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.

[Bust Nak]

How is that definition considering ‘infinity’ as “endless”? “Very great” is a different concept than “endless”.

You did see the "or" just before the "very great" in the definition presented, right? Endless is defined as "having or seeming to have no end or limit" too. So are we now going to speak of grains of sand on a beach as being endless and infinite? Of course not, not in this topic. Just discard the irrelevant or clause, simple.

Not with the concepts I’ve been attaching to those terms. It would be logically impossible for an object to fit ‘infinite’ and ‘expanding’ concerning the concepts I’ve attached to those terms. Yes, people could attach different concepts to those terms, but that’s irrelevant. I’m attaching specific concepts to those terms and asking you questions about those concepts because those are the concepts that deal with the issue that we are discussing.

Again, I've already addressed that, I said it's just a matter of perspective, the universe is not infinite and expanding according to your choice of definition, so there is still no contradiction with an infinite universe, even if one was to accept your point that it was impossible for an object to be infinite and expanding by definition.

In other words, you are talking about a concept (through equivocating on the term) that is completely irrelevant to the issue we were discussing.

It's not completely irrelevant, I offer other concepts to highlight the fact that there are simpler ways of viewing things that most people are comfortable with, in order to encourage you to adopt the common usage.

Then how is this relevant to our discussion, which involves an infinite series?

It is relevant because it is part of the proof that involves infinite series. There are claims about finite series only (without assuming that the same applies to infinite series,) and there are separate claims about series both finite and infinite (which never had "with a beginning and ending" qualifier in the first place,) together these claims are used as premises to produce a fresh conclusion about infinite series.

So do you now accept this premise about finite series only, that series with a start and an end are countable? Do you accept this premise about series both finite and infinite, that a series can be completed if each and every single last one of its element can be counted through? With your previous objections addressed, unless you have further objections, you are forced to accept that infinite series can be completed.

No, it’s not an equivocation. It’s different terms that all refer to the same concept. An equivocation is using the same term to refer to different concepts.

That's the point, that's why I said they were fine in isolation, but an equivocation when presented as an argument. The same term is used to refer to different concepts between clauses: the "complete" in 1 is a different concept to the one in 5 and 6. The "endless" in 2 and 3 is a different concept to the one in 6.

[JoeyKnothead]

I reckon if there can't be no infinity, God can't have him no infinite abilities?

[The Tanager]

You did see the "or" just before the "very great" in the definition presented, right? Endless is defined as "having or seeming to have no end or limit" too. So are we now going to speak of grains of sand on a beach as being endless and infinite? Of course not, not in this topic. Just discard the irrelevant or clause, simple.

I don’t see how that leads to it being intuitive to think having no end/limit and quantity/amount are things that go together.

Again, I've already addressed that, I said it's just a matter of perspective, the universe is not infinite and expanding according to your choice of definition, so there is still no contradiction with an infinite universe, even if one was to accept your point that it was impossible for an object to be infinite and expanding by definition.

How is there no contradiction? How is the universe being ‘not infinite’ and ‘infinite’ in the same sense (the sense in which I’m using ‘infinite’ and its negation) not a contradiction? Yes, if one changes the perspective, i.e., changes the concept attached to the term, i.e., equivocates, then there is no contradiction, but that’s completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.

It's not completely irrelevant, I offer other concepts to highlight the fact that there are simpler ways of viewing things that most people are comfortable with, in order to encourage you to adopt the common usage.

Then what terms are the common usage for the concepts I am talking about?

So do you now accept this premise about finite series only, that series with a start and an end are countable?

I accepted this, and said as much numerous times, since the beginning.

Do you accept this premise about series both finite and infinite, that a series can be completed if each and every single last one of its element can be counted through?

I accept this premise. What you haven't shown is that each and every single last one of its elements can be counted through in both finite and infinite series. I agree it can be done in finite series. The way you've seemed to think you've shown this is true for infinite series is by breaking up such a series into various finite series, which is no longer the same thing.

That's the point, that's why I said they were fine in isolation, but an equivocation when presented as an argument. The same term is used to refer to different concepts between clauses: the "complete" in 1 is a different concept to the one in 5 and 6. The "endless" in 2 and 3 is a different concept to the one in 6.

How are they different?

[The Tanager]

I reckon if there can't be no infinity, God can't have him no infinite abilities?

