God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #1

Post by 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.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #331

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:16 pm
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".

I wasn’t arguing that it was. If the B-theory of time is correct, then the universe could be an actual infinite.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:16 pmAll 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.

I’m not positing that. I’m not saying we can’t but a temporal God can. I’m saying it is logically impossible to traverse an actual infinite for any temporal being. If the history of time is an actual infinite, then no temporal being could traverse it. Just like a square circle can’t exist. An omnipotent being cannot make a square circle. If the history of time is finite, then a being could conceivably traverse it, whether or not any actual being has.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:16 pmIn 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.

That you think this is an inescapable fact of the theist argument shows that you don’t understand the theist’s argument, at least not the ones that professional philosophers make and talk about. In the Kalam, first there is the claim that the natural universe (not tied to the Big Bang being the start of the nature) began to exist. Second, there is the claim that the cause of the natural universe beginning to exist cannot itself be natural. Third, is to analyze what the characteristics of this cause would have to be. At the third point we get things like the cause being immaterial, eternal, uncaused, personal, etc., characteristics that sound like what philosophers talk about when they use the term "God". Even if one doesn't think this accurately speaks of God, whatever the cause is, it must be eternal and, therefore, could not have been created by anything. The question of "who created the cause of the natural universe" is nonsensical when considering those characteristics argued for (not just assumed).

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #332

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:13 amYes, 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.

Yes, but you were talking about adding past elements to an infinite core of other past elements. That’s two groups. If you combine it into one group, then to call that group an infinite core is to beg the question. Assuming A-theory, then that one group of past elements is only like the “adding past elements” part you were talking about because all elements of an A-theory past are added via successive addition. You have to get rid of your talk of adding elements (or already having added elements) to a pre-existing infinite core.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:13 amThat'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?

That’s the only way you can get an actual infinite past if the current nature of time is A-theory. If all of the elements went from past to present, then they are, by definition, added to the set “the past” via successive addition, which cannot get us an actual infinite set.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #333

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:02 pm Yes, but you were talking about adding past elements to an infinite core of other past elements. That’s two groups.
What past elements though, the only element I am adding, is the one event that was just the present a moment ago, that's one element to the past, no different from the A-theory finite past. Assuming a snap shot, I aren't even adding that one element. Tell me what you think is happening when you "form" the A-theory finite past set, and I will use the same language because there is no difference.
If you combine it into one group, then to call that group an infinite core is to beg the question.
Go on, begs what question? That there exist an infinite core for me to add the recently present moment?
Assuming A-theory, then that one group of past elements is only like the “adding past elements” part you were talking about because all elements of an A-theory past are added via successive addition. You have to get rid of your talk of adding elements (or already having added elements) to a pre-existing infinite core.
But there is only one group - that one group of past elements of "adding past elements" part I was talking about IS the pre-existing infinite core.
That’s the only way you can get an actual infinite past if the current nature of time is A-theory. If all of the elements went from past to present, then they are, by definition, added to the set “the past” via successive addition, which cannot get us an actual infinite set.
So you keep saying, but why can't every elements be added to the set “the past” via successive addition "form" an actual infinite set? You seem to be offering me a circular argument.

1) if every elements are added to the set "the past" via successive addition the it cannot "form" an actual infinite.
2) Why can't it? Because successive addition means the set "the past" hasn't always been the past.
3) Why not? Because every elements were at some point, not in the set "the past."
4) So, Why is that a problem? It's a problem because 1)...

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #334

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:36 pmWhat past elements though, the only element I am adding, is the one event that was just the present a moment ago, that's one element to the past, no different from the A-theory finite past. Assuming a snap shot, I aren't even adding that one element. Tell me what you think is happening when you "form" the A-theory finite past set, and I will use the same language because there is no difference.

The set “the past” contains element 1, element 2, element 3,... element 125,789...element Z, etc. When we form the A-theory set (whether it is infinite or finite) every element that is a member of the set was added via successive addition.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:36 pmGo on, begs what question? That there exist an infinite core for me to add the recently present moment?

Can a set of A-theory time be actually infinite? You are saying that we add elements to an already infinite core. You are assuming the infinite core is already there before judging whether the whole thing is infinite or not.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:36 pmSo you keep saying, but why can't every elements be added to the set “the past” via successive addition "form" an actual infinite set? You seem to be offering me a circular argument.

Successive addition is what is occurring when we are trying to count to infinity. Do you think any being could count to infinity?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:36 pm1) if every elements are added to the set "the past" via successive addition the it cannot "form" an actual infinite.
2) Why can't it? Because successive addition means the set "the past" hasn't always been the past.
3) Why not? Because every elements were at some point, not in the set "the past."
4) So, Why is that a problem? It's a problem because 1)...

That’s not how I’ve been arguing. This is:

1) In A-theory, every moment in time moves from being (at the least) present to past. This is definitional.
2) Once it moves from being present to past, it is successively added to the set “the past”. This is still definitionally true.
3) A set formed via successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. The example of trying to count to infinity shows this. If successive addition can led to an actual infinite set, then one could conceivable count to infinity yet that concept is logically impossible.
4) Thus, in A-theory, time cannot be an actual infinite. This follows from the above 3 being true. At this point (if the previous 3 steps are true) the question is settled.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #335

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:54 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:16 pm
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".
I wasn’t arguing that it was. If the B-theory of time is correct, then the universe could be an actual infinite.
I was seeking to ensure the observer had a fuller understanding.
The Tanager wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:16 pmAll 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.
I’m not positing that. I’m not saying we can’t but a temporal God can. I’m saying it is logically impossible to traverse an actual infinite for any temporal being. If the history of time is an actual infinite, then no temporal being could traverse it. Just like a square circle can’t exist. An omnipotent being cannot make a square circle. If the history of time is finite, then a being could conceivably traverse it, whether or not any actual being has.
Plenty fair.
The Tanager wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:16 pmIn 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.
That you think this is an inescapable fact of the theist argument shows that you don’t understand the theist’s argument, at least not the ones that professional philosophers make and talk about. In the Kalam, first there is the claim that the natural universe (not tied to the Big Bang being the start of the nature) began to exist. Second, there is the claim that the cause of the natural universe beginning to exist cannot itself be natural. Third, is to analyze what the characteristics of this cause would have to be. At the third point we get things like the cause being immaterial, eternal, uncaused, personal, etc., characteristics that sound like what philosophers talk about when they use the term "God". Even if one doesn't think this accurately speaks of God, whatever the cause is, it must be eternal and, therefore, could not have been created by anything. The question of "who created the cause of the natural universe" is nonsensical when considering those characteristics argued for (not just assumed).
I stand by my position as it relates to what I consider to be the average observer's understanding of the argument. I've yet to find anyone who'd accept the Kalam argument valid, who didn't also profess believe in their god's involvement.

So, my fret ain't so much with your understanding, nuanced and such it be, but to fret the average observer's take on the issue.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #336

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:57 pm The set “the past” contains element 1, element 2, element 3,... element 125,789...element Z, etc. When we form the A-theory set (whether it is infinite or finite) every element that is a member of the set was added via successive addition.
Okay, using the same language, here is the infinite version of the past: The set "the past" contains..., element -Z, element -125,789... element -1, element 0, element 1, element 2, element 3... etc. When we form the A-theory infinite set every element that is a member of the set was added via successive addition. So what's so different with this version that lead to your objection of two groups, when you seemed to have no problem "forming" the finite version without the "two groups" hiccup?
Can a set of A-theory time be actually infinite?
To answer that question, we assume that the A-theory time is actually infinite, to see what (if any) contradictions falls out of it. It's not a question begging fallacy to assume that it is actually infinite, as I argued before, you seemed to have accepted my argument earlier. Why is this objection making a come back?
You are saying that we add elements to an already infinite core. You are assuming the infinite core is already there before judging whether the whole thing is infinite or not.
That's right, given the assumption that the past is actually infinite, there would of course be an already infinite core. I have assumed that before judging whether the past is infinite or not, because I am judging a different thing: whether the past can be infinite or not. You've described what I am doing accurately, yet it's not clear which part is illogical.
Successive addition is what is occurring when we are trying to count to infinity. Do you think any being could count to infinity?
No, that's impossible. I do however think an infinite set can be "formed" by successive addition, as "formed" does not imply coming into existence. Given the premise that I, as some sort of eternal being, have never begun counting, but have instead always been counting for an eternity, I would have counted one by one, an infinite amount of integers. This set of integers I counted, is an actual infinite "formed" via successive addition. "Forming" this actual infinite set does not involve counting to infinity since each member of the set is a finite number.
That’s not how I’ve been arguing. This is:

1) In A-theory, every moment in time moves from being (at the least) present to past. This is definitional.
2) Once it moves from being present to past, it is successively added to the set “the past”. This is still definitionally true.
3) A set formed via successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. The example of trying to count to infinity shows this. If successive addition can led to an actual infinite set, then one could conceivable count to infinity yet that concept is logically impossible.
4) Thus, in A-theory, time cannot be an actual infinite. This follows from the above 3 being true. At this point (if the previous 3 steps are true) the question is settled.
I accept this as a valid argument, but I challenged you to justify premise 3, that's when I saw the circular argument. Recall if you will when you first mentioned counting to infinity, I asked you how an infinite past involve any sort of counting to infinity when every element of the past was added a finite time ago. You said it's not possible to form an actual infinity via successive addition. I accepted that and counter with the claim that an infinite past is not formed via successive addition, but was instead already in existence. After a whole bunch of back and forth, we've since established that "formed" need not imply a beginning. So I asked you, why can't an infinite set be "formed" by successive addition, that's when you brought up the this talk of "the infinite core" as a potential contradiction. I asked you why such a core can't be both infinite and A-theory (successively additive,) and as we can see, we have looped all the way back to the original claim of actual infinite can't be formed via successive addition re: counting to infinity, with me pushing back with the point that an actual infinite need not involve any sort of counting to infinity.

I stand by my accusation of circular argument. (Granted, along the way you've also raised a separate objection that hasn't looped back re: two groups.)

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #337

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:32 pmSo, my fret ain't so much with your understanding, nuanced and such it be, but to fret the average observer's take on the issue.
I agree with you there. The education system and society as a whole, at least in the US and probably worldwide, simply does not do a good job of teaching critical thinking. Most churches do not, either. It's worth fretting and trying to do what one can in the circle of influence (in person and online) to correct it.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #338

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:18 amOkay, using the same language, here is the infinite version of the past: The set "the past" contains..., element -Z, element -125,789... element -1, element 0, element 1, element 2, element 3... etc. When we form the A-theory infinite set every element that is a member of the set was added via successive addition. So what's so different with this version that lead to your objection of two groups, when you seemed to have no problem "forming" the finite version without the "two groups" hiccup?

Because you’ve just made a logical contradiction. A set that has every member added via successive addition cannot contain an actually infinite number of elements. Sure, you can write the words that there are an actually infinite number of elements and each element was added via successive addition. Just like you can write the words that a figure could have four equal straight sides, four right angles, whose boundary consists of points equidistant from a fixed, center point. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an inherent contradiction in the words.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:18 amThat's right, given the assumption that the past is actually infinite, there would of course be an already infinite core. I have assumed that before judging whether the past is infinite or not, because I am judging a different thing: whether the past can be infinite or not. You've described what I am doing accurately, yet it's not clear which part is illogical.

No, one could assume the past is actually infinite (and I’ve done that in my analysis) but not that there is an already infinite core that new members are being added to, where both of these things together equal “the past”. Those are two different assumptions.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:18 amNo, that's impossible. I do however think an infinite set can be "formed" by successive addition, as "formed" does not imply coming into existence.

Formed is about it existing, though, whether that is coming into existence or always existing. In A-theory, the past exists via successive addition of each element.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:18 amGiven the premise that I, as some sort of eternal being, have never begun counting, but have instead always been counting for an eternity, I would have counted one by one, an infinite amount of integers. This set of integers I counted, is an actual infinite "formed" via successive addition. "Forming" this actual infinite set does not involve counting to infinity since each member of the set is a finite number.

No, you would not have counted an infinite amount of integers. No matter how much time, no matter that you’ve always been counting, you still would not have reached infinity. The set of integers counted will never be an actual infinite, only a potential infinite.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #339

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:45 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:32 pmSo, my fret ain't so much with your understanding, nuanced and such it be, but to fret the average observer's take on the issue.
I agree with you there. The education system and society as a whole, at least in the US and probably worldwide, simply does not do a good job of teaching critical thinking. Most churches do not, either. It's worth fretting and trying to do what one can in the circle of influence (in person and online) to correct it.
Fer sher. If only for me, I hold stock in the truth value of notions, not so much in the hypotheticalizations thereof. We can fret us an infinity of infinities, but until we can confirm dead folks use walking canes, we ought to never open us up a store, in the hopes we'd sell us a bunch of em to em.

This really points to the problems inherent in supernatural (read religious) belief.

There won't never be it a time God shows up, til don't it beat all, we're done dead, and can't tell us nobody he done did. He won't never. The fact is that gods are the production of humans. No data supports any other conclusion.

Religious belief - supernatural belief - is and will forever be bound in the kind of arguments we have here before us - "But hey, how bout all that time and stuff, ain't it all fancy and all?" " Dude, don't get me started on infinity!"

Religious belief is the cotton we have to stuff in our ears, that we might not be bogged down by the unanswerable questions that confound our day to day existence.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #340

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:27 pm Because you’ve just made a logical contradiction. A set that has every member added via successive addition cannot contain an actually infinite number of elements.
And round we go again, why can't a set that has every member added via successive addition contain an actually infinite number of elements? Show me the inherent contradiction in the words. Perhaps more to the point, what does that have to do with your "two groups" objection? I don't see where "two groups" is addressed in your response.
No, one could assume the past is actually infinite (and I’ve done that in my analysis) but not that there is an already infinite core that new members are being added to, where both of these things together equal “the past”. Those are two different assumptions.
Now we are getting somewhere. Tell me, assuming that the past is actually infinite, how many events are there (as opposed to potentially there) in that past?
Formed is about it existing, though, whether that is coming into existence or always existing. In A-theory, the past exists via successive addition of each element.
That's right, I don't see what that has to do with my claim that an infinite set can be "formed" by successive addition, as "formed" does not imply coming into existence.
No, you would not have counted an infinite amount of integers. No matter how much time, no matter that you’ve always been counting, you still would not have reached infinity. The set of integers counted will never be an actual infinite, only a potential infinite.
Why not? Let me guess, it's because "a set that has every member added via successive addition cannot contain an actually infinite number of elements?" While we are here, given the assumption that I have been counting for eternity, can you tell me, which integer I have missed?

Post Reply