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.

[Paul of Tarsus]

That set is properly referred to as the "non-positive real numbers". It includes any real number that's not positive.

What's wrong with sticking to integers?

Integers are fine depending on what you're doing. You should specify which set of numbers you are referring to. On post 95 you mentioned "the set of negative numbers." That's not specific enough because several different sets of numbers have elements that are all less than zero.

You'll need to explain what you mean by "last element." As far as I know mathematicians have no formal definition of a last element in a set.

That sounded quite a lot like you accept that there is a last element in an infinite set under some definition of last? Use the typical English one: coming after all others in order, where order is determined with "greater than."

To order numbers that way the set generally needs to be finite if it's a set of real numbers. The non-positive integers are a possible exception and can be ordered that way if we assume there is no element we start out with. The "last" element in the order would be 0 which is more properly understood as the non-positive integer with the largest value.

So I hope you can see the problems with referring to a "last" element in a set. If a finite set of integers was ordered from greatest to least, then the last element listed would be the element with the least value rather than the greatest value. Since the last element listed depends on the direction of the ordered list, the term "last" is ambiguous. And if there's one thing mathematicians hate, it is ambiguity.

While I'm waiting for your explanation, it appears to me that you are referring to the non-positive integers which is the union of the sets of negative integers and zero. By "last element" you probably mean the element of greatest value in the set of non-positive integers which is zero...

Yep, was that not obvious? Either way. is that good enough to qualify as "last?"

No, it wasn't obvious enough. In mathematics it's best to never assume that the person you're communicating with can guess what you're referring to. You should specify the sets of numbers you're referring to and what you mean by the terms you are using if those terms do not have commonly understood definitions in mathematics.

[Bust Nak]

You should specify which set of numbers you are referring to.

Well, we were talking about counting, that sounded like natural number to me, throw in negative, you can see why I included zero.

The non-positive integers are a possible exception and can be ordered that way if we assume there is no element we start out with. The "last" element in the order would be 0 which is more properly understood as the non-positive integer with the largest value.

Great, so if you accept that an infinite set can have a "last" element, then what's stopping one from counting all of them, bearing in mind your objection was that I couldn't count the "last" one?

[Paul of Tarsus]

Great, so if you accept that an infinite set can have a "last" element, then what's stopping one from counting all of them, bearing in mind your objection was that I couldn't count the "last" one?

To try to count the non-negative integers start at zero, and then go back through the negative integers: -1, -2, -3.... You spend a long time doing so and arrive at a negative number with a huge absolute value. Let's call that number -N. As much time and work as you've invested, you see there's still more non-negative integers to count. The next number to count is -N - 1. Well, guess what: no matter how big the absolute value of -N is, there will always be a -N - 1 to count, and a -N - 2, and a -N - 3, and...I hope you get the picture now.

[Bust Nak]

To try to count the non-negative integers start at zero, and then go back through the negative integers: -1, -2, -3....

Not what I asked you. The premise was, having always been counting, without ever starting to count, then ending at zero. i.e. ...-3.-2,-1,0. What's stopping me from doing that?

[Paul of Tarsus]

To try to count the non-negative integers start at zero, and then go back through the negative integers: -1, -2, -3....

Not what I asked you.

You asked me what prevents you from counting all the elements of an infinite set, and I answered that question using the non-negative integers as an example of an infinite set whose elements cannot all be counted even though it has an element of greatest value, zero.

The premise was, having always been counting, without ever starting counting, then ending at zero. i.e. ...-3.-2,-1,0. What's stopping me from doing that?

You cannot count always if you never started counting! I think you mean that if a set has no element of lowest value, then what prevents you from counting the set in ascending order of elements to the highest-valued element. Such a set cannot be counted in ascending order because there is no number at which you can start counting.

All of this is basic math we all should have learned in high school in an algebra I class.

[Bust Nak]

You asked me what prevents you from counting all the elements of an infinite set, and I answered that question using the non-negative integers as an example of an infinite set whose elements cannot all be counted even though it has an element of greatest value, zero.

But that was just example of an infinite set whose elements cannot all be counted in one particular way (i.e. started but never ending.) To answer my question you needed an example where elements cannot all be counted in any way (including never started and ending.)

You cannot count always if you never started counting!

And why do you think believe that one cannot count always if you never started counting?

Such a set cannot be counted in ascending order because there is no number at which you can start counting.

Or I can ask the above question in another way, why do you think one must have started counting at a particular, in order to be counting?

If you were taught that in high school in an algebra I class, then you should have no problem explaining it in terms of basic math, right?

[Paul of Tarsus]

You asked me what prevents you from counting all the elements of an infinite set, and I answered that question using the non-negative integers as an example of an infinite set whose elements cannot all be counted even though it has an element of greatest value, zero.