These are two different senses of "infinite". Nothing necessarily wrong with doing this, unless one equivocates during an argument.

[JoeyKnothead]

I reckon if there can't be no infinity, God can't have him no infinite abilities?

These are two different senses of "infinite". Nothing necessarily wrong with doing this, unless one equivocates during an argument.

Yeah, one where the universe can't have existed infinitely, but your cause-god can.

[TRANSPONDER]

I reckon if there can't be no infinity, God can't have him no infinite abilities?

These are two different senses of "infinite". Nothing necessarily wrong with doing this, unless one equivocates during an argument.

Yeah, one where the universe can't have existed infinitely, but your cause-god can.

I always think it's a hoot that the Theist side can appeal to it all being so mysterious and incomprehensible that noone can make any definite explanations about it, yet they understand it enough to pronounce what's impossible, which seems to be everything other than Goddunnit.

[Bust Nak]

I don’t see how that leads to it being intuitive to think having no end/limit and quantity/amount are things that go together.

It's intuitive to me, so I find it hard to explain why when all I do is just look at it and see that it is the case. Suffice to say it's intuitive enough for enough people for "infinite number or amount" to appear together in a dictionary, intuitive for mathematicians to take it for granted.

How is the universe being ‘not infinite’ and ‘infinite’ in the same sense (the sense in which I’m using ‘infinite’ and its negation) not a contradiction?

The universe being ‘not infinite’ and ‘infinite’ in the same sense would indeed be a contradiction, there is no contradiction because the universe is not actually ‘not infinite’ and ‘infinite’ in the same sense; the universe is just ‘infinite’ full stop.

Then what terms are the common usage for the concepts I am talking about?

Don't know. I don't think there are common term for an "infinity" that isn't a quantity, for an "expanding" where space between two points getting bigger doesn't count.

I accepted this, and said as much numerous times, since the beginning.

I accept this premise.

Great.

What you haven't shown is that each and every single last one of its elements can be counted through in both finite and infinite series.

That's exactly what my proof is supposed to be showing. Here you are accepting two of the (most controversial, I might add) premises used in the proof, so without further objections against the other premises, or against the validity of steps involved, the proof would have shown that each and every single last one of the elements in both finite and infinite series can be counted through, which in turn implies that infinite series can be completed.

The way you've seemed to think you've shown this is true for infinite series is by breaking up such a series into various finite series, which is no longer the same thing.

That's right. I readily affirm that various broken up finite series is not the same thing as an infinite series. As I keep pointing out in my last few posts, my proof does not need a claim that is true only for finite series to carry over to infinite series. What you have pointed out here is not a problem for me because I don't need broken up finite series to be the same thing as an infinite series. Here you have made a general observation about my proof, would you like to pick out a particular premise or step that you think is problematic?

How are they different?

The "complete" in 5 and 6 means having or reaching an end, while the one in 1 means moving though all members.
The "endless" in 2 and 3 means infinite, while the one in 6 means cannot be completed/finish.

[The Tanager]

Yeah, one where the universe can't have existed infinitely, but your cause-god can.

That’s not what I’ve been discussing on this thread, but I do believe that, yes. The spatio-temporal universe can’t have existed infinitely because the infinity there refers to a mathematical concept of discrete segments.

On the other hand, an eternal, personal cause is not made up of an infinite number of discrete segments and so the same problems don’t apply. When theists speak of God being infinite, they are talking qualitatively, not quantitatively. It’s about being unlimited in power and knowledge, morally perfect, eternal, etc.

I always think it's a hoot that the Theist side can appeal to it all being so mysterious and incomprehensible that noone can make any definite explanations about it, yet they understand it enough to pronounce what's impossible, which seems to be everything other than Goddunnit.

I made no appeal to mystery and incomprehensibility.

[The Tanager]

It's intuitive to me, so I find it hard to explain why when all I do is just look at it and see that it is the case. Suffice to say it's intuitive enough for enough people for "infinite number or amount" to appear together in a dictionary, intuitive for mathematicians to take it for granted.

But why isn’t the intuition of these people connecting infinity as a boundary concept with amounts?

The universe being ‘not infinite’ and ‘infinite’ in the same sense would indeed be a contradiction, there is no contradiction because the universe is not actually ‘not infinite’ and ‘infinite’ in the same sense; the universe is just ‘infinite’ full stop.

