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
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 #291

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:59 pm But I'm happy to bail on the thread
Yeah, you do that.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #292

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:52 am
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.

P1. If the A-theory of time is true, then all of the “past’s” elements are successively added into it at some time.
P2. The A-theory of time is true.
P3. Therefore, all of the “past’s” elements are successively added into it at some time.
P4. If all of a set’s elements are successively added into it at some time, then that set cannot be an actual infinite.
C. Therefore, the “past” is not an actual infinite.

You have agreed to P1, assumed P2 is true for this part of our discussion, P3 logically follows from P1 and P2, you have agreed to P4, and P5 logically follows from P3 and P4. Now, I have worded the premises differently but I believe they are exactly equivalent to things you've agreed to. If you think I've changed anything, please point that out and lets get clarity because I am not trying to switch anything on you or put words into your mouth you disagree with.

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 #293

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:09 pm P1. If the A-theory of time is true, then all of the “past’s” elements are successively added into it at some time.
P2. The A-theory of time is true.
P3. Therefore, all of the “past’s” elements are successively added into it at some time.
P4. If all of a set’s elements are successively added into it at some time, then that set cannot be an actual infinite.
C. Therefore, the “past” is not an actual infinite.

...you have agreed to P4...
This is the problem. I have stated things along the lines of "it's impossible to form an actual infinite via successively addition," not the same thing as P4.
Starting with a finite set, add elements indefinitely, somehow turning into an actual infinite, would be impossible; but the A-theory infinite past does not start with an finite set, this does not contradict with P1/P3. You can have an actual infinite AND have all the elements are added successively.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #294

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:06 pmThis is the problem. I have stated things along the lines of "it's impossible to form an actual infinite via successively addition," not the same thing as P4.
Starting with a finite set, add elements indefinitely, somehow turning into an actual infinite, would be impossible; but the A-theory infinite past does not start with an finite set, this does not contradict with P1/P3. You can have an actual infinite AND have all the elements are added successively.
We aren't starting with a finite set or an infinite set and adding stuff to it. We are forming the set from nothing.

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 #295

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:36 pm We aren't starting with a finite set or an infinite set and adding stuff to it. We are forming the set from nothing.
Aren't we? The empty set is clearly a) finite, b) doesn't describe an infinite past, which is supposed to be an actual infinite. So please clarify what you mean by forming the set from nothing.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #296

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:39 amAren't we? The empty set is clearly a) finite, b) doesn't describe an infinite past, which is supposed to be an actual infinite. So please clarify what you mean by forming the set from nothing.
No, we aren't. We don't start with the empty set. We start with no set. Then we go about deciding what kind of set the past is: empty, finite, potentially infinite, actually infinite.

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 #297

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:33 am No, we aren't. We don't start with the empty set. We start with no set. Then we go about deciding what kind of set the past is: empty, finite, potentially infinite, actually infinite.
I don't see where that gets us. We are not talking about the past in general, we are dealing specifically with the A-theory infinite past, which trivially isn't finite nor empty by definition.

I proposed that the A-theory infinite past is an actual infinite. You said that if all of a set’s elements are successively added into it at some time, then that set cannot be an actual infinite. I disagree with that, my reasoning was that while a finite set cannot become an actual infinite via successive addition, the same does not apply to an infinite set, as there is nothing stopping new elements from being successively added to an actual infinite set; and that holds true for all its elements, they all can all be added in succession without somehow turning the already infinite set into a finite one. Now you say that we haven't decided know what kind of set the past is, okay we haven't, but that doesn't seem to address my objection.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #298

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:03 amI don't see where that gets us. We are not talking about the past in general, we are dealing specifically with the A-theory infinite past, which trivially isn't finite nor empty by definition.

I proposed that the A-theory infinite past is an actual infinite. You said that if all of a set’s elements are successively added into it at some time, then that set cannot be an actual infinite. I disagree with that, my reasoning was that while a finite set cannot become an actual infinite via successive addition, the same does not apply to an infinite set, as there is nothing stopping new elements from being successively added to an actual infinite set; and that holds true for all its elements, they all can all be added in succession without somehow turning the already infinite set into a finite one. Now you say that we haven't decided know what kind of set the past is, okay we haven't, but that doesn't seem to address my objection.

No one has been changing what they are saying (if that is what you are meaning), we are clarifying what we have meant because we are coming at this with two different banks of concepts because of our different experiences, encounters, readings in life and trying to understand each other.

We are trying to see if the A-theory infinite past can be an actual infinite or if that is an illogical concept. To do that we start with nothing and see what kind of set the A-theory of past could be. You are starting with the set already being infinite and then talking about new elements being added but that is not what I have ever been talking about and it’s not the question we are addressing. You misunderstood me to be talking about that when I talked of adding elements successively because of your own understanding. We have to start with nothing; you are starting with the set already being infinite.

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 #299

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:34 am We are trying to see if the A-theory infinite past can be an actual infinite or if that is an illogical concept. To do that we start with nothing and see what kind of set the A-theory of past could be. You are starting with the set already being infinite and then talking about new elements being added but that is not what I have ever been talking about and it’s not the question we are addressing. You misunderstood me to be talking about that when I talked of adding elements successively because of your own understanding. We have to start with nothing; you are starting with the set already being infinite.
What? No. We are indeed trying to see if the A-theory infinite past can be an actual infinite or if that is an illogical concept. In order to do that we start by assuming A-theory infinite past IS an actual infinite and try to generate contradictions from there. You can't assume that it's not an actual infinite here, to do so would be a question begging fallacy.

While we are here, you suggested if all of a set’s elements are successively added into a set at some time, then that set cannot be an actual infinite. My objection against this premise holds true regardless of whether the A-theory infinite past is actual infinite or not; my objection does not even rely on the past being infinite, it's simply an objection against what you said about sets.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #300

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:38 amWhat? No. We are indeed trying to see if the A-theory infinite past can be an actual infinite or if that is an illogical concept. In order to do that we start by assuming A-theory infinite past IS an actual infinite and try to generate contradictions from there. You can't assume that it's not an actual infinite here, to do so would be a question begging fallacy.

While we are here, you suggested if all of a set’s elements are successively added into a set at some time, then that set cannot be an actual infinite. My objection against this premise holds true regardless of whether the A-theory infinite past is actual infinite or not; my objection does not even rely on the past being infinite, it's simply an objection against what you said about sets.
I thought you agreed that all of the infinite past's elements were successively added at some time. Did you not? And, yes, we are assuming A-theory is an actual infinite and seeing if contradictions arise. That's different than what you were just doing. You were saying that we have an actual infinite and then are successively adding more elements. That is analyzing adding elements to an already infinite past, not analyzing the infinite past itself.

The contradiction is that all elements of the past were successively added at one point, that an actual infinite cannot be formed in this way, and that the past is an actual infinite. Not all three of those can be true.

Post Reply