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
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
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 #641

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #639]
The only possible inroad I could see would be to say “an infinite series” is different than “members of infinity” but I think those are equivalent statements.
This is demonstrable evident in the equation zn+1 = zn2 + c. which produces this;
Source Image
Image


which, when zoomed in on, reveals infinity and the infinite series start and end points - signified by the replicated image of the Source Image.



This - of course - is also a material view of the immaterial concept of Infinite Regression [all ways] and thus not the fallacy it is so often portrayed to being.
Therefore, not only has Infinite Regression being shown to be possible, [in contradiction to the OP claim] but this in itself - most clearly - does not signify that GOD mustn't exist.

Contrary to the OP title declaration " God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible" the more logical approach is "Infinite Regression Exists: GOD is Possible" [:='therefore']

also:
viewtopic.php?p=1066565#p1066565

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 #642

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 4:42 pm Why do you think that?
On the scale between easy to make sense of to the hardest, intuitive lays on the easiest end.
Because it seems to have nothing to do with the claims I was discussing.
It does, it's offered as a way to make sense of the claims you were discussing.
Why are your concepts with those terms the common ones? Defining size as “one-to-one correspondence” isn’t the common one.
It is common because it is more initiative. One to one correspondence is common with mathematicians.
In premises 14 and 15, you are making statements about individual members/parts of a series, in and of themselves. In premise 16, you then make the same statement about the whole series.
Read it again. "15) {0, ...} contains" is about the whole series, it's a statement about what it contains.
The Question: Can one move through all members of an infinite series?
Your Answer: Yes.
Your Support: “Given that you can move through all members of infinity,” yes, one can move through all members of an infinite series.
That's not what is happening here. Try this.

The Question: Can one move through all members of an infinite series?
My Answer: Yes.
My Support: Here is a deductive proof that one indeed move through all members of an infinite series.
Your objection: But what of this apparent contradiction.
My response: Given that you can move through all members of infinity, the words in question must refer to separate concepts, therefore there is no contradiction.

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 #643

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:12 pm Time is just the stuff between beginning and end points. Time itself is a construct of the mind, rather than something which actually physically exists in this universe...
Scientists say time is a dimension.
this universe cannot be said in any absolute way to have had a beginning...
Big bang doesn't count?
Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless.
Then when do you think time will stop ticking?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
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 #644

Post by William »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #643]
Time is just the stuff between beginning and end points. Time itself is a construct of the mind, rather than something which actually physically exists in this universe...
Scientists say time is a dimension.
Is this to say that scientist believe time physically exists?
this universe cannot be said in any absolute way to have had a beginning, and if it did not pop into existence [Creatio ex nihilo] then it must have gained any beginning it had, from something which existed prior to it beginning.
Big bang doesn't count?
What is called the big bang would be the thing gained from that which existed prior to...
Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless.
Then when do you think time will stop ticking?
What makes you think it ever started ticking?

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 #645

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:02 pm Is this to say that scientist believe time physically exists?
As much as three dimensional space does.
What is called the big bang would be the thing gained from that which existed prior to...
What does prior to the big bang even mean?
What makes you think it ever started ticking?
Because of red shift. Either way, whether it started ticking or not, it is ticking now, right? If it won't tick on forever, when will it stop ticking?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
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 #646

Post by William »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #645]
Is this to say that scientist believe time physically exists?
As much as three dimensional space does.
Even given that the human brain is interpreting time space rather than seeing it as it fundamentally is, time is a measurement which requires movement of objects seen to exist in space. It is described as having its own dimension or plane, in the same way that imaginary numbers are.
What is called the big bang would be the thing gained from that which existed prior to...
What does prior to the big bang even mean?
It means that one cannot discount that as a possibility, and explains why so much effort is being put into engineering highly specialized and expensive mechanisms which scientists are hoping might help to find an answer to that question.
What makes you think it ever started ticking?
Because of red shift. Either way, whether it started ticking or not, it is ticking now, right? If it won't tick on forever, when will it stop ticking?
I would say that the ticking you are referring to [movement of objects] will stop if and when there are no more objects. No objects = no movement = the ticking has stopped.

As I mentioned earlier,
Time is just the stuff between beginning and end points. Time itself is a construct of the mind, rather than something which actually physically exists in this universe and this universe cannot be said in any absolute way to have had a beginning, and if it did not pop into existence [Creatio ex nihilo] then it must have gained any beginning it had, from something which existed prior to it beginning.

The logical premise would then have to be that existence has always existed, in one form or another, infinitely.
Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless.
Beginning and end points can be seen within the structure of infinity, of which the Mandelbrolt set visually demonstrates. An infinite number of replicated images of the structure the equation produces. An infinity of stop/start points.

Image

and


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 #647

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:55 pm Even given that the human brain is interpreting time space rather than seeing it as it fundamentally is...
What is it fundamentally then?
time is a measurement which requires movement of objects seen to exist in space. It is described as having its own dimension or plane, in the same way that imaginary numbers are.
Well that doesn't make any sense, time doesn't have a dimension, it is a dimension.
It means that one cannot discount that as a possibility, and explains why so much effort is being put into engineering highly specialized and expensive mechanisms which scientists are hoping might help to find an answer to that question.
Just a mere possibility? That sounded like a much weaker claim than before, where you said infinity cannot be started. Did you meant might not have started?
I would say that the ticking you are referring to [movement of objects] will stop if and when there are no more objects. No objects = no movement = the ticking has stopped.
So why would there be a time when there are no more objects?
Beginning and end points can be seen within the structure of infinity, of which the Mandelbrolt set visually demonstrates. An infinite number of replicated images of the structure the equation produces. An infinity of stop/start points.
So some infinities have no start nor end, but why must all infinities be like that?