If the universe is expanding (in the sense I’m speaking about it), then it can’t be infinite (in the sense I’m speaking about it). Other senses of those two terms are irrelevant.

Don't know. I don't think there are common term for an "infinity" that isn't a quantity,

There is no common term for infinity as a boundary concept?

for an "expanding" where space between two points getting bigger doesn't count.

Why do you think I’m saying the space between two points getting bigger doesn’t count as expanding? I’m saying that talking about two points within an infinity is irrelevant. We are talking about the extent of infinity, not of a finite section of the infinite.

That's exactly what my proof is supposed to be showing. Here you are accepting two of the (most controversial, I might add) premises used in the proof, so without further objections against the other premises, or against the validity of steps involved, the proof would have shown that each and every single last one of the elements in both finite and infinite series can be counted through, which in turn implies that infinite series can be completed.

I have no idea why you think your proof shows that, for the reasons I’ve given. Why do you think your proof shows that? Cover the premises again and point it out.

The "complete" in 5 and 6 means having or reaching an end, while the one in 1 means moving though all members.
The "endless" in 2 and 3 means infinite, while the one in 6 means cannot be completed/finish.

Sure, those are different terms, but why think those are different concepts? Just saying the terms as though they are different without explaining why simply begs the question.

If you have moved through all members, then the process of moving is over. The process has ended.

If infinity is something that has not ended, then the process is not over, which is the same thing as it not being completed or finished.

[Bust Nak]

But why isn’t the intuition of these people connecting infinity as a boundary concept with amounts?

Boundaries of amounts is fine, boundaries but not also an amount isn't intuitive. As for why, there isn't really a way to explain intuition, it's not intuitive because infinity just looks like an amount at a glance to most people.

If the universe is expanding (in the sense I’m speaking about it), then it can’t be infinite (in the sense I’m speaking about it). Other senses of those two terms are irrelevant.

Sure, given the premise that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive, if the universe is expanding, then it can’t be infinite. I've affirmed that previously. With that premise in mind, since the universe is infinite, the universe isn't expanding.

There is no common term for infinity as a boundary concept?

Exclusively a boundary but not also an amount? Not that I am aware of.

Why do you think I’m saying the space between two points getting bigger doesn’t count as expanding? I’m saying that talking about two points within an infinity is irrelevant. We are talking about the extent of infinity, not of a finite section of the infinite.

How can every section of the universe can be expanding but the extent of the universe not be expanding, with the same sense of expanding?

I have no idea why you think your proof shows that, for the reasons I’ve given. Why do you think your proof shows that?

I think my proof shows that because I think it is logically valid with true premises and therefore must result in a true conclusion. Despite the reasons you've given about my proof overall, you have yet to pointed to any step that isn't logically valid. The few times you objected to a premise, you ended up affirming that you accept it after my clarification.

Cover the premises again and point it out.

Here is a more concise version of my proof, taking your comments into consideration, marking out the starts and ends with to and from, marking out finite or infinite where applicable.

1) Let X be the set (finite or infinite) of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to from 0. (define X)
2) X is not empty (assumption)
3) Let x0 be the lowest member of X (define x0)
4) Let y be the integer x0-1 (define y)
5) y can be counted to from 0 (from 4)
6) x0 can be counted to from y (from 4)
7) x0 can be counted to from 0 (from 5 and 6)
8) contradiction, therefore the assumption is false (from 1, 3 and 7)
9) X, the set of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to from 0, is empty (from 2 and 8)
10) all integers >= 0 falls into 1 of 2 categories: can be counted to from 0, or cannot be counted to from 0 (premise)
11) a (finite or infinite) set of integers >= 0, with members of X removed, leaves a set that contains only members that can be counted to from 0 (from 10)
12) {0, ...} with members of X removed is {0, ...} (from 9)
13) {0, ...} contains only members that can be counted to from 0 (from 11 and 12)
14) an integer that can be counted to from 0, is an integer that can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} (from 15)

I've narrowed the premises down to two. Which of the two you have a problem with? Which of the (from...) step don't you think is logically valid?

Sure, those are different terms, but why think those are different concepts?

Moving through all members, means the process is over, completed, finished and ended.

Infinity is something that cannot be over, completed, finished nor ended.

Given that you can move through all members of infinity, "completed," "over," "end," or "finish" cannot possibly be the same concept between the two statements.