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]

But that "already infinitely many elements" were successively added to the set at one time, as you seemed to admit. So, no matter how far you go back, there must have existed an actual infinite group of past events prior to any added element, yet all infinite past elements were added at some time. And that leads to the contradiction that every member of the set was added successively and that some actual infinite core of those were not, but simply were always a part of the set.

Tanager, you and I don't know each other well on this forum. But don't let that stop me from giving you advice.

And what I am about to say, I hope I don't get dinged for this by the moderators...because what I am about to say isn't mean to be offensive towards the homie Bust Nak....think of what I say as..

1. 20% serious
2. 70% humorous
3. 10% humility

I've been slightly watching you two go back and forth in what seems to be a good-spirited debate/discussion.

But, here is my advice...

Just stop talking to Bust Nak. In my opinion, the guy is a narcissist. He manipulates words, and after talking to him, you will feel as if you are being gaslighted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

He is a master at psychological twists and turns, the kind of guy who will stick a knife in your side, and will ask you "How do you know it is pain that you are feeling? What if it is pleasure under the disguise of pain?".

He is the kind of guy who can come home, and beat his girlfriend for no reason....and when the police arrives, the police will end up taking the girlfriend to jail...because he was able to somehow manipulate them.

The manipulation is so good, that even the girlfriend will be like "Wow, perhaps I do need to go to jail."

Yes, he is that good.

He is the strider hiru of gaslighting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strider_Hiryu

The best thing you can do with people like that, is to stop dealing with them.

Again, I am both kidding, and serious at the same time.

Still, great discussion, guys.

[Diagoras]

The argument against infinite regression is powerful and explicit, and it doesn't care anything about your appeals to our ignorance of dark matter and energy...or even your favorite supernatural tale.

The argument applies to any natural or supernatural concept.

So what caused God?

[JoeyKnothead]

The argument against infinite regression is powerful and explicit, and it doesn't care anything about your appeals to our ignorance of dark matter and energy...or even your favorite supernatural tale.

The argument applies to any natural or supernatural concept.

So what caused God?

God's god, silly.

We can push gods in front of this trainwreck of a confused, logically mangled OP for - and don't this beat all - an infinity.

All we gotta do is exclude the gods from the restrictions we place on the universe.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So what caused God?

So, I make a thread which details the necessity of an Uncaused Cause (UCC = God).

Yet, I am being asked; what caused God?

See what I have to deal with?

Smh.

[benchwarmer]

So what caused God?

So, I make a thread which details the necessity of an Uncaused Cause (UCC = God).

Yet, I am being asked; what caused God?

See what I have to deal with?

Smh.

Yes, you have to deal with the special pleading of inserting something that can somehow be uncaused while requiring everything else to be caused. Simply asserting something does not mean you won't be questioned about it. If I made your exact same argument, but instead asserted 5 green pixies who by definition defy any and all logic, does that mean you should just accept it without question?

You may think your argument leads to a valid conclusion of an uncaused cause, but the obvious special pleading involved in this should tip you off something doesn't make sense.

Even if your argument is sound, that doesn't mean whatever falls out of the conclusion is valid. Garbage in gives garbage out regardless of the soundness of an argument. i.e. if the premises are flawed in any way, your conclusion may flow from the argument, but will be as flawed as the premises. In your case, the premises are deeply flawed as has been pointed out over the last almost 30 pages now.

Here is my abbreviated version of your exact argument structure which should show the problem:

1. If 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic don't exist, then the universe is made of cheese.

Justification: We know that the universe exists, and if the pixies don't exist, then either

A. the universe isn't made of cheese
B. OR, it is made of cheese.

2. If the universe is not made of cheese, then the 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic exist.

Justification: If the universe is not made of cheese, then it's made of something else. The 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic don't like cheese, so they wouldn't use cheese to create the universe.

3. The universe is not made of cheese

Justification: Simple observation tells us the universe is not made of cheese.

Conclusion: 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic exist.

The above is what can happen with bad premises and plain old putting your desired outcome in the premises. Other than the justifications (which are just as bad as the OPs), the argument structure is exactly the same. In some ways, the premises are slightly better in that we can at least observe one of them directly. Clearly #1 and #2 are the issue. In the OP, all 3 are bad.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #275]

So, I make a thread which details the necessity of an Uncaused Cause (UCC = God).
Yet, I am being asked; what caused God?
See what I have to deal with?
Smh.

Because you want to have your cake and eat it too. You're pushing that infinite regression is impossible and infinity isn't a thing in the real world, then claiming that a supernatural god being must exist that is "eternal" and so by definition has existed for infinity. You're giving the god being a special property (eternal existence) without any justification for why it can have this property but nothing else can, or why it does not need a cause for its existence when everything else does. You're basically assuming the existence of the supernatural to arrive at the conclusion that a god being must exist, which is textbook begging the question.

The "justifications" in the OP do not justify the existence of the supernatural no matter how many SMH events you experience. They are common hand-waving arguments similar to the MOA. Infinite regression being impossible does not imply the existence of a UCC, at least based on the justifications in the OP (they are too full of assumptions and opinion).

[otseng]

And what I am about to say, I hope I don't get dinged for this by the moderators...

Moderator Comment

Ding... though your post might be veiled in humor, it's still a personal comment about others, which is not allowed.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes, you have to deal with the special pleading of inserting something that can somehow be uncaused while requiring everything else to be caused. Simply asserting something does not mean you won't be questioned about it.