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 #648

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:16 pmWhere the branching away from agreement occurs, is in our differing understanding of the stuff which we know comprises all forms shaping in this universe. I say the source is the same as GOD, whereas those who believe in creatio ex nihilo say it was created [presumably out of nowhere] by GOD, from some other substance which was not of GOD [that which is not of GOD = no thing.]

We do not say that matter was created from some other substance which was not of GOD. We say matter is an additional, brand new substance created by God. I’ll hear you out again on your view here. In your post I’m seeing claims that basically say the only substance things could be made out of would have to be the same substance that makes up GOD. I don’t understand why you think that is true. What is your reasoning for that belief? If you shared it in this post, then could you explain it a bit differently to see if I can catch it there?
William wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:37 pmThis - of course - is also a material view of the immaterial concept of Infinite Regression [all ways] and thus not the fallacy it is so often portrayed to being.
Therefore, not only has Infinite Regression being shown to be possible, [in contradiction to the OP claim] but this in itself - most clearly - does not signify that GOD mustn't exist.

Contrary to the OP title declaration " God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible" the more logical approach is "Infinite Regression Exists: GOD is Possible" [:='therefore']
I didn't watch the video. I can but I think it may be more fruitful for you to lay out the claims and reasoning in text for me to better engage with your understanding rather than possibly understanding the claims of the video differently than you and responding to a view you don't hold.

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 #649

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:35 amOn the scale between easy to make sense of to the hardest, intuitive lays on the easiest end.

It seems I was misunderstanding you. Yes, I agree that very common intuitions are rational to side with unless some stronger reason changes the picture. I still don’t agree with you that enough people’s intuitions of infinity are that it’s an amount to fit that principle.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:35 amIt does, it's offered as a way to make sense of the claims you were discussing.

I wasn’t discussing whether the article contradicted itself in how it used its terms. My claim was that something cannot be an actual infinite and expanding in size (with the concepts I attach to those terms). My claim regarding the article has been that if the scientists are disagreeing with that (with the concepts I attach to those terms), then they are being irrational. If they attach different concepts to those terms than I did, then I wasn’t disagreeing with the article on that point. So, I think we were misunderstanding each other a little and have cleared that up now?

That means we can get back to why you think the article shows that the current scientific thought is that the universe is actually infinite. That article says that the simplest version of the inflationary theory predicts that the density of the universe is “very close” to the critical density, so it’s geometry is flat, like a sheet of paper but it also earlier said that the density of the universe must “exactly equal” the critical density for the geometry to be “flat like a sheet of paper, and infinite in extent.” “Very close” and “exactly equal” are not, well, exactly equal concepts. So, even assuming the simplest version of inflationary theory to be true, the universe does not seem to meet the requirements of truly being infinite in extent, according to the wording of the article. It’s close, but not quite there from that data.

The article then talks about the WMAP measurements and is worded in a way that seems very close to requiring an infinite universe but then ends with this statement “All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe” rather than that the Universe is infinite.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:35 amIt is common because it is more initiative. One to one correspondence is common with mathematicians.

There are a lot more non-mathematicians in the world than mathematicians.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:35 am
In premises 14 and 15, you are making statements about individual members/parts of a series, in and of themselves. In premise 16, you then make the same statement about the whole series.

Read it again. "15) {0, ...} contains" is about the whole series, it's a statement about what it contains.

(14) is that certain individual parts have the property P. (15) is that the series contains all of these parts that have the property P. (16) is the conclusion that the whole series has the property P.

Let’s replace some elements but keep the form:

(14) certain individual parts [bricks] have the property P [of being 4x2x8 in size]
(15) a series [brick wall] contains these certain individual parts [bricks] that have the property P [of being 4x2x8 in size]
(16) the series [brick wall] has the property P [of being 4x2x8 in size]

Now, some properties necessarily transfer from part to whole. If the bricks are all red, then the brick wall will also be red. But some properties don’t transfer from part to whole.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
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 #650

Post by William »

Even given that the human brain is interpreting time space rather than seeing it as it fundamentally is...
[Replying to Bust Nak in post #647]
What is it fundamentally then?
No one knows.
time is a measurement which requires movement of objects seen to exist in space. It is described as having its own dimension or plane, in the same way that imaginary numbers are.
Well that doesn't make any sense, time doesn't have a dimension, it is a dimension.
Are you aware that physicists are now saying that spacetime is doomed as it is not fundamental?
What does prior to the big bang even mean?
It means that one cannot discount that as a possibility, and explains why so much effort is being put into engineering highly specialized and expensive mechanisms which scientists are hoping might help to find an answer to that question.
Just a mere possibility? That sounded like a much weaker claim than before, where you said infinity cannot be started. Did you meant might not have started?
It means that possibilities, probabilities are acknowledged by the scientific community as being valid enough to invest vast amounts of funding and resources into investigating.

My statement re infinity must logically having no start to it, has to do with the whole, rather than the start-finish of the parts therein.
I would say that the ticking you are referring to [movement of objects] will stop if and when there are no more objects. No objects = no movement = the ticking has stopped.
So why would there be a time when there are no more objects?
Or for that matter, why would there be a time when there were no objects?
So some infinities have no start nor end, but why must all infinities be like that?
Why should all infinities be conceptually separated from each other and not seen to be all part of the same, one infinity?

Post Reply