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]

I went back and looked at this thread a bit in order to respond to it. My idea of infinite regression is that one could always ask (and there would be an answer, whether or not we can actually obtain it), "Well, what happened before that?"

Ehhh. Not possible, amigo.

If infinite regression is true, one could never write that history book because there are an infinity of things that happened before. There is infinite information, unless, before a certain point, everything was still and nothing happened, or unless the universe goes in loops.

"Unless, before a certain point, everything was still and nothing happened".

*wipes tears from eyes*

You are beginning to get it.



Bravo to you sir. I would expand on it, but just like this woman told me on our date last weekend..

"It is important that we take things..slow".

It seems fantastical which is why I tentatively agree infinite regression is probably impossible. I don't think it proves God because if we use God to solve infinite regression, we've just passed the buck on the problem and we now have to ask what God did before he made the universe, and then what he did before that, and before that. It's a head-scratcher either way.

You are correct...and as I keep stressing, God himself is subjected to the problem. So the question becomes; how could God have "done it", without a (the) problem?

Which goes back to..

"Unless, before a certain point, everything was still and nothing happened".

Focus on that statement, and you will see the light.

[TRANSPONDER]

Rather, we see the infinite regression problem. Where did the everything come from. If it was still and nothing happened, why did something suddenly happen? I would guess that you will simply say 'God' which is not an answer but an escape from the question.

But surely the answer to the problem is that nothing was still and nothing happened but it was always happenning and always will. That's why I suggest that universes are being created all the time and decaying back into the stuff of which universes are made. And also that the stuff itself is no near nothing as makes no difference that it doesn't need to come from anywhere.

Now this is pure hypothesis abut as an alternative to waving a magic wand it puts a god (which has either no origin or explanation) out of the picture; you simply don't need one to explain the universe.

[Purple Knight]

If infinite regression is true, one could never write that history book because there are an infinity of things that happened before. There is infinite information...

If you are allowing the possibility of infinite regression, why are you not also allowing the possibility of infinite history books with infinite information?

Perhaps I'm trying to express something by analogy that isn't working too well. Infinity, I have always thought, was a mathematical concept. To find infinity in reality would be perplexing. That doesn't mean you can't, it just means it would be perplexing.

Infinite space is easily imaginable if it is empty. If it's not empty, then it becomes perplexing. It's like having infinite chickens. It breaks the laws of finiteness that are part of the reality we operate on every day. With infinite chickens you could kill any particular chicken and still have that chicken, for in infinity, there still must be that one again, eventually. Those laws may be wrong, and I admit that the open system infinity brings would solve some problems, but I think I'm justified in tentatively assuming the laws we operate on every day are true until I observe them being broken.

I went back and looked at this thread a bit in order to respond to it. My idea of infinite regression is that one could always ask (and there would be an answer, whether or not we can actually obtain it), "Well, what happened before that?"

Ehhh. Not possible, amigo.

I would tentatively agree. It seems so extraordinary, so worldbreaking, for infinite regression to be true.

I still don't think God solves the problem. If God (or even energy from another universe) came into the cold, still universe where nothing happened and made things happen, now we have a universe that makes more everyday sense in that things have causes, but we have passed the buck and we still have infinite regression with God. "Well, what did he do before that?"

If you're going to say God is supernatural and we can't answer, we might as well say the universe is supernatural and we can't answer. Being supernatural doesn't require a being to be sentient.

You are correct...and as I keep stressing, God himself is subjected to the problem. So the question becomes; how could God have "done it", without a (the) problem?

Which goes back to..

"Unless, before a certain point, everything was still and nothing happened".

In which case, God himself would have also had to have come into existence that moment, or at least, at some moment, or to be extra-universal, to avoid the problem. But still, we have passed the buck, because what caused God? If it's supernatural and we can't answer, again, the easier way to solve the problem is to say the universe is supernatural and we can't answer. We don't need God.

[The Tanager]

What exactly do you think my additional positive claim is? I don't think I've claimed anything that you haven't explicitly affirmed. I said infinity is a quantity, you've affirmed as such; I said quantity is listed as a synonym to value, you've affirmed that right here; I said infinity is not like the number 5, you've affirmed that they are indeed different.

It all depends on which definitions you have in mind with those words. I think infinity is a quantity in the sense that it tells us something about the quantity present. Infinity is an idea about the quantity being unlimited, but not a quantity itself in a stricter sense of, say, a definition like “the amount or number of a material or immaterial thing not usually estimated by spatial measurement,” which I think is the sense we are talking about here. Since value is a synonym, that would mean I don’t view infinity as a value but rather as an idea about the value of some set.

It's not semantics, it's the very concept itself: why I have been trying to write a single number for my whole existence without writing anything down, and not I have been trying and succeeding for my whole existence in writing numbers down? What's so difficult about the rule that makes it impossible to follow?

The concept of the rule itself. Here is another stab at it. There are two steps to this process. There is (1) a pre-writing cognitive step to take and then (2) writing a number down. You must finish the first before doing the second. The first step will look like “I can write the number 3 as soon as I write the number 4, which I can write as soon as I write the number 5, which I can write as soon as I write the number 6, ...” and so on. [And any number could take the place of the '3' in this example.]

When will you reach the end of that pre-cognitive step? You logically can’t, even if you have an eternity to do so. How can you reach the end of something without an end? It is logically impossible. Your whole eternal existence will have stayed and continue staying at step 1.

[The Tanager]

It seems fantastical which is why I tentatively agree infinite regression is probably impossible. I don't think it proves God because if we use God to solve infinite regression, we've just passed the buck on the problem and we now have to ask what God did before he made the universe, and then what he did before that, and before that. It's a head-scratcher either way.

