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]

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

That is your opinion. Here is mines; my justifications are justified.

I started in post 268, but all you do is just repeat that your justifications are valid and ignore any challenges.

I stated why your challenges weren't valid too, didn't I?

So let's take just one bullet point from the OP ... #2.

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."

A trivial point? That is the point. If nature didn't exist, then you cannot logically use nature as an explanation for the origins of nature.

That is just common sense logic. What about you talking about?

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.

I provided the sandman analogy, which explicitly demonstrates the "infinite regression" problem that exists when dealing with an infinite series of things.

The sandman analogy was glossed over by everyone, which is fine...because to me it just demonstrates how powerful the analogy is. People would rather just gloss over it, instead of deal with it.

I am saying that infinite regression is IMPOSSIBLE under ANY natural or supernatural scenario. And I gave reasons why, which I would like those reasons to be directly dealt with.

And the computer analogy is relevant to the universe....I am saying that the computer (universe) could not have been sitting there and operating for an infinite amount of time...and I gave reasons why it can't.

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.

I need to know why the justifications fail. A natural mechanism is impossible because a natural mechanism would require an infinite duration of time, which I already demonstrated is impossible, no matter the scenario, no matter the unknown, no matter the known...no matter the natural...no matter the supernatural.

It cannot happen.

[benchwarmer]

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.

No, I'm "exerting my energy" pointing out the special pleading. I also pointed out that if you put garbage into an otherwise sound structure of an argument, garbage falls out. Your conclusion is based on bad premises. That's the point.

I am really not interested in your counter-examples. I didn't even read it.

I'm sure readers will appreciate your blatant admission that you are not actually engaged in debate. If you didn't read my response, why are you responding to 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.

That's just about as silly as silly gets. I give a solid example of why your argument is bad, and you don't want to read it or deal with it. That says everything. I guess when you realize the issues and don't want to admit the problems, all you can do is ignore it and hope it goes away.

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

I'm sorry that it showed the major flaws in your reasoning and you don't want to deal with it. That's fine, readers can decide how effective your approach is.

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.

Again, why did you respond then? Essentially, you are now admitting that you are preaching instead of debating. You don't read responses when they damage your argument and just decide to ignore them.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No, I'm "exerting my energy" pointing out the special pleading. I also pointed out that if you put garbage into an otherwise sound structure of an argument, garbage falls out. Your conclusion is based on bad premises. That's the point.

Sure, whatever you say.

I'm sure readers will appreciate your blatant admission that you are not actually engaged in debate. If you didn't read my response, why are you responding to it?

"I am not responding to it" is the extent of my response to it.

That's just about as silly as silly gets. I give a solid example of why your argument is bad

Did you? Oh yeah; "Your argument applies to God, too" was the best you've offered.

I'm sorry that it showed the major flaws in your reasoning and you don't want to deal with it. That's fine, readers can decide how effective your approach is.

Again, why did you respond then? Essentially, you are now admitting that you are preaching instead of debating. You don't read responses when they damage your argument and just decide to ignore them.

Preaching is for preachers. I am a Christian apologist.

We attack
We defend
For the kingdom
We shall win

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #282]

A trivial point? That is the point. If nature didn't exist, then you cannot logically use nature as an explanation for the origins of nature.

That is just common sense logic. What about you talking about?

I'll use one of your favorite phrases ... reading comprehension. The trival point comment was referring to the universe having a beginning if it wasn't eternal, which is obvious. It had nothing to do with using nature as an origin for nature which you refer to above.

I am saying that infinite regression is IMPOSSIBLE under ANY natural or supernatural scenario. And I gave reasons why, which I would like those reasons to be directly dealt with.

And the computer analogy is relevant to the universe....I am saying that the computer (universe) could not have been sitting there and operating for an infinite amount of time...and I gave reasons why it can't.

More confusion. I never argued that infinite regression was possible or challenged that point at all, so not sure why you even mention it here. The Sandman analogy was discussed earlier in several posts, but all it does is try to demonstrate that the concept of infinity is not reasonable in the real world. So even if everyone accepts this and that infinite regression is not possible, and that the universe had a beginning (again, this isn't being contested), it doesn't address the problem of why a god being must exist rather than some natural event(s) causing the universe to come into existence, and why this god being is eternal or even has to be. It is just one of the possibilities, not a necessary one.

Here's the computer analogy:

Your computer; tell me the origins of your computer...but the catch is, no external origins can be provided....the answer you give has to lie within your computer.
Can you do it? No, you cant.
So, if your computer never began to exist, it would have to be eternal (in time).

You're stipulating that the origin of the computer has to lie within the computer (ie. it must build itself), and if that can't be explained then the computer never began to exist. And somehow this means the computer would have to be eternal in time? Sounds to me like it would be just the opposite (ie. it never existed in time, because it never began to exist). What if computer is replaced by universe? Then you've negated the claim that the universe had a beginning:

The universe; tell me the origins of the universe ... but the catch is, no external origins can be provided....the answer you give has to lie within the universe.
Can you do it? No, you can't.
So, if the universe never began to exist, it would have to be eternal (in time).

