God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

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

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #1

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

First off, by "universe", I mean all physical reality govern by natural law. This would include universes that we know/don’t know about.

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is past eternal.

Justification: We know that the universe exist, and if there is no transcendent supernatural cause, then either

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

I think we can safely remove posit A from the equation (unless there is someone who thinks it is a plausible explanation).

Let’s focus on posit B.

Based on posit B, we need not provide any naturalistic explanation as to the cause of our universe, considering the fact that the term “universe” applies (as mentioned earlier) to all physical reality, which means that any naturalistic explanation one provides is already accounted for as “eternal”.

And if God does not exist, then physical reality (the universe) is all there is, and thus must be eternal.

2. If the universe is not past eternal, then God exists.

Justification: If the universe (all physical reality) is NOT eternal, then it had a beginning.

Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary.

If “nature” had a beginning, one cannot logically use nature to explain the origin of nature, and to do so is fallacious.

So, where nature stops, supernatural begins.

3. The universe is not past eternal.

Justification: If the universe is past eternal, then the causal chain of events (cause and effect) within the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because infinity cannot be traversed or “reached”.

If the past is eternal, that would mean that there are an infinite amount of “days” which lead to today. But in order for us to have “arrived” to today, an infinite amount of days would have to be traversed (one by one), which is impossible, because infinite cannot be “reached”.

Consider thought analogy..

Sandman analogy: Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole. By “bottomless”, of course if one was to fall into the hole, he would fall forever and ever and ever.

Now, imagine the man is surrounded by an infinite amount of sand, which is at his disposal.

Imagine if the man has been shoveling sand into this hole for an infinite amount of time (he never began shoveling, or he never stopped shoveling, he has been shoveling forever).

Imagine if the man’s plan was to shovel sand into the hole until he successfully filled the sand from the bottom, all the way to the top of the hole.

How long will it take him to accomplish this? Will he ever accomplish this task? No. Why? Because the sand is bottomless, so no matter how fast he shoveled, or how long he shoveled, the sand will never reach the top.

So lets put it all together…

The sand falling: Represents time travel, and the trajectory of the sand falling south of the top represents time traveling into the past, which is synonymous with past eternity.

The man shoveling: Represents the “present”, as the man is presently shoveling without halt. This is synonymous with our present causal reality. We are presently in a state of constant change, without halt.

Conclusion: If the sand cannot reach the bottom of the hole (because of no boundary/foundation) and it can’t be filled from the bottom-up to the present (man), then how, if there is no past boundary to precedent days, how could we have possibly reached the present day…if there is/was no beginning foundation (day).

However, lets say a gazillion miles down the hole, there is a foundation…then the hole will be filled in a finite amount of time, and it will be filled from the bottom-up.

But ONLY if there is a foundation.

Likewise, we can only reach today if and ONLY IF there is a beginning point of reference, a foundation in the distant past.

4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist: As explained, infinite regression is impossible, so an uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

This UCC cannot logically be a product of any precedent cause or conditions, thus, it exists necessarily (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC cannot logically depend on any external entity for it’s existence (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC is the foundation for any/everything which began to exist, which included by not limited to all physical reality…but mainly, the universe an everything in it.

This UCC would also have to have free will, which explains why the universe began at X point instead of Y point...and the reason is; it began at that point because that is when the UCC decided it should begin...and only a being with free will can decide to do anything.

This UCC would have to have the power to create from nothing (as there was no preexisting physical matter to create from, before it was created).

So, based on the truth value of the argument, what can we conclude of the UCC?

1. It is a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being
2. A being of whom has existed for eternity and can never cease existing
3. A being with the greatest power imaginable (being able to create from nothing)
4. A being with free will, thus, a being with a mind

This being in question is what theists have traditionally recognized as God. God exists.

In closing, I predict the whole "well, based on your argument, God cannot be infinite".

My response to that for now is; first admit the validity of the presented argument, and THEN we will discuss why the objection raised doesn't apply to God.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #591

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #590]

Me?
The series are used to describe physical phenomenon.
Many physical phenomenon are non-convergent.

