A-theory infinite past would both be an actual infinite and impossibly an actual infinite (since each element is added successively), leading to the logical contradiction, which shows the concept itself to be illogical. Thus, the A-theory past could not be an actual infinite any more than we could have a round square.

Same question as before - where are you getting "impossibly an actual infinite (since each element is added successively)" from? How does "each element is added successively" imply impossibly an actual infinite? Last time I asked you this, you said that it's because the core is formed via successive addition. I countered by saying the core isn't formed at all - it's always existed, given that it the past is infinite. Your insistence that the set has to be formed was what lead me to mistakenly believe that you were talking about our mental image. We've since established that you were not talking about that. Why do you think the actual past itself, as opposed to our mental image thereof, has to be formed?

[The Tanager]

That's not begging the question - we are analysing the possibility of an actual infinite past, to do that we assume that it is infinite to see what, if any contradiction results from that assumption; given said assumption, of course we would start with an infinite set. It would only be a begging the question fallacy if one assumes that it is infinite in order to argue that it is indeed infinite. We are not debating whether the past is infinite or not, we are debating a very different question - whether it is possible for the past to be infinite.

But you aren’t starting with one infinite set, you are starting with two. You have an infinite set “already” there and are adding to it the infinite past elements. Or maybe you think you are adding finite past elements to it? Both of these are mistakes if we are trying to analyze an infinite past, in itself.

No, only our mental image has to be formed, the sets that exists outside our mind need not be, they are not if they didn't have a beginning. You've affirmed that the B-theory infinite past would have always existed. How do you reconciled the idea of of "always existed" with "formed," the set existed before it was formed?

I think we must be understanding “formed” differently. I’m not using formed in some temporal, chronological sense. I’m just talking about the concept itself, which is there whether it is eternally formed or temporally formed. Not formed in our mind, but an actual thing whether or not there is someone there to think about it correctly or not. To be unformed, in this sense, would be to not exist.

Same question as before - where are you getting "impossibly an actual infinite (since each element is added successively)" from? How does "each element is added successively" imply impossibly an actual infinite? Last time I asked you this, you said that it's because the core is formed via successive addition. I countered by saying the core isn't formed at all - it's always existed, given that it the past is infinite.

I talked about the core in the context of you analyzing a core that is always there plus the A-theory past elements you want to add to that core. If the core eternally exists, then the nature of that part of time is not via successive addition, it’s eternally existing and “past” is a subjective term of relation to another object.

You’ve agreed that we can’t get an actual infinite via successive addition. The focus there is not on “we can’t get,” i.e., it’s not about our human ability or inability, how our mental concepts of X work. It’s about the nature of X itself.

[Bust Nak]

But you aren’t starting with one infinite set, you are starting with two. You have an infinite set “already” there and are adding to it the infinite past elements.

That's one set by my count - an infinite set “already” there, i.e. the past itself. One. To which I am indeed adding elements to (maybe finite maybe infinite, that's not important since we are not examining the possibility of an infinite future here.) I suppose you can call the present moment a set with one element. If that's what you are referring to as the second set, then what's wrong with considering how the present is constantly becoming the past, when analyzing an A-theory infinite past?

I think we must be understanding “formed” differently. I’m not using formed in some temporal, chronological sense. I’m just talking about the concept itself, which is there whether it is eternally formed or temporally formed. Not formed in our mind, but an actual thing whether or not there is someone there to think about it correctly or not. To be unformed, in this sense, would be to not exist.

Okay, if "formed" does imply prior non-existence, then why can't an actual infinite be "formed" by successive addition?

I talked about the core in the context of you analyzing a core that is always there plus the A-theory past elements you want to add to that core. If the core eternally exists, then the nature of that part of time is not via successive addition, it’s eternally existing...

Same as above, why not via success addition, if "formed" allows for pre-existence? What's this incompatibly with pre-existing and successive addition that you keep seeing?

and “past” is a subjective term of relation to another object.

Why subjective?

You’ve agreed that we can’t get an actual infinite via successive addition.

Hold on, maybe we can, depending on if "get" here convey the same sort of idea as "formed."

The focus there is not on “we can’t get,” i.e., it’s not about our human ability or inability, how our mental concepts of X work. It’s about the nature of X itself.

Sure, still not seeing any contradiction about the nature of the A-theory infinite past though.

[The Tanager]

That's one set by my count - an infinite set “already” there, i.e. the past itself. One. To which I am indeed adding elements to (maybe finite maybe infinite, that's not important since we are not examining the possibility of an infinite future here.) I suppose you can call the present moment a set with one element. If that's what you are referring to as the second set, then what's wrong with considering how the present is constantly becoming the past, when analyzing an A-theory infinite past?

