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!!

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 #611

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 9:47 am We are debating whether an actual infinity is possible/impossible in reality. Could the number of real past events in A-theory time be an actual infinite?
Indeed we are debating that. I don't see how that addresses my last question. What's the problem with accepting that infinity IS a quantity as defined, given that we are debating that?
But you’ve got to show that last part makes sense. We can put “square circle” into a sentence that, if one doesn’t know the terms, won’t catch that such a concept is illogical. I need to see that “an amount greater than any specific amount” makes sense. The example of a non-specfic amount that you gave, ‘several’ is non-specific but it’s not greater than any specific amount.
I am still sticking to my original answer: How many integers are there, is a coherent question with a correct answer. The only way to correctly answer a coherent question that demands a quantity (as opposed to another question similar to it) is by giving a quantity. An specific amount is an incorrect answer. That leaves infinity, an amount greater than any specific amount. It's the only way to make sense of this situation. Why doesn't this count as showing it?
If it is the former, then it avoids the critique by redefining the term being discussed. That’s the equivocation fallacy.
The meanings I presented are well defined, different as they might be to the ones you are used to, there is no attempt at confusing the issue with ambiguity here, so there is no fallacy. Not least when I've accommodated your usage with things like "given the premise that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive terms..."
Yes, “in total size” could have a different meaning that works here, but we weren’t talking about that meaning (just like ‘married to my job’).
Weren't we? NASA was, and so was I when I presented its article. Remember I said that it was all a matter of perspective? If you insist that adding more must imply expanding in total size, then fine, infinity + 1 is expanding, but you don't get to accuse me of equivocation when I have a different perspective. Especially when I've been very up front about it being a different perspective, doubly so when said perspective is a very common one used by mathematicians and scientists. I mean, why wouldn't we be adopting the mathematicians' meaning, when we are talking about the amount of integers; why wouldn't we be adopting the scientists' meaning when we are talking about the universe expanding. Are you sure you weren't the one equivocating?
The above response seems to be “because it holds in every finite case.” X is made up of all finite cases. "It holds in all finite cases" is not rational support to make the jump to "it holds in the case of infinity as well".
That's not a thing here. The claims are a) "proposition P holds in all finite cases" b) "you can put these infinitely many cases into a set" leading to the conclusion that "proposition P holds in all members of that set." You do see the difference between "proposition P holds in infinite many, finite cases" and "proposition P holds in the case of infinity," right?
How many peers there are?
Infinitely many.
Premise 4 concerns the truth about members of the set X, right? You can count all series of the type {N, N+1}. You can count {0, 1}. You can also count {5, 6}. And so on.
Close enough. The caveats are, it's not about the set X, that set is empty, it has no members; and technically it's you can count {N, N+1}, count {N+5, N+6} and so on. It's not until later in the main proof that the list is changed to {0, 1} and {5, 6}, where I mentioned M0+.
Premise 5 changes the discussion to the set X (the set containing all series of the type {N,N+1}.

In premise 6, on the basis of 4 and 5, you concluded that you can count set X. What am I misunderstanding, to where this isn’t applying the truth about members of X (in premise 4) to the entire set (premise 5)?
No. I concluded that one can count all members of the M∞, it is applying the truth about finite series to finite series. Go back to the main proof for the jump to "it holds in the case of infinity." The 20 steps defence of "if (M∞ and C1) then B" in particular.
‘Married’ as in ‘married to my job’ is an equivocation of ‘married’ as in non-bachelor. You are escaping the conclusion via an equivocation. Escaping the conclusion via an equivocation is a fallacy. If the only way you can cause the analogy to break down is via an equivocation, then the analogy stands.
That isn't what is happening here. The only way I can cause the analogy to hold true is via an equivocation. Without the equivocation, the analogy fails. I am escaping the conclusion of a false analogy, a very different thing to escaping via equivocation.
If you give an argument that God doesn’t exist and then I come back with but God is “a being than which none greater can be imagined” and your argument didn’t show that, would your argument have failed? Not for that reason, at least. I would either be equivocating on the term (and thus not defeating your actual argument) or I would be presenting a synonym and the exact same argument that succeeded would still have to succeed because we are talking about the same thing.
Right, but where is the analogy in this example?
That’s just restating that it doesn’t contradict, not showing why it doesn’t contradict.
This is why it doesn't contradict, because you can move through all members of an infinite series. I gave you a reason, this isn't just restating that it doesn’t contradict. And if you want to accuse me of just saying that you can move through all members without showing how you can, I gave you a deductive proof.
That’s the problem. You’ve changed what I mean in my critique. That’s an equivocation fallacy. The ‘end’ in “never ends” does not mean finite in length or duration.
I didn't change what you mean though, you've affirmed on multiple occasions that never ends mean keeps going forever, i.e. infinite length or duration, when you told me I was using "end" in a more narrow sense than you are.
It means to “not complete”. It’s not bound to only finite or infinite things, but is a general definition.
Then your word usage is inherently incoherent - on the one hand you say "cannot be completed" is an integral part of infinite series, yet here you say "not complete" is not bound only to finite things. Pick one.

