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.

[benchwarmer]

Isn't it convenient when apologists frame their argument with only their desired answer preloaded into the premises?

Yet, "Mother Nature" was clearly included in the premises, when that isn't my desired answer.

Lets keep the party going with more falsehoods, shall we?

Clearly my actual point sailed clean over your head. You falsely created a dichotomy as already pointed out by brother Joey. There are infinitely many possible other things besides "God" and "Mother Nature". You want "God" to fall out of your argument so you loaded it into your premise. Convenient.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Clearly my actual point sailed clean over your head.

It went over my head for good reasons...

You falsely created a dichotomy as already pointed out by brother Joey.

Huh? Oh yeah, you had cosigned the earthworm nonsense. SMH.

I will let you two carry on with that and continue to focus on the real topic at hand.

There are infinitely many possible other things besides "God" and "Mother Nature".

And all of those infinitely many possibilities will all fall under the category of..

1. Natural
2. Supernatural

Like I said, those are the only two games in town...and if there is a category outside of those two, then I haven't seen it yet.

You want "God" to fall out of your argument so you loaded it into your premise. Convenient.

Again, Mother Nature was also "loaded" into the premise....which would be an inconvenience. Yet, it is clearly there.

SMH.

[JoeyKnothead]

For every instance you require a "supernatural cause", we note that in nature, it's nature doing it all the causing.

You do understand the difference between a primary cause, and a secondary cause...don't you?

Not near readily as I can tell Shinola from that what ain't.

As you propose a "cause" for the universe, while exempting that "cause" from having it a "cause", your argument's a special pleading.

We observe the universe to exist. To propose we know the cause for it, is to propose we know what the wimmins're really up to.

Your argument is based on the unconfirmed and unconfirmable.

It is confirmed to me.

I don't doubt many a theist'd be happy with your faulty conclusions.

I propose a third option...

Beats me.

You may not know whether O.J committed the crime, but that doesn't change the fact that either he committed the crime, or he didn't.

Do you now wish to propose OJ's is God?

Do you now wish to propose OJ's the "cause" for the universe existing?

Do you now wish to propose OJ's existence is immune to the laws you impose on the universe, but disimpose for your proposed "OJ God"?

Only when we restrict ourselves to the dichotomy you present.

Could be earthworms were so desirous of having em some earth to worm in, they all got together and, after much discussion and thought, decided to create em an entire universe, right down to a specific galaxy, with it a specific solar system in it, which had it a not quite round planet in amongst, and on that planet, don't it beat all, there they did place em such copious amounts of earthen material, they set to calling it Heaven, and get all fussed up when the humans thereupon call it "Earth".

Now, I challenge anyone to put the lie to my magical mystery tour of supernatural claims based on how come it is, earthworms're such good fish bait.

Your befuddlement is not a befuddlement to me.

What you got is a dichotomous dichotomy of dichotomous dichotomies.

The worms alone prove your argument errant.

So, this is what its come to, people...

It's come to your previous now compounded by your "So, this is what it's come to people...

If the words get too long, please consult a dictionary.

We risk exposing our inability to understand an opposing argument when we "rule it out", especially when we economize intellectual energy by dichotomizing the question / answer.

You ain't ruled nothing out, but have only declared it so.

We will have to agree/disagree there.

"I can't refute your argument, so I'm just gonna open me this empty can of whooptail on ya."

Or it was them sneaky slimy earthworms. Remember, all relevant and accepted data and literature pertaining to it's pertinence indicates it's the earthworms we oughta thank for the universe existing.

As I scroll the rest of the post, I continue to see more nonsense about earthworms, so I can't take it seriously.

I have every confidence you can't make you no sense of the arguments put before ya.

[Diogenes]

...
In this case, B is successfully ruled out (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), therefore, option A is the only game left in town.
....

No scientist can answer that question, but theologians can

I've singled out these two unsupported claims as representative of the 'logic' you employ. You make claims with zero support.

In the first, you make a claim out of thin air and say it is valid, unless disproved. You might as well claim invisible pink unicorns exist "unless you can demonstrate otherwise."

Then you conclude with the absurd claim that theologians are better equipped to explain natural law and the nature of the universe than scientists. This statement is an article of faith rather than springing from logic or science. There is no point in discussion when you rely wholly on claims of faith; they are not falsifiable.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not near readily as I can tell Shinola from that what ain't.

As you propose a "cause" for the universe, while exempting that "cause" from having it a "cause", your argument's a special pleading.

No, it isn't special pleading. Please educate yourself on the fallacy of special pleading before you begin to erroneously drop it on someone.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... l-Pleading

My argument is that infinite regression is impossible and the concept cannot exist in reality, and I've been on the record as to stating that God himself is subjected to laws of logic and more specifically, God himself is subjected to the argument against infinite regression.