Whether it is God or something else, the argument is that you reach a point where there is nothing before that point. If there is no before, then it makes no sense to ask “what he did before that, and before that.” There is no before. And that's different than saying there was a state of nothingness before that. God/something else existed timelessly and brought temporal reality into existence.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems fantastical which is why I tentatively agree infinite regression is probably impossible. I don't think it proves God because if we use God to solve infinite regression, we've just passed the buck on the problem and we now have to ask what God did before he made the universe, and then what he did before that, and before that. It's a head-scratcher either way.

Whether it is God or something else, the argument is that you reach a point where there is nothing before that point. If there is no before, then it makes no sense to ask “what he did before that, and before that.” There is no before. And that's different than saying there was a state of nothingness before that. God/something else existed timelessly and brought temporal reality into existence.

I have always said this is theism's strongest argument. Cosmic Origins is the last really good gap for God. There are only two possibilities that I can see (other than an infinite time loop that is even more counter -intuitive than infinite regression) and that is that originally there was an uncreated near nothing that had the 'potential' to act as though it was Something, or a cosmic mind with the power to plan and create (with no material, mind you) but which had no origin of its' own and that is less plausible, I'd argue than an uncreated nothing that could become Something and experiments showing that Nothing (vacuum) contains energy tend to support that.

However, I repeat that Cosmic Origins is the best (perhaps that Last) gap for a god ...because it is a cosmic mind that creates. You are still left with showing which god it is.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In which case, God himself would have also had to have come into existence that moment, or at least, at some moment, or to be extra-universal, to avoid the problem.

He wouldn't though.

You keep asserting these variations of "the same thing applies to God" as if..

1. It is that simple

2. We (apologists) aren't aware of the same problem applying to God and you are giving us this big revelation of some unthought-of concept.

Its like, bro...we already have it covered...we are aware of the fact that it applies to God, and we have something for it.

Geez.

But still, we have passed the buck, because what caused God? If it's supernatural and we can't answer, again, the easier way to solve the problem is to say the universe is supernatural and we can't answer. We don't need God.

Getting past the fact that you are completely WRONG in your assessment here...why would a supernatural universe be the easier way to solve the problem than the God hypothesis??

Ohhh, I get it; because a supernatural universe comes with no moral accountability, that's why.

A supernatural universe doesn't tell you who you can/can't sleep with...but a God just might...thus, making a supernatural universe not easier to solve the problem...but easier to accept, in general.

That is what this is really all about.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Rather, we see the infinite regression problem. Where did the everything come from. If it was still and nothing happened, why did something suddenly happen? I would guess that you will simply say 'God' which is not an answer but an escape from the question.

Um, I already provided an explanation as to why it suddenly happened. The answer is; it happened because God wanted it to happen, when he wanted it to happen.

It is not an escape from the question, it is the only logical answer to the question.

But surely the answer to the problem is that nothing was still and nothing happened but it was always happenning and always will. That's why I suggest that universes are being created all the time and decaying back into the stuff of which universes are made. And also that the stuff itself is no near nothing as makes no difference that it doesn't need to come from anywhere.

Anything but the "G" word, I guess, which still doesn't avert the problem of infinite regress.

Now this is pure hypothesis abut as an alternative to waving a magic wand it puts a god (which has either no origin or explanation) out of the picture; you simply don't need one to explain the universe.

Again, anything but the "G" word. You just said it, any explanation which puts god out of the picture, lets roll with it.

This isn't about proof or evidences, this is about doing everything in ones power to ensure that God is NOT the answer...the idea of God is entertained for the sole purpose of arguing against his existence.

SMH.

[Bust Nak]

It all depends on which definitions you have in mind with those words. I think infinity is a quantity in the sense that it tells us something about the quantity present. Infinity is an idea about the quantity being unlimited, but not a quantity itself in a stricter sense of, say, a definition like “the amount or number of a material or immaterial thing not usually estimated by spatial measurement,” which I think is the sense we are talking about here. Since value is a synonym, that would mean I don’t view infinity as a value but rather as an idea about the value of some set.

You know, that sounded a lot like "infinity is a quantity but not like the number 5 is a quantity." You put in a lot of effort arguing this just so to avoid saying things like there are infinite amount of stars in an infinite universe.

The concept of the rule itself. Here is another stab at it. There are two steps to this process. There is (1) a pre-writing cognitive step to take and then (2) writing a number down. You must finish the first before doing the second. The first step will look like “I can write the number 3 as soon as I write the number 4, which I can write as soon as I write the number 5, which I can write as soon as I write the number 6, ...” and so on. [And any number could take the place of the '3' in this example.]

When will you reach the end of that pre-cognitive step? You logically can’t, even if you have an eternity to do so. How can you reach the end of something without an end? It is logically impossible.

So far so good, but why would that imply my "whole eternal existence would have stayed and continue staying at step 1," rather than always writing a number down and in doing that completing step 1 for the next number and so on.

[Bust Nak]

Perhaps I'm trying to express something by analogy that isn't working too well. Infinity, I have always thought, was a mathematical concept. To find infinity in reality would be perplexing. That doesn't mean you can't, it just means it would be perplexing.

If you accept that as possible if perplexing, aren't you contradicting yourself when you grant We_Are_VENOM that infinite regression is impossible, even tentatively?

Infinite space is easily imaginable if it is empty. If it's not empty, then it becomes perplexing. It's like having infinite chickens. It breaks the laws of finiteness that are part of the reality we operate on every day. With infinite chickens you could kill any particular chicken and still have that chicken, for in infinity, there still must be that one again, eventually.

Why that chicken and not another chicken exactly like it in every way?