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

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #612

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Goat wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 12:09 am
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 11:52 pm ]

My question wasn't addressed so I'll ask again..

If the universe doesn't exist, where would you place matter? You will place the matter in what space, exactly?
You are asking an 'IF' statement.

The universe has always existed, it merely has changed form now and then.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
The universe could not have always existed, for reasons give prior (OP).

Science/Quantum physics can not reconcile philosophical problems.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #613

Post by Goat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:31 am
Goat wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 12:09 am
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 11:52 pm ]

My question wasn't addressed so I'll ask again..

If the universe doesn't exist, where would you place matter? You will place the matter in what space, exactly?
You are asking an 'IF' statement.

The universe has always existed, it merely has changed form now and then.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
The universe could not have always existed, for reasons give prior (OP).

Science/Quantum physics can not reconcile philosophical problems.
The problem that I see with those assumptions, and that reasoning, that would also apply to any concept of God That makes that argument the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading'. It's not very convincing, nor can it's premise or conclusion be tested.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
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 #614

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmIndeed we are debating that. I don't see how that addresses my last question. What's the problem with accepting that infinity IS a quantity as defined, given that we are debating that?

We are asking the question: “Is infinity a quantity”? You seem to be saying: let’s answer this question by defining infinity as a quantity. That’s begging the very question we are trying to find the answer to. That is like if we are debating whether theism or atheism is true and then I say “What’s the problem with accepting that God is defined as an existing being?”
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmI am still sticking to my original answer: How many integers are there, is a coherent question with a correct answer. The only way to correctly answer a coherent question that demands a quantity (as opposed to another question similar to it) is by giving a quantity. An specific amount is an incorrect answer. That leaves infinity, an amount greater than any specific amount. It's the only way to make sense of this situation. Why doesn't this count as showing it?

Because it’s not the only way to make sense of the situation. You are assuming that this question is coherent. It may very well be incoherent in the sense you are asking it (versus a similar question one could ask about the situation). "What is the longest side of this shape?" is coherent in some contexts but not others. The same thing could be going on here, so we can't just assume the question is coherent in all contexts.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmThe meanings I presented are well defined, different as they might be to the ones you are used to, there is no attempt at confusing the issue with ambiguity here, so there is no fallacy. Not least when I've accommodated your usage with things like "given the premise that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive terms..."

I’m not saying you are intentionally trying to confuse the situation (not sure if you were thinking that). The meanings you presented, being well-defined, are either (1) two different well-defined things, in which case, I’m talking specifically about one of those two concepts but not the other or (2) the same term well-defined in two different phrasings, in which case there is a clear contradiction.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmWeren't we? NASA was, and so was I when I presented its article. Remember I said that it was all a matter of perspective? If you insist that adding more must imply expanding in total size, then fine, infinity + 1 is expanding, but you don't get to accuse me of equivocation when I have a different perspective. Especially when I've been very up front about it being a different perspective, doubly so when said perspective is a very common one used by mathematicians and scientists. I mean, why wouldn't we be adopting the mathematicians' meaning, when we are talking about the amount of integers; why wouldn't we be adopting the scientists' meaning when we are talking about the universe expanding. Are you sure you weren't the one equivocating?