The energy of a metal lattice for example. It has non-converging energies, the only reason it is not infinite, is the obvious one: The universe is not made of metal, it terminates.

Are you really having such trouble with this, or are you being ingenuous, hoping for a English word-synonym or poor analogy to give you room to insert the possibility of a god existing?

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 #592

Post by Bust Nak »

Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:00 pm The series are used to describe physical phenomenon.
Many physical phenomenon are non-convergent.

The energy of a metal lattice for example. It has non-converging energies, the only reason it is not infinite, is the obvious one: The universe is not made of metal, it terminates.
You can still have both you know. Partial sum of the a divergent series is still finite, that can be used to describe the physical phenomenon of fuel running out just fine. Only infinite sums divergent series equate to infinity, and it is indeed true that IF there is infinite fuel THEN a fire will burn forever.
Are you really having such trouble with this...
Yes, because it's obvious rubbish.
or are you being ingenuous, hoping for a English word-synonym or poor analogy to give you room to insert the possibility of a god existing?
You are talking to an atheist, why would you even suggest such a motive?

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #593

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #592]
A fire can not be fed by the series you describe.
Chopping up a diverging series is what I've been talking about, but then it is no longer the series, is it?

I think we've establish god is a fairytale, vagaries in your position and language not withstanding.

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

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #594

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 am
I’ve affirmed this multiple times.

Great, take the next step, affirm that mathematicians treats infinity as a quantity.

I’ve also affirmed multiple times that mathematicians treat infinity as a real quantity, but they do so by simply assuming it is a real quantity. I’ve no problem with that. The problem is then if someone bases an argument on it actually being a real quantity without showing it can be rightly treated as such.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 amOkay, so no real world assumptions are involved, does that mean you accept that mathematicians (outside of philosophy) do not assume infinity is a quantity?

No, mathematicians assume it is a quantity and do infinite mathematics. Philosophers of mathematics talk about whether that assumption is warranted or not.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 amI would say "there could always be more" is more a fact about quantity, while "an unending amount" is itself a quantity. The latter is good enough for me.

I think those different phrasings speak to identical concepts. We both are fine saying ‘infinity’ is “an unending amount” but we mean different things by that, so I don’t see how this helps you.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 amI was working from your contention that since the universe doesn't have a boundary, it can't be measured, which in turn means it can't be expanding. In some senses it isn't; in others it is. It all depends on one's perspective.

I wasn’t saying that. I said the universe is either actually finite and expanding or it is an actual infinite and not expanding. In other words, that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive terms. I’m only talking about one sense of “expansion” here. Is the universe expanding or is it infinite? Or, how can something be infinite, have more added to it, and not be expanding in total size?
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 amI offered a proof by contradiction, that's how I supported it. I produced a contradiction and I asked you which premise you would discard. I suggested discarding this one: 3) X (the set of series of the from {N, N+1} that cannot be counted) is not empty. You gave me the impression that you accepted that when you said "yes, starting at one number you can always reach the next number and stop there." That sounds like M∞ right there.

I agree that premise 3 was false. I don’t see how “X is not empty” leads to thinking one can count all the members of X, which is what you need to prove. Your previous premises tell us that you can count series that begin at one number and end at a number. M∞ is not of that form.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 amOkay, here is a formal proof for it. There is a proof by contradiction embedded in it, I am going to skip asking you which one to discard this time and mark the one to discard as an assumption.

M0+ = can count series of the form {X, X+1} for all X >= 0 (as opposed to M∞ where X >= N)

1) M∞ and C1 (conditional clause)
2) if (M∞ and C1) then M0+ (premise)
3) M0+ (from 1 and 2)
4) Let X be set of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to. (define X)
5) X is not empty. (assumption)
6) Members of X, as integers > 0, can be ordered. (premise)
7) Let X0 be the lowest member of X. (define X0)
8) X0-1 is lower than X0, the lowest member of X. (from 6 and 7)
9) X0-1 >= 0 (from 8)
10) X0-1 is not a member of X. (from 8)
11) X0-1 can be counted to. (from 4 and 10)
12) {X0-1, X0} is in M0+ (from 3 and 9)
13) X0 can be counted to. (from 12)
14) X0 is not a member of X. (from 4 and 13)
15) contradiction, therefore the assumption is false. (from 7 and 14)
16) X, the set of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to, is empty (from 15)
17) Any set of integers >= 0, with members of X removed, is a series that can be counted. (premise)
18) {0, ...} - empty set = {0, ...} (premise)
19) B (from 17 and 18)
20) Therefore if (M∞ and C1) then B (from 1 and 19)

Why premise 17?
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 amAh huh, and what is the one definition "complete a process?" Moving through all the members, that's where the word "all" came from so...