But that was just example of an infinite set whose elements cannot all be counted in one particular way (i.e. started but never ending.) To answer my question you needed an example where elements cannot all be counted in any way (including never started and ending.)

Any infinite set's elements cannot all be counted in any way. No matter how many you count, there will always be more elements to count.

You cannot count always if you never started counting!

And why do you think believe that one cannot count always if you never started counting?

You said so in post 104:

The premise was, having always been counting, without ever starting to count...

Such a set cannot be counted in ascending order because there is no number at which you can start counting.

Or I can ask the above question in another way, why do you think one must have started counting at a particular, in order to be counting?

You can start counting at any element in an infinite set. It doesn't matter. You'll never finish counting.

If you were taught that in high school in an algebra I class, then you should have no problem explaining it in terms of basic math, right?

Not completely right. In any communication, both the receiver and the sender must do their jobs.

[Kenisaw]

No, for the reasons that have already been outlined in earlier posts.

The fact that you implied "if the universe can't be infinite, then neither can God", only implies that you don't know the difference...which is why I explained what I explained./quote]

Venom, I did not imply that. There was no "if, then" statement in my posts. I stated that anything being around for infinity is illogical. That includes both universes and gods. And let's not pretend that your statement in the OP "2. A being of whom has existed for eternity and can never cease existing" isn't a statement on infinity. Obviously it is. Somewhere else you said the god creature was boundless, or without bounds, or something to that effect. A beginning or an end is a bound, so, again, it is obvious you are speaking of an infinite being here. That is an illogical thing.

A god cannot be all knowing, all powerful, all good, all whatever. There is no infinite to any proposed MGB. It is a contradiction, a supernatural square circle.

I've already addressed those points, next.

You thought you did. As pointed out previously, and mentioned again here for those that didn't read it, there is no possible way for any being to have infinite knowledge (omniscient). Without infinite knowledge it is not possible for any other all-whatever ability to exist either. This logic is simple, straightforward, and indefeatable.

Did the universe appear as an effect of a cause? Dunno. Did the universe appear uncaused? Dunno. Does there need to be a cause for a universe to appear? Dunno.

Your ignorance on the matter does nothing to negate my knowledge of the matter.

My ignorance on the matter is the only accurate statement about it. You have no ability to discern what is and isn't true about where, when, or how this universe came to be. That information does not currently exist. And let's be clear in case anyone think otherwise, this is not a question of anyone's intelligence or ability to think rationally in this thread. Humanity doesn't know the answers to these questions, period. We are all in the dark about everything previous to the Big Bang.

Dunno. I can't intelligently answer that question because I don't know how the universe started.

You don't have to know how it started to understand that it started.

I agree, but I also cannot state with 100% certainly that it was a caused event, which was my point. I do not know, and humanity does not know, what the rules were or still are regarding the beginning of this or any other universe (should other universes exist). To say that anything with a beginning has a cause is making an assumption about what happened before the Big Bang/Creation. It makes assumptions about the rules, about the conditions, and about the requirements needed (if any were needed) for this universe to begin. Cause and effect definitely exists in this universe. We can't say the same outside of this universe because we don't have that knowledge.

If you look at the question from the point of view of our current universe (which is a cause and effect universe) then that statement makes sense. If you look at it in terms of the mathematics done so far on the question of the start of the universe, the answer would be that the statement does not make sense.

Either the universe had a beginning, or it didn't. No gray area. Flip flopping aside.

Again, agreed, but my last statement above this still applies here. It's not the beginning I disagree with, it is whether or not it can be considered "caused". Mathematically, the universe is still zero.

The start of the universe happened before the universe, and we have no idea what the rules were or weren't at that moment. The only honest answer is that I don't know if that premise is true or not.

The argument against infinite regression is independent of these magical "rules" that you are referring too. The rules doesn't defeat the implications.

The rules do matter when deciding on how it began though. But I think I've cleared up my point enough for the time being.

Dunno. Hopefully all the various concepts being kicked around will lead to the answer to your question.

You keep throwing this "dunno" stuff out there when all you have to do is use your brain. It is called critical thinking.

The mere cause of all physical reality cannot itself be a product of STEM (space, time, energy, and matter). It isn't rocket science.

Also, the one concept that has been kicked around does in fact answer my question.

Answer: Creationism.

I'm willing to learn here. Please, tell me how you know that "all of physical reality cannot itself be a product of STEM". Any data or empirical evidence backing that up? Critical thinking is "the analysis of facts to form a judgement". If you have facts about what was before the start of the universe that would be really cool. I'd love to hear about them.

Just in case you don't have such facts, then I would point out that we cannot then make any accurate statements about what produced physical reality. If you want to apply the rules from this universe to what was BEFORE this universe, I'm sure you will expect me to mention for the umpteenth time that you have no way of knowing that.