So, I was talking about one concept via a specific term (and I think the article was as well) and your response was to say there is a different concept we can use that same term with that means something different in a non-relevant way to what I was talking about? If so...okay, but how about clarifying your thoughts on the concept I was talking about? Can the universe be expanding (the concept I'm talking about) and an actual infinite? I'm not defining things that way, but analyzing the actual definitions of the terms used.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmThat's not a thing here. The claims are a) "proposition P holds in all finite cases" b) "you can put these infinitely many cases into a set" leading to the conclusion that "proposition P holds in all members of that set." You do see the difference between "proposition P holds in infinite many, finite cases" and "proposition P holds in the case of infinity," right?

If claim (b) is not just another way to phrase claim (a), then you are making an unsupported jump from the truth about individual finite cases to the truth about all of those cases put together into one infinite case.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmNo. I concluded that one can count all members of the M∞, it is applying the truth about finite series to finite series. Go back to the main proof for the jump to "it holds in the case of infinity." The 20 steps defence of "if (M∞ and C1) then B" in particular.

It fails for the same reasons. I see no reason to accept premise 17 and therefore not 19 and therefore not 20.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmThat isn't what is happening here. The only way I can cause the analogy to hold true is via an equivocation. Without the equivocation, the analogy fails. I am escaping the conclusion of a false analogy, a very different thing to escaping via equivocation.

No, the analogy holds true until you bring it in.

Side A ---> Side B

1. Completing the process ---> Married
2. All A-theory types ---> All Chinese people types
2a. Finite A-theory ---> Non-bachelor Chinese people
2b. Infinite A-theory ---> Bachelor Chinese people

We agree that 1 and 2, if given alone, does not produce an obvious contradiction. Then we talked about types within 2. You claimed (Side A) that 2b does not cause a contradiction between 1 and 2 because we already found 1 and 2 don't contradict.

I then made the analogy. If what you argued about Side A is true, then it must also be true on Side B. So, by analogy, a Chinese bachelor could be married. If that is illogical, then 2b COULD also be illogical on Side A.

To avoid this, you’ve proposed equivocating on (1), noting that ‘married’ is a term that can have a different meaning. To do the same for side A, you’ve got to bring in a new concept for the phrase ‘complete the process’. Sure, you can bring in a new concept but, in doing so, you are no longer responding to my initial critique. Whatever you are saying is happening in this new (1), it's not 'completing the process'.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:08 pmThen your word usage is inherently incoherent - on the one hand you say "cannot be completed" is an integral part of infinite series, yet here you say "not complete" is not bound only to finite things. Pick one.
Let me try to clarify what I meant. For simplicity's sake let's say "having whiskers" is part of what it means to be a cat. If you don't think it is, then substitute whatever you think is essential to "cat-ness". What it means to "have whiskers" is not bound only to cats, it's a more general feature than that, it's not exclusive to cats. However, "having whiskers" is integral to what it means to be a cat. That’s what I’m doing here. “Not completing” can apply to many things, but it’s a part of what it means to be infinite/unending.

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 #615

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:10 am We are asking the question: “Is infinity a quantity”?
You might be, I am not. I don't ask that because it is defined as a quantity. Instead I am asking "is an actual infinity possible?"
You seem to be saying: let’s answer this question by defining infinity as a quantity. That’s begging the very question we are trying to find the answer to. That is like if we are debating whether theism or atheism is true and then I say “What’s the problem with accepting that God is defined as an existing being?”
No, it's more like if we are debating the Cosmological argument and then I say "why should God be defined as a necessary being?"
Because it’s not the only way to make sense of the situation. You are assuming that this question is coherent...
Yes I am, I am starting with the presumption that it is a coherent question, the cost of discarding that presumption is too great. Here you say "not the only way to make sense of the situation" that sounds like you are affirming that my way is one way of making sense of the situation.
I’m not saying you are intentionally trying to confuse the situation (not sure if you were thinking that)...
Yes, I understood that, I should have said "I explicitly avoided confusing the issue with ambiguity, so there is no fallacy," rather than "no attempt at confusing the issue with ambiguity, so there is no fallacy."
So, I was talking about one concept via a specific term (and I think the article was as well) and your response was to say there is a different concept we can use that same term with that means something different in a non-relevant way to what I was talking about? If so...okay, but how about clarifying your thoughts on the concept I was talking about? Can the universe be expanding (the concept I'm talking about) and an actual infinite?
I gave you my answer already: given the premise that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive terms, AKA the clear contradiction you are referring to, the universe is infinite and not expanding.
If claim (b) is not just another way to phrase claim (a), then you are making an unsupported jump from the truth about individual finite cases to the truth about all of those cases put together into one infinite case.
Right, that's what I meant by "not a thing here." Claim (b) is just another way to phrase claim (a), there is no jump from a truth about individual finite cases to a truth about one infinite case.
I see no reason to accept premise 17...
I gave you a reason to accept premise 17: Elements are either countable or uncountable, where countable mean you can count from the element to another, (as opposed to above, where the element is itself a countable series.) By removing all the uncountable element from a list, you are left with only with the countable elements. In other words, you can count from all the elements to another element. That is to say, it is possible to count through all elements, or move through all elements, if you will. You didn't give me a response the first time I presented the support for premise 17.
No, the analogy holds true until you bring it in.