So is the universe eternal, or not?

A natural mechanism is impossible because a natural mechanism would require an infinite duration of time, which I already demonstrated is impossible, no matter the scenario, no matter the unknown, no matter the known...no matter the natural...no matter the supernatural.

This is the crux of the problem. You think you've demonstrated that a natural mechanism is impossible, but you haven't, nor have you shown that a natural mechanism would require an infinite duration of time. You keep referring back to the OP justifications, but those are the problem because they don't hold water (as pointed out many times in this thread by several of us).

[brunumb]

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.

Let me see if I have translated that correctly. If I don't read the argument that debunks my case, then my case has not been debunked.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I'll use one of your favorite phrases ... reading comprehension. The trival point comment was referring to the universe having a beginning if it wasn't eternal, which is obvious. It had nothing to do with using nature as an origin for nature which you refer to above.

I still dont get it.

More confusion. I never argued that infinite regression was possible or challenged that point at all, so not sure why you even mention it here.

Nor am I sure why we are having this discussion if we are in agreement there.

The Sandman analogy was discussed earlier in several posts, but all it does is try to demonstrate that the concept of infinity is not reasonable in the real world.

Glad to see you acknowledge that point. So again, why are we having this discussion?

So even if everyone accepts this and that infinite regression is not possible, and that the universe had a beginning (again, this isn't being contested), it doesn't address the problem of why a god being must exist rather than some natural event(s) causing the universe to come into existence, and why this god being is eternal or even has to be. It is just one of the possibilities, not a necessary one.

The fact that God must be the cause was already addressed.

And the reason some natural event(s) cant be the cause, is because this NATURAL EVENT ITSELF WOULD ALSO BE PART OF THE IMPOSSIBLE INFINITE REGRESSION CHAIN.

You dont negate the problem of infinite regression of natural causes, by positing more natural causes.

C'mon now, people.

You're stipulating that the origin of the computer has to lie within the computer (ie. it must build itself), and if that can't be explained then the computer never began to exist. And somehow this means the computer would have to be eternal in time?

*sigh* Bro, if the computer exists and it DIDNT create itself, nor does it have an external cause...then it is eternal.

Cmonnnn.

This is the crux of the problem. You think you've demonstrated that a natural mechanism is impossible, but you haven't, nor have you shown that a natural mechanism would require an infinite duration of time. You keep referring back to the OP justifications, but those are the problem because they don't hold water (as pointed out many times in this thread by several of us).

Smh.

Do you not understand that a feature of nature is change?

Constant change?

Things are constantly happening...and for change to occur, it must occur in TIME.

In other words, it takes time to change...and that is why a "natural mechanism would require an infinite duration of time".

Do you not understand this?

And no questions of "What about God"? I already addressed this.

[Bust Nak]

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.

So far so good.

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.

How? Where are you getting the idea that "some were not" from? The set has always been infinite doesn't imply that any elements were not added or always been part of the set.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #287]

Glad to see you acknowledge that point. So again, why are we having this discussion?

Apparently to debate a version of the Cosmological Argument which is all your OP boils down to. Aquinas started this whole thing about 900 years ago (or he is the most famous old timer) and it has been debated ever since. Your OP is essentially his "second way":

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

William Lane Craig defends this sort of thing as do many other theists:

Craig's take: "The infinite is impossible, whichever perspective the viewer takes, and so there must always have been one unmoved thing to begin the universe. He uses Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel and the question 'What is infinity minus infinity?' to illustrate the idea that the infinite is metaphysically, mathematically, and even conceptually, impossible. Other reasons include the fact that it is impossible to count down from infinity, and that, had the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, every possible event, including the final end of the universe, would already have occurred. He therefore states his argument in three points- firstly, everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence; secondly, the universe began to exist; so, thirdly, therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Craig argues in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes and thus there must be a first uncaused cause, even if one posits a plurality of causes of the universe. He argues Occam's Razor may be employed to remove unneeded further causes of the universe, to leave a single uncaused cause.

The obvious objection this whole idea has been brought up countless times over the centuries ... what caused this god being to exist given the foundation of the argument? Once you introduce the supernatural and all the characteristics of a god being then you conveniently get around the problems that would apply to anything natural (ie. needing a cause) and neatly dodge having to actually demonstrate that the supernatural exists in any form ... much less a god being. Your OP presentation of this very old argument doesn't add any new twists.

https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/20 ... nd-way.pdf

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/

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

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #289]

You said all of that, to say NOTHING. I guess that is the end of our exchanges.

See ya around.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #290]

You said all of that, to say NOTHING. I guess that is the end of our exchanges.

I didn't actually say very much ... just pasted in two paragraphs from the links provided that are the exact same arguments you present in the OP. But I'm happy to bail on the thread as it is nearly a millennium old debate and not likely to be resolved anytime soon unless one of these god beings makes itself known in some way and settles the issue. We're still waiting on that to happen.