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]

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

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

Makes no sense...and in a sense, it is nonsense. No sense is being made here. None, whatsoever.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Now, let's assume we can count all events from the present backward into the past. And, in doing so, we actually arrive at the very first event in the universe, and thus discover that the series of past events is not infinite.
On the A-Theory of time, we can conclude that the universe is not past eternal, since there was a moment (the earliest event) when the universe came into being. In which case, your conclusion from the OP is warranted.

It is warranted regardless, but ok

On the B-Theory, however, we are not justified in reaching that conclusion. According to the B-Theory, the entirety of the universe (past, present, and future) just exists eternally as a four-dimensional spacetime block.

The B-Theory allows for (and to some extent even presumes that) the number of past events is finite (it is not infinite in number), and yet on that model the universe is nevertheless eternal. If true, that negates your conclusion from the OP.

[S]ome of the arguments for the finitude of the past seem to presuppose that temporal becoming [as described by the A-Theory] is real. For example, the argument I shared earlier tonight, about how you get through an infinite series of events by going one event at a time -- that presupposes that these events are actually happening, that they're actually lapsing.

But, you see, on the B-Theory, that idea of a temporal lapse of time is an illusion. The whole yard stick just exists and nobody is moving from the first inch to the last inch. It just is there. So it seems to me the A-Theory does underly the kalam argument in several ways.

None of that prevents me from counting the events, though...and counting these events in a eternally existing universe will amount to infinity...and that is the absurdity.

So if this is all one big illusion, then if I were to slap the B-time theorist...and he asks "why did you slap me".

And my reply is; "Hey man, you didn't get slapped, it was just an illusion".

It is all nonsense.

But, I am glad you agree with me that infinite regression is impossible. That is all I needed.

[Bust Nak]

In an infinite set, you can never count the last element because there is no last element.

Not what I asked you, I asked you why you couldn't count all of them.

If you're not interested in finishing the shoveling, then you can shovel part of the sand, of course.

Right, but what's stopping that part of the sand you shoveled from being infinite?

An infinite number of days has no end, so you can never get to an end that isn't there.

Okay, again, not what I asked you, why would you need to reach infinity to traverse an infinite number of days?

You can count to or from any integer.

And that isn't enough to lead you to the conclusion that you can count all of them?

I think that might be where you misunderstand infinity. Integers are numbers and are finite each of them having a specific, constant value. Infinity isn't really a number and has no specific value. Infinity is an absence of an upper limit on something that can be described using numbers.

If you knew infinity is not a number, why are you even talking about reaching infinity?

To count the elements in a finite set, you start with the first element and end with the last element.

Simple enough.

In an infinite set there is no last element so counting the elements in the set is impossible.

The set of negative numbers has a last element - zero, instead it has no first element.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So Venom is correct that an infinite number of days cannot be traversed. Where he is going wrong is his assumption that if the past is infinite, then we cannot now be at the present. To be at the present, we do not need to traverse an infinite number of days; in fact we have not and cannot do so. All we need to do is be at a point in time, and there are an infinite number in the set of points at which events take place.

If we are currently in the present day, how many past days were traversed to get here on an eternally existing universe?

Venom also failed to come up with a necessary maximal possible age for the universe. Such a maximal age is necessary if he's right that the past cannot be eternal. He failed to come up with that maximal age because there is no maximal age, and therefore the past can be infinite.

The necessary maximal age is around 14.7 billion years. There, you have it.

And as large of a number 14.7 billion years is...it is a finite number, nevertheless.

Finally, rather than engage my points, he ordered me to leave the thread.

Did I say you were done with the thread, or did you say you were done with the thread?

[benchwarmer]

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

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

Makes no sense...and in a sense, it is nonsense. No sense is being made here. None, whatsoever.

This seems to be the typical response when faced with something that defeats your argument.

Are you saying you don't understand that breaking something into pieces means that the sum of the pieces adds up to the original total? Or you don't understand that positive and negative charges are attracted to each other and when equal cancel each other out? Seems like pretty basic stuff.

[Paul of Tarsus]

So Venom is correct that an infinite number of days cannot be traversed. Where he is going wrong is his assumption that if the past is infinite, then we cannot now be at the present. To be at the present, we do not need to traverse an infinite number of days; in fact we have not and cannot do so. All we need to do is be at a point in time, and there are an infinite number in the set of points at which events take place.

If we are currently in the present day, how many past days were traversed to get here on an eternally existing universe?

It depends on how many days we go back. If we go back one hundred days for instance, then we've waited one hundred days to get to the present. Any duration must have a beginning and an end in time, and so all durations are finite. So the idea of duration or "traversing days" only makes sense if it is applied to a duration. An eternity cannot be traversed because there is no end and possibly no beginning either. So logically speaking we did not and cannot traverse an infinite number of days to get to the present. We did not need to traverse an infinite number of days. The present is just another point in time out of an infinite number of such points. We just happen to be at that point now.

So I think your main error here is your assumption that if the past is eternal, then we would have traversed an infinite number of days to get to the present. There is no and can be no such traversing. If the past is eternal, traversing it does not apply. The past simply extends back with no upper limit to how far we can go back.

Venom also failed to come up with a necessary maximal possible age for the universe. Such a maximal age is necessary if he's right that the past cannot be eternal. He failed to come up with that maximal age because there is no maximal age, and therefore the past can be infinite.

The necessary maximal age is around 14.7 billion years. There, you have it.

And as large of a number 14.7 billion years is...it is a finite number, nevertheless.

That's the age of the universe, not how old it can possibly be. It is possible that there is a physical limit to how old our cosmos or any cosmos can be, but as I have demonstrated, there is no logical limit to how old it can be.

Finally, rather than engage my points, he ordered me to leave the thread.

Did I say you were done with the thread, or did you say you were done with the thread?

Tell the truth, now. I said I was done with your refusing to post straight answers to my questions. Back on post 20 you said:

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

[Kenisaw]

All positive numbers may not have an ending point, but they have a starting point (number 1), therefore it is technically not infinite.

The set of positive numbers is infinite because that set increases without bound. There is no "starting" point in the set of positive real numbers either.

I think you may be referring to the set of positive integers which is also known as the set of natural numbers or the counting numbers: 1, 2, 3,... The set of positive integers is infinite because it increases without bound, and there is no largest number in that set. Also, there is no "starting point" in the set of positive integers although 1 is the least number in the set.

A lot of this is semantics really. Mathematicians have argued about this for a long time. For example, are there an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1? The answer should be yes, because 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...1/n means you would never run out of numbers. But is 2/1 between 0 and 1? No, obviously. So how can you add to infinity?

I'm not sure why you are asking if 2 is between 0 and 1, but you can add to infinity. Consider, for example, 0.9999... where the digit 9 repeats forever. This number can be represented with the infinite geometric series 9/10 + 9/100 +9/1000 + .... The terms of this series go on forever, and each term beyond the first term is 1/10 the previous term. The 1/10 is referred to as the "common ratio," and is normally denoted r. If we call the first term a, then the sum of this series S = a/(1 - r) = 9/10/(1-1/10) = 1! We have then added an infinite number of numbers to arrive at a finite sum.

It's like saying there are subsets of infinity within the big set of infinity, and that might actually be a true statement, mathematically speaking.

There are an infinite number of infinite subsets within the set of real numbers. Between any two unequal real numbers, there is an infinite set of real numbers. For example, between 1 and 2 you have 1.1, 1.11, 1.111 and so on. Just add another rightmost 1 digit, and you can do so forever to come up with another number between 1 and 2. The set of real numbers between 1 and 2 is then both a subset of the real numbers and is infinite. Since the set of real numbers is infinite, we can come up with an infinite number of unique pairs of unequal real numbers, each pair representing an infinite subset of the set of real numbers.

If we want to talk specifically about number lines, perhaps the case can be made that 0 is the middle of infinity.

The set of real numbers has no midrange value. To calculate a midrange, you must subtract the least value from the largest value, and then divide that difference by two. Since there is no maximal value and no minimal value in the set of real numbers, there is no "middle" value in that infinite set.

Now, if you want the middle value between two unequal real numbers, then you have it by using the calculation above. So such infinite sets have midranges, but the midrange is only zero if the largest number and the least number have equal absolute values.

But that isn't really a discussion for this site...

I think math is an important issue for discussion here. Many apologists use mathematics to try to prove God, and as I have demonstrated, much of that math is wrong.

I'd recommend studying calculus to better understand infinity.

I've had all the calcs, and DiffEQ as well. I don't think it's as useful in this discussion as some might think. How often do you have an integral from 0 to infinity. Is that infinity or not? Some would say that is not mathematical infinity. That's kind of my overall point here. Infinity doesn't really mean what people think it means, and in terms of discussions at this website I don't think people use the word infinity in a strictly mathematical context. It's just another way for them to say "forever" or "always".

I'll let you have the last word on this if you'd like. Thanks for the discussion.

[Kenisaw]

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

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

Makes no sense...and in a sense, it is nonsense. No sense is being made here. None, whatsoever.

That's fine if you think it makes no sense. Why? What specifically about it is illogical?

[historia]

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

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

Makes no sense...and in a sense, it is nonsense. No sense is being made here. None, whatsoever.

That's fine if you think it makes no sense. Why? What specifically about it is illogical?

I can't speak for Eddie, but it seems to me that your argument here is equivocating a bit on the term 'nothing'.

Saying that two things offset each other is not the same as saying that there is no thing.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I've had all the calcs, and DiffEQ as well. I don't think it's as useful in this discussion as some might think.

One obvious problem with discussing math here is that few people understand it. Some members here are talking as if they do understand math, and they are making errors in it. As an educator I tend to correct people when they make such mistakes.

How often do you have an integral from 0 to infinity.

It depends on what I'm studying. If I'm reviewing improper integrals, then I compute such integrals often. Other people like those who work with probability and statistics need to understand the basic ideas behind improper integrals when they calculate probabilities associated with normal distributions.

Is that infinity or not? Some would say that is not mathematical infinity.

If an improper integral converges to a particular value, then it is not infinite in value. Other improper integrals diverge to infinity and have no finite value.

That's kind of my overall point here. Infinity doesn't really mean what people think it means, and in terms of discussions at this website I don't think people use the word infinity in a strictly mathematical context. It's just another way for them to say "forever" or "always".

Actually, infinity as understood by mathematicians is essentially the same as what the lay person means by infinity. If a line, for example, extends in one or both directions "forever," then its length is infinite.

I'll let you have the last word on this if you'd like. Thanks for the discussion.

If we get back to the OP, the issue of an eternal past was raised. I know of and posted a simple mathematical construct to model linear time. That construct is the number line. I used the number line to explain how the past can, at least logically, extend back forever. Many Christian apologists argue that the past cannot be eternal, and an understanding of the number line proves them wrong. I think a lot of apologists either are ignorant of the math they allude to, or they are deliberately taking advantage of people's ignorance of math to mislead them.

But of course, a guy like me comes along to spoil it for the apologists.