Sorry, this isn't a gotcha moment. You've taken my paragraph and split it up, discussing each sentence. A paragraph is one discussion point, not several. This sentence is related to the previous ones before it. The point I was trying to make is that previous to the Big Bang we don't know if the rules were exactly the same, similar, or entirely different to what this universe currently operates under. Cause and effect happens in this entropic universe, and we don't know if entropy is a thing anywhere else. We don't even know if entropy is required for cause and effect to be a thing.

You can't have STEM without entropy, first of all.

Second, it is irrelevant anyway...because again, the infinite regression problem which plagues an infinite universe is independent of physics...therefore, any knowledge/lack of knowledge we have about "different universes" or whatever else...is...irrelevant.

It doesn't touch the problem.

I'm not talking about infinite universes, and I'm not talking about multiple universes. I am only talking about this universe, and this universe only. We do not know if this universe is caused or uncaused, because we don't know what the conditions were before the universe began. We don't know if something outside the universe made this physical reality happen, or if it just happened on its own. Intuitively it doesn't seem possible that a universe could happen on its own, yet that is exactly what the math says did happen. But since we don't know anything relating to before the universe, we can't say for sure. If we can't say for sure, then the claim that "all things that begin to exist have a cause" cannot be a logical statement, because it cannot be considered necessarily true as it relates to the start of the universe.

Unfortunately you misread my meaning, and have carried that on into this part of your post. I have not acknowledged that the universe began to exist. Mathematically speaking, it didn't. Why is there a universe now, and was it caused or uncaused? Dunno.

Well, you don't know. I know. I've invested a good deal of time trying to explain to you why it was caused...I can't force you to understand the fact that infinite regression is impossible and thus the universe is finite.

I appreciate your efforts. My efforts are also a failure apparently, given that you thought I was talking about infinite regression. I am not. You and I already agreed that infinite universes make no sense. I am talking about this universe, and the lack of data about the rules before the universe. This is the key to my point.

Lots of threads at this site have suggested it. Lots of people say that their god has "always existed" and "has no beginning and no end". Some have even said that, in order for their god to be maximally great, that it would have to be infinite. If I am mistaken that someone said such a thing in this particular thread than that is on me.

To say that X has always existed, does not imply that X has always existed in time.

Pretty much all gods have existed without the universe being here, and then also with the universe being here. Makes no sense to say that those gods did both those things at the same time, because they are mutually exclusive events. So there is some kind of existence that differentiates those two things. That means that gods have different parts to their existence. Since the gods never have a beginning that means the part of the existence without the universe is infinite, which means that part will always be. So the part with the universe in existence can never be arrived at. Sounds like gods that create thus universe are impossible.

We don't have the first damn clue what the rules were or weren't. Is that even the right question to ask when the math shows that the universe is still the same thing it was before, just in a different state of that same thing (it was "something" which is the parts of "nothing" that it all adds up to)? Dunno. That's part of the mystery of the universe, in that we aren't even sure we are asking the right questions.

Why did it pop into being when it did? No clue. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the observer effect certainly don't help matters either. Why does it exist the way it does, instead of turtles all the way down? Which I had an answer for you.

If we boil this conversation down to the basic issue here, it is simply this - that arguments like ontological and Kalam have to assume a starting point that is nothing more than conjecture. How can a person make a logical argument by beginning with a statement that isn't logically based? You can't. It doesn't work that way. Maybe some people are ok with guessing in order to get to the end game, but my brain doesn't function that way.

And it is the theists who get accused of being intellectually lazy. When it comes to things leading to supernatural implications, all of a sudden; "we don't know, end of story".

But when if you negate the supernatural implications, it is "we don't know, but lets find out".

Taxi cab fallacy.

Consistency is my name, Venom. I haven't been unscientific or illogical in anything I've said.

Ontological doesn't lead to supernatural implications. It's made up of invalid presuppositions and impossible concepts like omniscience. All I can do is lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

[Bust Nak]

Any infinite set's elements cannot all be counted in any way. No matter how many you count, there will always be more elements to count.

So you keep saying. Please prove it. So far you've only managed to show that it was impossible to start and then finish counting an infinite set, finish your proof by showing that it is impossible to finish, minus the starting part.

You can start counting at any element in an infinite set. It doesn't matter. You'll never finish counting.

Okay, that much is obvious, but that's not what I asked you. I asked you why you would still never finish, even if you never started counting at any element. Alternatively, explain why one must start to count at a particular element, in order for them to be counting. As I said in post #104, "always been counting, without ever starting to count" and here you are, talking about start counting instead of addressing what I said.

Not completely right. In any communication, both the receiver and the sender must do their jobs.