It is not special pleading if justifications were given as to why there must be a UCC. Instead of dealing with why I conclude there must be a UCC, you are exerting your energy into the fact that I merely conclude there must be a UCC.

Which is not an effective way in engaging the argument.

If I made your exact same argument, but instead asserted 5 green pixies who by definition defy any and all logic, does that mean you should just accept it without question?

You may think your argument leads to a valid conclusion of an uncaused cause, but the obvious special pleading involved in this should tip you off something doesn't make sense.

Even if your argument is sound, that doesn't mean whatever falls out of the conclusion is valid. Garbage in gives garbage out regardless of the soundness of an argument. i.e. if the premises are flawed in any way, your conclusion may flow from the argument, but will be as flawed as the premises. In your case, the premises are deeply flawed as has been pointed out over the last almost 30 pages now.

Here is my abbreviated version of your exact argument structure which should show the problem:

1. If 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic don't exist, then the universe is made of cheese.

Justification: We know that the universe exists, and if the pixies don't exist, then either

A. the universe isn't made of cheese
B. OR, it is made of cheese.

2. If the universe is not made of cheese, then the 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic exist.

Justification: If the universe is not made of cheese, then it's made of something else. The 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic don't like cheese, so they wouldn't use cheese to create the universe.

3. The universe is not made of cheese

Justification: Simple observation tells us the universe is not made of cheese.

Conclusion: 5 green pixies who defy any and all logic exist.

I am really not interested in your counter-examples. I didn't even read it. Until you effectively engage with my argument, then I do not (nor care) to see any counter-arguments or what you think are parallels to my argument.

So you can keep your pixie examples or whatever else it is you are trying to portray.

The above is what can happen with bad premises and plain old putting your desired outcome in the premises. Other than the justifications (which are just as bad as the OPs), the argument structure is exactly the same. In some ways, the premises are slightly better in that we can at least observe one of them directly. Clearly #1 and #2 are the issue. In the OP, all 3 are bad.

I didn't read it, so it is irrelevant.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Because you want to have your cake and eat it too. You're pushing that infinite regression is impossible and infinity isn't a thing in the real world, then claiming that a supernatural god being must exist that is "eternal" and so by definition has existed for infinity.

Infinite regression does not apply to God, because the argument isn't that God has endured through "infinite time". I had already acknowledged/admitted that the infinity problem (regression) would apply to God as well, but that is not the argument.

That point was already articulated to you, so for you to sit there and still maintain this, despite the fact that we already went over it, is to attack strawman...which at this point is blatant disingenuousness.

You're giving the god being a special property (eternal existence) without any justification for why it can have this property but nothing else can, or why it does not need a cause for its existence when everything else does.

Justifications were given in the argument.

You're basically assuming the existence of the supernatural to arrive at the conclusion that a god being must exist, which is textbook begging the question.

Justifications were given in the argument.

The "justifications" in the OP do not justify the existence of the supernatural no matter how many SMH events you experience.

Well, when you, at some point, get around to engaging the actual argument and offer an effective defeater of the justifications that I provided, it is at that point (and that point only) that it will dawn on me that "perhaps my justifications don't justify the existence of the supernatural after all".

Until then, as far as I'm concerned, my argument stands and will continue standing.

They are common hand-waving arguments similar to the MOA. Infinite regression being impossible does not imply the existence of a UCC, at least based on the justifications in the OP (they are too full of assumptions and opinion).

Ok, thanks for your opinion on the matter. You gave me yours, and I will give you mines. My opinion is that the argument is valid/sound...and remains standing strong, after almost 30 pages in.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #280]

Justifications were given in the argument.

That is the point ... the "justifications" don't actually justify what you are claiming they do.

Well, when you, at some point, get around to engaging the actual argument and offer an effective defeater of the justifications that I provided, it is at that point (and that point only) that it will dawn on me that "perhaps my justifications don't justify the existence of the supernatural after all".

I started in post 268, but all you do is just repeat that your justifications are valid and ignore any challenges. So let's take just one bullet point from the OP ... #2.

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.

This justification does not even address the claim that "If the universe is not past eternal, then God exits." First, it simply states that the universe had a beginning if it is not eternal, which is a trivial point. Then you follow with a statement that mother nature cannot logically be used to explain the existence of itself, and conclude that a supernatural cause is necessary. This is the fatal flaw in the "justification."

You've not shown in any way that the beginning of the universe (which, again, we don't actually know the mechanism of yet) could not have happened by natural means. You just state that it is not logically sensible and jump right into a claim that the supernatural is necessary. Why isn't it logically sensible? The earlier computer analogy isn't relevant to a universe. Since we don't know the exact mechanism for how the universe came into existence, you cannot simply eliminate some series of natural events and claim "god did it." But that is what you are doing.

Explain how you can completely eliminate some series of natural events for origin of the universe as we understand it to exist now. When you do that then you may have a valid justification. Just because we don't know the answer does not default it to the actions of a god being, but that is the entire crux of your justification above. You simply state that a natural mechanism isn't possible, without any support of that claim, and default to a god being. This is common among theists because the very fact that we don't know the mechanism yet gives license to create alternatives, and a god being fits the bill as it does for many other situations (because an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and eternal being can, of course, do anything conceivable).

So my argument is that, for this bullet point from the OP, the justification does not support the claim for the reasons above. The others have similar problems.