Side A ---> Side B

1. Completing the process ---> Married
2. All A-theory types ---> All Chinese people types
2a. Finite A-theory ---> Non-bachelor Chinese people
2b. Infinite A-theory ---> Bachelor Chinese people

I then made the analogy. If what you argued about Side A is true, then it must also be true on Side B.
That's true if and only if the analogy is valid. For an analogy to be valid, it must be the cause that if what I argued about Side A is true, then it must also be true on Side B.

So is it the case that if "infinite A-theory" is compatible with "completing the process," then "bachelor Chinese people" is also compatible with "married?" If the answer is yes, then the analogy is valid; if the answer is no, then the analogy is a false analogy. "Infinite A-theory" is compatible with "completing the process but "bachelor Chinese people" is not compatible with "married" as you originally intended, so no - your analogy is a false one. On the other hand, "bachelor Chinese people" is compatible with "married to his job," so yes - I have fixed the analogy.
Let me try to clarify what I meant. For simplicity's sake let's say "having whiskers" is part of what it means to be a cat. If you don't think it is, then substitute whatever you think is essential to "cat-ness". What it means to "have whiskers" is not bound only to cats, it's a more general feature than that, it's not exclusive to cats. However, "having whiskers" is integral to what it means to be a cat. That’s what I’m doing here. “Not completing” can apply to many things, but it’s a part of what it means to be infinite/unending.
Then you need to abandon the claim that "not completing" means "unable to move through all the elements," because "unable to move through all the elements" isn't part of what it means to be infinite/unending.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
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 #616

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmYou might be, I am not. I don't ask that because it is defined as a quantity. Instead I am asking "is an actual infinity possible?"

Then you are doing the same thing Anselm did with God’s existence in the ontological argument. I don’t accept the ontological argument as valid, nor yours for similar reasons. I’ve shared why I think an actual infinity existing in real life is not reasonable.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmYes I am, I am starting with the presumption that it is a coherent question, the cost of discarding that presumption is too great.

How is the cost too great?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmHere you say "not the only way to make sense of the situation" that sounds like you are affirming that my way is one way of making sense of the situation.

Why not “that isn’t the only option, this is the only option”?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmI gave you my answer already: given the premise that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive terms, AKA the clear contradiction you are referring to, the universe is infinite and not expanding.

I’m asking if you agree that they are mutually exclusive terms via proper definitions. I'm not trying to define something in order to get a certain answer to the question.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmRight, that's what I meant by "not a thing here." Claim (b) is just another way to phrase claim (a), there is no jump from a truth about individual finite cases to a truth about one infinite case.

In order to say they are the same claim, you are assuming that finite and infinite series act in identical ways. I’m asking for the justification for believing that.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmI gave you a reason to accept premise 17: Elements are either countable or uncountable, where countable mean you can count from the element to another, (as opposed to above, where the element is itself a countable series.) By removing all the uncountable element from a list, you are left with only with the countable elements. In other words, you can count from all the elements to another element. That is to say, it is possible to count through all elements, or move through all elements, if you will. You didn't give me a response the first time I presented the support for premise 17.

What your previous premises explore are whether elements (within a series with a beginning and ending) are countable or uncountable. But then you want to go on and take out the “within a series with a beginning and ending” without any rational support given for doing so. All you’ve shown is that it is possible to count through all elements, or move through all elements, within a series with a beginning and ending.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmThat's true if and only if the analogy is valid. For an analogy to be valid, it must be the cause that if what I argued about Side A is true, then it must also be true on Side B.