1. Moving through all the members
2. All A-theory pasts
2a. Finite
2b. Infinite

1. Married
2. All Chinese people
2a. Non-bachelor(ette)
2b. Bachelor(ette)

1 and 2, in both, don’t necessarily contradict. 1 and 2a, in both, don’t contradict. 1 and 2b, only the bottom set contradicts.

We still aren’t checking the definition of ‘all’ here, but of ‘complete a process’ (i.e., ‘moving through all the members’). If ‘moving through all the members’ can’t contradict 2b) infinite, then analogically, ‘married’ can’t contradict 2b) bachelor(ette).
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:27 am
Those aren’t two meanings/sense of ‘complete a process’; only the second one is a definition.

Great, then there is a clear answer to the question, does "a never ending process" contradict with "a process being completed?"

No, "a never ending process" does not contradicts with "a process being completed," meaning "moving through all the members."
The definition of 'complete' is "to finish making or doing". Complete, finish, end, are all synonyms in that sense. So, how can you complete/finish/end something that never ends?

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #595

Post by Diogenes »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 7:13 pm I’ve also affirmed multiple times that mathematicians treat infinity as a real quantity, but they do so by simply assuming it is a real quantity. I’ve no problem with that.
Fine. End of argument.

But then
The Tanager wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 7:13 pmThe problem is then if someone bases an argument on it actually being a real quantity without showing it can be rightly treated as such.
Huh? You accept infinity as a "real quantity" and then you don't when the result conflicts with your religious claims. Which is it?
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

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 #596

Post by Bust Nak »

Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:23 pm A fire can not be fed by the series you describe.
So?
Chopping up a diverging series is what I've been talking about, but then it is no longer the series, is it?
Yes, but why would that mean the non-chopped up one don't add up to infinity?

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 #597

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 7:13 pm I’ve also affirmed multiple times that mathematicians treat infinity as a real quantity, but they do so by simply assuming it is a real quantity. I’ve no problem with that. The problem is then if someone bases an argument on it actually being a real quantity without showing it can be rightly treated as such.
I am sticking to my old answer, it is a real quantity because it is defined by mathematician as such.
No, mathematicians assume it is a quantity and do infinite mathematics.
Okay, please explain in detail how that's different from mathematicians defined it as a quantity and do infinite mathematics.
Philosophers of mathematics talk about whether that assumption is warranted or not.
And what do you think their consensus is, if there is one, on this issue?
I think those different phrasings speak to identical concepts. We both are fine saying ‘infinity’ is “an unending amount” but we mean different things by that, so I don’t see how this helps you.
But an amount is literally defined as a quantity, and unending is an adjective.
I wasn’t saying that. I said the universe is either actually finite and expanding or it is an actual infinite and not expanding. In other words, that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive terms. I’m only talking about one sense of “expansion” here. Is the universe expanding or is it infinite?
Given the premise that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive terms, the universe is infinite and not expanding.
Or, how can something be infinite, have more added to it, and not be expanding in total size?
By having some other sense of "expanding in total size" as the ones you hold.
I agree that premise 3 was false. I don’t see how “X is not empty” leads to thinking one can count all the members of X, which is what you need to prove.
What? No, counting all the members members of X is not a thing, it's counting all the members of M∞ I am proving. Also it discarding "X is not empty" as false, meaning X is empty. See if this mini proof helps. Note that qualifier "with the sequential nature {N, N+1}" is missing from "series," I am trying to keep it simple.