So I am not special pleading for my position.

Now, if my position was..

"Infinite regression is logically impossible, EXCEPT with God".

If my position was this^, then yeah, that would be special pleading.

But that was never my argumentation, in fact, its been the opposite.

So please, kill that noise because it just simply isn't true.

We observe the universe to exist. To propose we know the cause for it, is to propose we know what the wimmins're really up to.

I am proposing that I know, and I propose to know what the Almighty was really up to when he created the universe.

I don't doubt many a theist'd be happy with your faulty conclusions.

No, a faulty conclusion would be "we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore, birds evolved from reptiles".

That, is a faulty conclusion.

Do you now wish to propose OJ's is God?

Do you now wish to propose OJ's the "cause" for the universe existing?

Do you now wish to propose OJ's existence is immune to the laws you impose on the universe, but disimpose for your proposed "OJ God"?

SMH. Moving along.

"I can't refute your argument, so I'm just gonna open me this empty can of whooptail on ya."

No, it is more like "sometimes you have to disagree with someone and keep it moving".

I have every confidence you can't make you no sense of the arguments put before ya.

Well, when you put forth a sensical argument, I will try to make sense of it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I've singled out these two unsupported claims as representative of the 'logic' you employ. You make claims with zero support.

Singling out is a form of discrimination

In the first, you make a claim out of thin air and say it is valid, unless disproved. You might as well claim invisible pink unicorns exist "unless you can demonstrate otherwise."

No, the difference is, you are using the example of the invisible pink unicorn as if it is a empty claim being made about the positive existence of a invisible pink unicorn, and that unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, the unicorn exists.

If that is the case, then I see your point.

But that is not what is going on here with me, because I am not making an empty claim, I've made a case for the positive affirmation of a First Cause (uncaused cause).

And the many attempts at refuting the argument have failed, in my opinion...so I can only conclude that the argument stands.

So, "gotcha" moment, failed.

Then you conclude with the absurd claim that theologians are better equipped to explain natural law and the nature of the universe than scientists.

Straw man. That's not what I said or implied. Reading comprehension.

This statement is an article of faith rather than springing from logic or science. There is no point in discussion when you rely wholly on claims of faith; they are not falsifiable.

There is also no point in discussion when you barely touched anything as it relates to the actual argument which was laid out in the OP.

[Diogenes]

I've singled out these two unsupported claims as representative of the 'logic' you employ. You make claims with zero support.

Singling out is a form of discrimination

In the first, you make a claim out of thin air and say it is valid, unless disproved. You might as well claim invisible pink unicorns exist "unless you can demonstrate otherwise."

No, the difference is, you are using the example of the invisible pink unicorn as if it is a empty claim being made about the positive existence of a invisible pink unicorn, and that unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, the unicorn exists.

If that is the case, then I see your point.

But that is not what is going on here with me, because I am not making an empty claim, I've made a case for the positive affirmation of a First Cause (uncaused cause).

We are in agreement that you made a claim. You have not made a convincing case. You are making the ancient claim of an uncaused 'First Cause." You call it 'God.' I call it the universe, or existence. There is nothing new here. I agree with Andrew Loke that, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, only things which begin to exist require a cause, while something that is without a beginning has always existed and therefore does not require a cause.

There is another GIANT and unwarranted assumption you make, even if we assume for the argument there is an 'uncaused cause.' You claim that First Cause is a theistic 'god.' Do you go further? Do you claim this 'god' has a personality? How do you describe this 'god' you posit must exist?

[JoeyKnothead]

Not near readily as I can tell Shinola from that what ain't.

That ain't it Shinola on the soles of your argument.

As you propose a "cause" for the universe, while exempting that "cause" from having it a "cause", your argument's a special pleading.

No, it isn't special pleading. Please educate yourself on the fallacy of special pleading before you begin to erroneously drop it on someone.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... l-Pleading

You allow your argument for a god based on principles and notions ya disallow for the universe, such as claiming the universe was created but your god wasn't.

But just in case I'm wrong on it, I'll retract my accusation of special pleading, and replace it with argumentum ad goofium.

My argument is that infinite regression is impossible and the concept cannot exist in reality, and I've been on the record as to stating that God himself is subjected to laws of logic and more specifically, God himself is subjected to the argument against infinite regression.

Your argument injects an unproven, unprovable claim - God exists - then disregards the question of that god's origins.

So I am not special pleading for my position.

Plenty fair. It ain't it so special an argument when so many theists seek to present it.

But otherwise, it merely pushes the origin question back another step.