I am talking about one group: every member of the past. You are talking about adding members of the past (one group) to an already infinite part of the past (second group).

Okay, if "formed" does imply prior non-existence, then why can't an actual infinite be "formed" by successive addition?

“Formed” doesn’t imply either prior non-existence or eternal existence. Formed just implies that it now exists or it’s a thing that can be thought about. In A-theory, moment X is future, then becomes present, then becomes past (and is therefore added to the set). Moment Y is the same. Conceptually do that, adding each moment as it passes into “pasthood” (like counting to infinity) and you will never reach infinity.

and “past” is a subjective term of relation to another object.

Why subjective?

If the proposal is an infinite core that was always “past,” then I guess that would still be objectively past but then it wouldn’t be analyzing the A-theory of time because in A-theory moments change (at least) from being present to being past.

[Bust Nak]

I am talking about one group: every member of the past.

Okay, think of the A-theory finite past: when you wait one brief moment, and you have a new element to add to that group, are you also not adding a member of the past, the very moment that has just became the past (one group) to an already existing part of the past (second group)?

“Formed” doesn’t imply either prior non-existence or eternal existence.

Yes, that was a typo on my part. If "formed" does not implies prior non-existence, then why can't an actual infinite be "formed" by successive addition? More below...

In A-theory, moment X is future, then becomes present, then becomes past (and is therefore added to the set). Moment Y is the same. Conceptually do that, adding each moment as it passes into “pasthood” (like counting to infinity) and you will never reach infinity.

Why not though, if "formed" does not implies prior non-existence, since infinity plus one is still infinity? Or the same question in another way, why do you need to "reach infinity" when you are already at infinity?

If the proposal is an infinite core that was always “past,” then I guess that would still be objectively past but then it wouldn’t be analyzing the A-theory of time because in A-theory moments change (at least) from being present to being past.

Is the A-theory changes from being present to being past, somehow incompatible with the existence of an infinite core that was always "past?"

[The Tanager]

Okay, think of the A-theory finite past: when you wait one brief moment, and you have a new element to add to that group, are you also not adding a member of the past, the very moment that has just became the past (one group) to an already existing part of the past (second group)?

But when discussing the past, itself, we are looking a snapshot, as it were, not continuing to be in the middle of a changing collection.

Why not though, if "formed" does not implies prior non-existence, since infinity plus one is still infinity? Or the same question in another way, why do you need to "reach infinity" when you are already at infinity?

If we are looking at it as a snapshot, i.e., conceptually stopping the movement of time and looking at what is "past" at that moment, we either have infinity or we don't. To already be at infinity before considering all past elements means we must be adding the past to something else that is already there.

Is the A-theory changes from being present to being past, somehow incompatible with the existence of an infinite core that was always "past?"

Yes. If moment X was always past, then it couldn't have once been present (i.e., not past) and then become past.

[Bust Nak]

But when discussing the past, itself, we are looking a snapshot, as it were, not continuing to be in the middle of a changing collection.

Then why are you talking about successive addition?! The only time anything is added in A-theory, is when time passes and a present moment freshly becomes the past.

If we are looking at it as a snapshot, i.e., conceptually stopping the movement of time and looking at what is "past" at that moment, we either have infinity or we don't. To already be at infinity before considering all past elements means we must be adding the past to something else that is already there.

Not adding, added, past tense. As above, the only time anything being added, is when time passes, and you've specified that we are taking a snapshot. Everything in the past has already been added. The element "a second ago" was added one second ago; the element "a day ago" was added one day ago; the element "a year ago" was added one year ago.

Yes. If moment X was always past, then it couldn't have once been present (i.e., not past) and then become past.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the infinite core hasn't always been the "past." So that doesn't explain why there is incompatibility between being present to being past, and the existence of an infinite core that was always "past." Sounds like you are mixing up the elements within the core with the core itself.

[The Tanager]

But when discussing the past, itself, we are looking a snapshot, as it were, not continuing to be in the middle of a changing collection.

Then why are you talking about successive addition?! The only time anything is added in A-theory, is when time passes and a present moment freshly becomes the past.

Because that is part of the nature of time in A-theory whatever moment you want to take the snapshot in. Take any snapshot and in that moment, everything that is a past event was added to that group via successive addition. Even more so, we are abstracting the idea of the past away from any specific moment of time. For our issue, it doesn’t matter what events are past and which ones are present or future. To add the fact of us still being a part of time moving forward would mean we are analyzing something other than just the past, in itself.

If we are looking at it as a snapshot, i.e., conceptually stopping the movement of time and looking at what is "past" at that moment, we either have infinity or we don't. To already be at infinity before considering all past elements means we must be adding the past to something else that is already there.

Not adding, added, past tense.

Sure. You would still have added the past elements to something that was already there.

Everything in the past has already been added. The element "a second ago" was added one second ago; the element "a day ago" was added one day ago; the element "a year ago" was added one year ago.

Sure. And it was done via successive addition. You can include all future events, taking a snapshot of the past far into the future and it is still the same. Everything, at that moment, that was added, is being added, will be added, whichever phrasing fits the moment, will be added via successive addition.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the infinite core hasn't always been the "past." So that doesn't explain why there is incompatibility between being present to being past, and the existence of an infinite core that was always "past." Sounds like you are mixing up the elements within the core with the core itself.

This means that the infinite core cannot have an A-theory temporal nature. All events within A-theory move (at the least) from present to past. If the events (or non-events) that make up the core never did that, then they don’t have an A-theory nature. We are talking about the past with an A-theory nature.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit: I forgot to mention snippage...

What existed prior to the past? I don't see how it could be anything but 'nothing existed'.

Has there ever been a time when there wasn't a now? (Can't remember the author)

There is no beginning of time if the past is actually infinite.

Such a condition doesn't preclude the universe existing, in one form or another, as relates to the OP's "infinite regression". All some are doing is trying to posit a god in the gap of our ability to traverse the entire history of time, be it infinite, or not.

We know the universe exists, so any attempt to traverse time must and should consider that the universe may well have existed, in one form or another, for as long as, or longer than, any god/s proposed to have created the universe.

We don’t start with the empty set or an already existing set in the sense of doing so at the beginning of time. But, conceptually (which is different than conceptualizing our mental image of time), you must treat the past as though there is nothing you are adding it to or you won’t be conceptualizing things correctly.

Would that theists obey your edict in this regard.

Well, in B-theory, the “past” would have always existed but we are talking about the A-theory here. In A-theory, what we now call the past had to be present at one ‘point’ and it was the future before that (if the future is a real thing). So, each event must have been successively added to the set we are calling the past.

The theists' problem here is that we have the universe existing in the past, and no evidence beyond slights of mind and word puzzles to place a god or gods into the mix.

Conclusions?

In considering "no infinite regression", we can reasonably conclude, or at least reasonably consider, the universe as that "first step" that theists prefer to claim for their god/s. Any god/s that are proposed as "creating" the universe immediately raise the question of what created such god/s. It's an inescapable fact of the theist argument.

There is no argument, beyond perhaps wishful thinking, that gets around this. Any proposed god, any proposed "first step in a causal chain" can be met equally, if not moreso, with the observation that the universe exists - no gods required.

[Bust Nak]

Because that is part of the nature of time in A-theory whatever moment you want to take the snapshot in. Take any snapshot and in that moment, everything that is a past event was added to that group via successive addition. Even more so, we are abstracting the idea of the past away from any specific moment of time. For our issue, it doesn’t matter what events are past and which ones are present or future. To add the fact of us still being a part of time moving forward would mean we are analyzing something other than just the past, in itself.

Yes, added as in already added, past tense, the set is fully formed at the moment we take the snapshot and nothing is being added, in other words, there is only one set, not the "adding one set to another set" you were objecting to.

Sure. You would still have added the past elements to something that was already there.

Yeah, that's one set, not continuing to be in the middle of a changing collection, i.e. exactly the same way you described the A-theory finite past.

Sure. And it was done via successive addition. You can include all future events, taking a snapshot of the past far into the future and it is still the same. Everything, at that moment, that was added, is being added, will be added, whichever phrasing fits the moment, will be added via successive addition.

That's fine. The point was, when a snapshot is taken there is only one group - the past, as opposed to adding the past (one group) to an already existing past (second group.)

This means that the infinite core cannot have an A-theory temporal nature. All events within A-theory move (at the least) from present to past. If the events (or non-events) that make up the core never did that, then they don’t have an A-theory nature. We are talking about the past with an A-theory nature.

That's a conditional statement. We are indeed talking about the past with an A-theory nature, which means all of events that make up the core did indeed move from present to past. Which means the if clause "if the event never did that" does not apply, your conclusion that "the infinite core cannot have an A-theory temporal nature" does not follow.

Were you under the impression that if the infinite core has always been the past then the elements in it are also always been the past?