1) X is the set of all uncountable series. (define X)
2) You can count all series outside of X. (from 1, if a series is not countable then it would be in X by definition.)
3) X is empty (premise, we know this because its negation lead to a contradiction.)
4) You can count all series. (from 2 and 3, we can drop the "outside of X" qualifier because everything is outside, nothing is inside.)
5) M∞ is a set containing all series. (define M∞)
6) You can count all the members of M∞. (from 4 and 5)

I sense there might have been some confusion between a) a list containing countable series, and b) the list itself being a countable series with elements that you can count from one to another? This step is about the former, the step from the former to the latter appears later on.
Why premise 17?
Here we are talking about the list itself being a countable series. Elements are either countable or uncountable, where countable mean you can count from the element to another, (as opposed to the above, where an element is 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.
We still aren’t checking the definition of ‘all’ here, but of ‘complete a process’ (i.e., ‘moving through all the members’). If ‘moving through all the members’ can’t contradict 2b) infinite, then analogically, ‘married’ can’t contradict 2b) bachelor(ette).
And that's why I brought up "married to his job" when this analogy was first introduced to maintain the 1:1 match. The analogy breaks down without something like it, exactly because "moving through all the members" doesn’t contradict infinite while the usual meaning of married does contradict bachelor.
The definition of 'complete' is "to finish making or doing". Complete, finish, end, are all synonyms in that sense. So, how can you complete/finish/end something that never ends?
As the one sense/definition/meaning dictates: by moving through all the elements of course.

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 #598

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:35 pm Conservation of mass, matter and energy tells us that "mass, matter and energy are not created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another."

it is probably the most employed principle of modern science, which were it not true, electronics, most things, even, wouldn't even work.
See, that is where you got it all WRONG, Will.

The Conservation of Mass (law of first thermodynamics) only comes into effect after the universe began to exist.

No universe = no universal laws.
Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:35 pm This means that the atoms around us, if we reverse time conceptually speaking, never began nor stopped existing. There is never a point in time where they did not exist in some form or other.
Sure, if the past is eternal, then I suppose you are correct.

The problem is; it isn't, so you aren't correct.

No specific point can be reached on an infinitely long chain of events.

All of this "atoms existing and changing forms for eternity" stuff sounds good if you are trying to wow your young nieces and nephews into thinking you are sophisticated in your thinking.

"Wow, uncle Will sure knows his science". :lol:

However, to the educated (people who know a thing or two about this stuff), it is nonsense.
Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:35 pm In fact it is impossible.
Even anti-matter needs to be formed from annihilating pairs, thus keeping the total the same.
Question; if the universe doesn't exist, where would you place matter? You will place the matter in what space, exactly?
Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:35 pm So, since there is no creation, there is no creator.
Simple as that.
Faulty conclusion from false premises.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #599

Post by Willum »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #598]

Conservation applies to not only thermodynamics, but electronics, cosmology, particle physics, chemistry, every scientific discipline, not just thermo..

Therefore it is you who are wrong.

In addition, this applies even before the event you know nothing about came into play.

The mass-energy before = the m-e after.
No reason to suspect otherwise, except for your imaginary god to exist.
Which is not a reason, at all.

Good talk.

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14001
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #600

Post by William »

[Replying to Willum in post #599]
No reason to suspect otherwise, except for your imaginary god to exist.
Which is not a reason, at all.
It is understandable that folk want to avoid that path in particular, given its track record.

However, full avoidance is impractical, unwise and unsustainable...and cannot really be avoided as long as consciousness exists in the human form and does what it does in whatever 'name' it is doing it.
"GOD" in essence is like unto a mirror-image of the formless ghost we call "Consciousness" and acts out as it sees fit, through biological instruments ... and it cannot be completely exorcised from the mathematical equations, even if it is only represented as "Zero". The rest of the Math cannot be done without that 'non-number'.
"Zero" does not actually represent "nothing" because "nothing" does not exist and so cannot be represented.
Therefore, "Zero" must have to represent something which does exist but is largely unseen - and "Consciousness" fits that description.
"Consciousness" = "Zero", mathematically speaking. {Good Talk}

Post Reply