So do your job, you said it was simple. Go ahead, prove that it is impossible to have always been counting for eternity, without having ever started, using high school math. I, as the receiver, is waiting to do mine.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm going to stick my toe in the water with some trepidation here, as I'm no expert in either cosmic physics or philosophy - which a lot of the argument seems to be about. But I'll mention a few points that came up during debates on other forums in the past.
The idea that Infinite regression is impossible seems a valid one. That the universe (of matter, or with matter, stars, galaxies, etc.) existed forever seems 'impossible'. That is, counter intuitive. 'Everything must have a cause' is not a bad way to put it. The universe must have has a point of origin. That is really the basis of the 'Kalam' argument.

As the OP said, it is rather the whole cosmos of matter that is being debated. The origin of the universe is considered to be known: the Big Bang. Arguing the validity of that (if anyone wants to) is a different debate. The one here really is 'Where did the matter that the Big Bag event came from, come from?' There is postulated (by some theists who have thought that far, too) to be a universe of unformed 'stuff' - a sort of primordial matter - from which the BB molecule was made. And of course that might not be the only one - there could be other Universes derived from other Big Bang events and we would know nothing about them. I mean, in this dimension; universes in other dimensions is a different hypothesis.

Already the 'stuff' from which the BB even (theoretically) coalesced is pretty rarefied 'stuff'. We know that atoms are made mostly of nothing. Rather they are more position -points that give the illusion of solidity. Now, I can't cite physics support off the to of my head, here, but I could find a reference or explanatory vid. if needed. But it has long been known that atoms are mostly empty space with particles buzzing around and the particles don't seem to be as solid as they appear. There are also experiments where a box of 'nothing' has energy in it.

So, what I'm getting at is that 'nothing' does not need to be created. You don't need to 'make' Nothing. Nothing could be eternal, but could (hypothetically) always have the potential to create energy of itself. And matter is just energy taking up a position in regard to other packets of energy and thus giving an illusion of solidity. Which is what sub -atomic particles seem to be.

I know I'm making assertions here, but I have seen discussions on this and it could be gone into, if needed. No doubt the 'God -particle' (Higgs -Boson) comes into this. But it would explain just how all the matter of the universe could be crammed into the Big Bang particle until the energy was such that it 'exploded'. If it was pretty much nothing But energy, that would explain it.

It is at least a counter hypothesis to a god that had to make 'stuff' to begin with, and you don't need to resort to infinite regression.

So we turn to the other argument that an intelligent cause has to be behind the origins of the universe, or the 'stuff' from which our universe (and perhaps others) spontaneously created themselves. Doesn't that raise the question of where this Intelligent creator' came from? To say 'it is eternal' answers nothing.
One could certainly retort (if it was postulated that the 'cosmos of Stuff is made on Nothing acting like it was something) that such a 'universe' could be Eternal too - without the 'Infinite regression' obsjection having much force. On the other hand, the question of where a creative intelligence came from does sound like a question that can't be so glibly answered by 'It is Eternal'. And the Rules say that Bible quotes about 'Alpha and Omega' aren't legitimate argument. They aren't, they are merely Faith -claims ,and counter intuitive, too.

I have put it this way before - 'I would argue that a universe of as near nothing as makes no difference not having an origin makes more sense that a complex intelligent being having no origin'. That is - the 'god' -claim asks a bigger question of logical explanation than a universe of Nothing doing impressions of being Something.

Of course (since a rationalist should be someone who sees both sides of the argument as worth looking at, rather than just pushing One side) it is possible to argue that the energy potentionally inherent in an uncreated Nothing could form patterns of Order that might eventually become an intelligence without physicality. In a discussion with a Philosopher, who argued that an intelligence could not survive after death. I saw no logical reason why not - as a pattern of energy, though I did argue that it would need a body to form it in the first place. Given a postulated mess of cosmic energy that didn't need to be created, isn't it likely that the Creator could have evolved, so to speak?

This is not only very hypothetical, but probably isn't what God -believers want to hear, either, but it's a god -hypothesis than makes Cosmic origins the best that theism has out of the Big Three (the others being the origins of Life and Consciousness). It is the 'God of Einstein' The 'god' of Spinoza and perhaps the god of the irreligious theist or even Deist. Essentially, it is not a problem for the atheist, at least, all the time it is merely hypothetical.

Which is the final point. Assuming for sake of argument the existence of a cosmic mind that ordered everything so a BB would create a universe (whether or not such a Mind had any idea what would Evolve out of that), what has that to do with the gods of any particular religion? Well, at best it can be claimed that, mentally, we can meld with the Creator and get a sense of its' existence. Not He, nor She, but It, as it has no gender and is more thinking physics than the humanlike god of any particular religion.

Those are (so I would argue) the inventions of men and little to do with a Cosmic Creator, should we credit one. In short, a possible God of Einstein does not offend the non -believer, not does it really assist anyone arguing for the truth of any particular religion. For that, the religion has to make its' own case.