So is it the case that if "infinite A-theory" is compatible with "completing the process," then "bachelor Chinese people" is also compatible with "married?" If the answer is yes, then the analogy is valid; if the answer is no, then the analogy is a false analogy. "Infinite A-theory" is compatible with "completing the process but "bachelor Chinese people" is not compatible with "married" as you originally intended, so no - your analogy is a false one. On the other hand, "bachelor Chinese people" is compatible with "married to his job," so yes - I have fixed the analogy.

No, you haven’t. I’ll try to explain it again in a slightly different way.

1. “Complete a process”
2. A-theory past

You said there is no logical contradiction between these two.

When we broke down the types of A-theory pasts into different categories (finite and infinite) you said that because of there being no contradiction between 1 and 2 considered by themselves there can be no contradiction between 1 and the different categories within 2.

If that principle is true, then it would hold for other things just the same. So, I bring in the analogy to test that principle. That principle only considers the two elements.

1’. “Married”
2’. Chinese people

There is no logical contradiction between being married and being Chinese. Thus, it is a valid analogy and no need to equivocate on ‘married’ via being a workaholic.

So, let’s break down the types of Chinese people into different categories, just like we did with A-theory pasts. One such categorization within 2’ is bachelor and non-bachelor. Your principle is that if there is no contradiction between 1’ and 2’, then there can’t be a contradiction between 1’ and categories within 2’. If that principle were true, then there would be no contradiction between being 1’ (married) and 2b’ (Chinese bachelor).

But there is a clear contradiction. Therefore, your principle is false and cannot be used to support there being no logical contradiction between “completing a process” and all types of A-theory pasts.

Sure, you can change the analogy to another example that doesn’t show a contradiction in the original principle you used, but now we have two analogies, one that seems to support your principle and one that definitely negates it. The logical conclusion? That your principle is not a valid judge of truth nor is its opposite. We get seeming support and contradiction because we don’t have enough information. We've got to get more specific to find truth on the matter.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:26 pmThen you need to abandon the claim that "not completing" means "unable to move through all the elements," because "unable to move through all the elements" isn't part of what it means to be infinite/unending.

Why isn’t it?

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 #617

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:22 am Then you are doing the same thing Anselm did with God’s existence in the ontological argument. I don’t accept the ontological argument as valid, nor yours for similar reasons.
The problem with the ontological argument isn't with its definition of God though, and by "as valid" did you meant unsound or actually not logically valid?
I’ve shared why I think an actual infinity existing in real life is not reasonable.
There doesn't seem to be anything new since February.
How is the cost too great?
Because it's counter-intuitive to not be able to talk about the quantity of integers or stars in an infinite universe; not to mention having to discard set theory.
Why not “that isn’t the only option, this is the only option”?
I wouldn't have came to that interpretation because I would phrase that as "that isn't an option, this is the only option."
I’m asking if you agree that they are mutually exclusive terms via proper definitions. I'm not trying to define something in order to get a certain answer to the question.
What is the proper definitions though? According to scientific definitions, the universe is infinite and expanding. According to mathematic definitions, adding to infinity still leaves you with infinity. Aren't those proper enough for you? Suffice to say that any contradiction one can generate from these claims are semantical/linguistic only, there is no conceptual contradiction with an infinite universe that expands - the gap between any two points are expanding, or with the sizes of sets not changing when elements are added - adding elements does not break the 1:1 mapping to natural numbers.
In order to say they are the same claim, you are assuming that finite and infinite series act in identical ways.
No, I am not. I said they are the same claim, because both are claims about finite series; so there is no need for a truth about finite series to carry over to infinite series. I am just talking about finite series here. I am assuming that finite series act the same way regardless of how many of them there are. I said all these before, and you asked me how many are there, remember?
What your previous premises explore are whether elements (within a series with a beginning and ending) are countable or uncountable. But then you want to go on and take out the “within a series with a beginning and ending” without any rational support given for doing so.
Where are you getting that from? I am not taking out the "within a series with a beginning and ending" qualifier from anything. I stated that countable here (not just in previous premises) mean you can count from the element to another, that's the beginning (the element) and the end (another) right there.
No, you haven’t. I’ll try to explain it again in a slightly different way.

1. “Complete a process”
2. A-theory past

You said there is no logical contradiction between these two.

When we broke down the types of A-theory pasts into different categories (finite and infinite) you said that because of there being no contradiction between 1 and 2 considered by themselves there can be no contradiction between 1 and the different categories within 2...
No, that's not it. I said that there is no contradiction between 1 and 2 because there is no contradiction between 1 and either of the categories within 2. As I keep telling you, "complete a process" meaning "moving through all members" is compatible with both finite and infinite series. I was pretty much talking exclusively about "complete a process" being compatible with infinite series when "moving through all members" was first brought up. That was well before it got combined with finite ones into just series without a quantifier, if I remembered correctly.
Why isn’t it?
As above, because moving through all members is compatible with both finite and infinite series.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
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 #618

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:58 pmThe problem with the ontological argument isn't with its definition of God though, and by "as valid" did you meant unsound or actually not logically valid?

The definition is the whole basis of the argument. Yes, I did use valid loosely there.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:58 pmBecause it's counter-intuitive to not be able to talk about the quantity of integers or stars in an infinite universe; not to mention having to discard set theory.

Being ‘endless’ and our intuitive sense of ‘quantity’ are different kinds of things, so it seems counter-intuitive to think these two things would go together.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:58 pmI wouldn't have came to that interpretation because I would phrase that as "that isn't an option, this is the only option."

Okay, but people phrase all kinds of things differently from each other, so why assume everyone uses your phrasing?
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:58 pmWhat is the proper definitions though? According to scientific definitions, the universe is infinite and expanding. According to mathematic definitions, adding to infinity still leaves you with infinity. Aren't those proper enough for you? Suffice to say that any contradiction one can generate from these claims are semantical/linguistic only, there is no conceptual contradiction with an infinite universe that expands - the gap between any two points are expanding, or with the sizes of sets not changing when elements are added - adding elements does not break the 1:1 mapping to natural numbers.

First off, science doesn’t define the universe as infinite, although some scientists believe it is.

Secondly, either those are the same sense of ‘expanding’ or different senses. If they are the same senses, then the scientist is saying the infinite universe is getting bigger and the mathematician is saying that the new infinity is bigger than the previous infinity. If they are different senses, then I’m only talking about the scientists’ sense. Bringing in the equivocation of size being 1:1 mapping is irrelevant.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:58 pmNo, I am not. I said they are the same claim, because both are claims about finite series; so there is no need for a truth about finite series to carry over to infinite series. I am just talking about finite series here. I am assuming that finite series act the same way regardless of how many of them there are. I said all these before, and you asked me how many are there, remember?

How is {0, …} a finite series?
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:58 pmWhere are you getting that from? I am not taking out the "within a series with a beginning and ending" qualifier from anything. I stated that countable here (not just in previous premises) mean you can count from the element to another, that's the beginning (the element) and the end (another) right there.

The series that you are working towards saying something about is {0, …}. That is a series without an ending.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:58 pmNo, that's not it. I said that there is no contradiction between 1 and 2 because there is no contradiction between 1 and either of the categories within 2. As I keep telling you, "complete a process" meaning "moving through all members" is compatible with both finite and infinite series. I was pretty much talking exclusively about "complete a process" being compatible with infinite series when "moving through all members" was first brought up. That was well before it got combined with finite ones into just series without a quantifier, if I remembered correctly.

You say they are compatible, but aren’t showing they are. Sure, when looking at the words “move through all members” there is no linguistic contradiction with an “infinite series”. But then:

(1) “move through all members” is equivalent to “complete a process”.
(2) “infinite” is equivalent to “endless”
(3) “infinite series” is equivalent to “endless series”
(4) “infinite series” is equivalent to “infinite process”
(5) “complete” is equivalent to “end” and “finish”
(6) “endless” is equivalent to “not complete” and “not finish”

If all of those are true, then there is a contradiction between “move through all members” and “complete an infinite process”. Which do you disagree with above?

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 #619

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 1:05 pm The definition is the whole basis of the argument. Yes, I did use valid loosely there.
The definition is an important part of the ontological argument, but not the whole of it, another important part is the premise that the MGB is possible.
Being ‘endless’ and our intuitive sense of ‘quantity’ are different kinds of things, so it seems counter-intuitive to think these two things would go together.
Whose intuitive sense though? It's intuitive enough to be common enough to make its way into dictionaries re: "infinity - an infinite or very great number or amount."
Okay, but people phrase all kinds of things differently from each other, so why assume everyone uses your phrasing?
I assume that because it's the norm.
First off, science doesn’t define the universe as infinite, although some scientists believe it is.
That's fine, according to scientific definitions, the universe is infinite and expanding does not mean it is defined to be infinite and expanding, just that the universe fits the definition of infinite and the definition of expanding.
Secondly, either those are the same sense of ‘expanding’ or different senses. If they are the same senses, then the scientist is saying the infinite universe is getting bigger and the mathematician is saying that the new infinity is bigger than the previous infinity. If they are different senses, then I’m only talking about the scientists’ sense. Bringing in the equivocation of size being 1:1 mapping is irrelevant.
I've already addressed that, I said it's just a matter of perspective, of which point of view you prefer, infinity can get bigger if you want to use the scientists' sense.
How is {0, …} a finite series?
It's not. I repeat: both are claims about finite series; so there is no need for a truth about finite series to carry over to infinite series. {0, …} is not a finite series; the truth in question, the claim I made about finite series, does not carry over to infinite series such as {0, ...}, is that clear enough?
The series that you are working towards saying something about is {0, …}. That is a series without an ending.
Correct, I am not taking "with a beginning and ending" qualifier from {0, ...}, because as a series without an ending, it never had a "with a beginning and ending" qualifier in the first place.
You say they are compatible, but aren’t showing they are. Sure, when looking at the words “move through all members” there is no linguistic contradiction with an “infinite series”. But then:

(1) “move through all members” is equivalent to “complete a process”.
(2) “infinite” is equivalent to “endless”
(3) “infinite series” is equivalent to “endless series”
(4) “infinite series” is equivalent to “infinite process”
(5) “complete” is equivalent to “end” and “finish”
(6) “endless” is equivalent to “not complete” and “not finish”

If all of those are true, then there is a contradiction between “move through all members” and “complete an infinite process”. Which do you disagree with above?
None of them in isolation. 5 and 6 if one insists that the equivalency here is transitive between clauses. That is to say, that is an equivocation fallacy if presented as an argument.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
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 #620

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:05 amWhose intuitive sense though? It's intuitive enough to be common enough to make its way into dictionaries re: "infinity - an infinite or very great number or amount."

How is that definition considering ‘infinity’ as “endless”? “Very great” is a different concept than “endless”.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:05 amThat's fine, according to scientific definitions, the universe is infinite and expanding does not mean it is defined to be infinite and expanding, just that the universe fits the definition of infinite and the definition of expanding.

Not with the concepts I’ve been attaching to those terms. It would be logically impossible for an object to fit ‘infinite’ and ‘expanding’ concerning the concepts I’ve attached to those terms. Yes, people could attach different concepts to those terms, but that’s irrelevant. I’m attaching specific concepts to those terms and asking you questions about those concepts because those are the concepts that deal with the issue that we are discussing.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:05 amI've already addressed that, I said it's just a matter of perspective, of which point of view you prefer, infinity can get bigger if you want to use the scientists' sense.

In other words, you are talking about a concept (through equivocating on the term) that is completely irrelevant to the issue we were discussing.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:05 amIt's not. I repeat: both are claims about finite series; so there is no need for a truth about finite series to carry over to infinite series. {0, …} is not a finite series; the truth in question, the claim I made about finite series, does not carry over to infinite series such as {0, ...}, is that clear enough?

Then how is this relevant to our discussion, which involves an infinite series?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:05 am
You say they are compatible, but aren’t showing they are. Sure, when looking at the words “move through all members” there is no linguistic contradiction with an “infinite series”. But then:

(1) “move through all members” is equivalent to “complete a process”.
(2) “infinite” is equivalent to “endless”
(3) “infinite series” is equivalent to “endless series”
(4) “infinite series” is equivalent to “infinite process”
(5) “complete” is equivalent to “end” and “finish”
(6) “endless” is equivalent to “not complete” and “not finish”

If all of those are true, then there is a contradiction between “move through all members” and “complete an infinite process”. Which do you disagree with above?

None of them in isolation. 5 and 6 if one insists that the equivalency here is transitive between clauses. That is to say, that is an equivocation fallacy if presented as an argument.

No, it’s not an equivocation. It’s different terms that all refer to the same concept. An equivocation is using the same term to refer to different concepts.

Post Reply