Now, if my position was..
"Infinite regression is logically impossible, EXCEPT with God".
If my position was this^, then yeah, that would be special pleading.
But that was never my argumentation, in fact, its been the opposite.

You propose a "cause" for the universe, and contend that "cause" is of "supernatural", or "exonatural" origin.

It's my firm convictions such a thing is most likely considered a " god".

However, of you now accept the earthworm theory of the universe acoming it to be, we can forget all that.

So please, kill that noise because it just simply isn't true.

I respect my opponents, and do my best not to mischaracterize their arguments. In this matter I leave it to the observer to decide on if I have or not.

We observe the universe to exist. To propose we know the cause for it, is to propose we know what the wimmins're really up to.

I am proposing that I know, and I propose to know what the Almighty was really up to when he created the universe.

Then here ya go, do tell us all..

I challenge you to show the following..

1. 1st step I promised not to ask
2. You know what this 'almighty', disallowed in step 1, is 'really up to'
3. When he 'created' the universe.

Please wait about four minutes after the time of my posting here, while pretty thing fixes me a bowl of popcorn.

No, a faulty conclusion would be "we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore, birds evolved from reptiles".

That, is a faulty conclusion.

Birds have a gene that deactivates the development of teeth. So that gene exists, it the teeth growing gene, only it doesn't get expressed on account of the "no right minded bird's have em teeth" gene.

https://www.audubon.org/news/how-birds-lost-their-teeth

Beyond that, the bird - reptile connection goes beyond their smile.

Do you now wish to propose OJ's God?
Do you now wish to propose OJ's the "cause" for the universe existing?
Do you now wish to propose OJ's existence is immune to the laws you impose on the universe, but disimpose for your proposed "OJ God"?

SMH. Moving along.

You're the one that brought OJ into this OP / debate.

Yet now all ya can do is S your H, and move along.

I propose if my questions were not pertinent, ya'd be kind enough to ensure the observer ain't confused to think OJ is your God.

"I can't refute your argument, so I'm just gonna open me this empty can of whooptail on ya."

No, it is more like "sometimes you have to disagree with someone and keep it moving".

Or, ya hafta pull out the "agree to disagree" card so's ya don't hafta refute your opponent's arguments, or support your own.

I'm plenty happy to let the observer decide on this'n too.

I have every confidence you can't make you no sense of the arguments put before ya.

Well, when you put forth a sensical argument, I will try to make sense of it.

Declaring an argument "nonsense" without explaining why is like declaring a chick pretty, but not buying her a drink.

Here's what I mean...Sometimes the pretty thing makes me go shopping with her, when she's fixing to buy a new living room mess of furniture, or some such as that. Forget we got a new new bunch last year, common sense declares when pretty thing says jump, I either jump, or sleep me out on that multidecade old couch out there in the barn, comfortable as it is, on it the other side of where the pigs sleep. And I'm here to tell it, ya ain't never got ya a comfortable night of sleep when the piglets're up and hungry. And ya ain't drunk enough to just pass on out.

Anyway, on the furniture fetching..
"Pretty thing, I trust your judgement, and I'd just soon sit here on the porch and whittle. And ya know danged well I'm me weeks behind on it."

"Naw Joey, this is a decision we gotta make together."

And we go there, and get there, and there we buy the furniture it was, she'd done looked up online and decided on. And cause I can't match colors and textures, and if ya say leather clad reclining with extra special vibrating massage, I don't care if it's plaid or not, I'm astopping on the way home for beer and prophylactics, and I don't care in which order I do. So it is is, we get us the deluxe couch and chairs, and the deluxe side tables and the deluxe coffee table, and the deluxe lamps with the deluxe shades. And not never once can ya tell what's deluxe bout any of it.

But all the same, it's "nonsense" to me how come I gotta be there to "decide" on the stuff it is, she done did. Ah, but on the way home she makes her them girly sounds of pleasure, and I know soon as we get home I gotta take out the trash I was sposed to atook out the other day. And hopefully, she'll stop payment on the furniture we don't need, cause she buys this stuff every time she rips a page off the calendar there in the pantry. And come to find out, pantry's ain't where they store their frillies. I swear by the old gods and the new, if wimmins wasn't so smooshy, well I don't know. I'm just fed up with having to work afitting me a new butt print into where I sit all the time.

That's nonsense right there. See how I explained how come it was.

[Bradskii]

No, a faulty conclusion would be "we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore, birds evolved from reptiles"

Yeah. The correct statement would be 'we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore we have even more evidence that birds evolved from reptiles'.

[Diogenes]

No, a faulty conclusion would be "we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore, birds evolved from reptiles"

Yeah. The correct statement would be 'we've found a fossil of a bird with teeth, therefore we have even more evidence that birds evolved from reptiles'.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAb