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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #366]

If you reject infinity as a quantity, does that not tie you to the idea that there is an largest integer? Assuming infinite vs finite is a true dichotomy, if infinitely many integers isn't a coherent concept, then you are left with a finite amount of integers. If there is a finite amount of integers then you can finish counting them from the lowest to the highest. The number you counted to when you stop, would be the largest integer, wouldn't it?

[The Tanager]

However, as I said, I don't see this universe of ours as infinite. How could it be if it had a start and is still expanding? Beyond is the Cosmos of 'stuff' from which the Big Bang event emerged, and that I reckon, could be both infinite and eternal. In fact, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Do you mean that the only logical possibility is that matter/energy, that kind of stuff, is both infinite or eternal? Or that something has to be infinite and eternal (for example, to avoid the infinite regression type of stuff)?

[The Tanager]

If you reject infinity as a quantity, does that not tie you to the idea that there is an largest integer? Assuming infinite vs finite is a true dichotomy, if infinitely many integers isn't a coherent concept, then you are left with a finite amount of integers. If there is a finite amount of integers then you can finish counting them from the lowest to the highest. The number you counted to when you stop, would be the largest integer, wouldn't it?

I don’t think so. Quantity is a potential infinite, with no last integer, yet every integer is finite. If you could count integers forever you would never reach a stopping point and never run out of integers.

[Bust Nak]

I don’t think so. Quantity is a potential infinite, with no last integer, yet every integer is finite. If you could count integers forever you would never reach a stopping point and never run out of integers.

So "potential infinite" is a quantity, but "infinity" isn't a quantity; that it is not the case that there are infinitely many integers, instead, there are potentially infinitely many integers - there is a finite amount of integers yet there is no end to them? I can understand how "potential but not actual" applies to counting, but how does it make sense when we are talking about quantity. How does that gel with the idea that the B-theory time can be infinite?

[TRANSPONDER]

However, as I said, I don't see this universe of ours as infinite. How could it be if it had a start and is still expanding? Beyond is the Cosmos of 'stuff' from which the Big Bang event emerged, and that I reckon, could be both infinite and eternal. In fact, I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Do you mean that the only logical possibility is that matter/energy, that kind of stuff, is both infinite or eternal? Or that something has to be infinite and eternal (for example, to avoid the infinite regression type of stuff)?

I would certainly agree that this is the conclusion forced on those wondering about the origins of the Cosmic stuff from which the BB emerged. To avoid the counter -intuitive infinite regression, one has to stop the buck somewhere. The idea of an eternal entity that did not need to be itself created but is capable of planning and creating...well, not a fully formed creation as per Genesis, but (which is where we seem to be at) the most basic energy potential that could start off the process of quantum packages and the the Higgs -boson as a start of energy acting like matter that would enable the BB event and start off the universe, evolution of stars, a universe of biochemicals, life, evolution and in the end mammals and eventually Us just so we could grovel to it and sing songs about how great it was and shoot, shell and torture each other because it couldn't be bothered to tell us clearly which one it was..or of course for no apparent reason other than to see what happened (Deist -god).

No, I have to opt for an unplanned, unguided evolutionary process postulating something so near Nothing as makes no difference that it doesn't need anything to create it. That seems to be the only way out of the 'Infinite Regression' impasse, because I cannot buy into an uncreated Cosmic creative mind, let alone one that cares about whether we mutter poems about it in places of education or not.

[The Tanager]

So "potential infinite" is a quantity, but "infinity" isn't a quantity; that it is not the case that there are infinitely many integers, instead, there are potentially infinitely many integers - there is a finite amount of integers yet there is no end to them?

“Potential infinite” isn’t a quantity, it’s a shorthand way to say that finite numbers go on without end, without ever reaching an actually infinite quantity.

I can understand how "potential but not actual" applies to counting, but how does it make sense when we are talking about quantity.

If we have a quantity, then that quantity would be countable, so I think it would apply to both cases.

How does that gel with the idea that the B-theory time can be infinite?

If an infinite quantity can actually exist, then time with a B-theory nature could be infinite in quantity of events. If an infinite quantity cannot actually exist, then B-theory time would have a finite amount of events that all tenselessly exist.

[The Tanager]

That seems to be the only way out of the 'Infinite Regression' impasse, because I cannot buy into an uncreated Cosmic creative mind, let alone one that cares about whether we mutter poems about it in places of education or not.

So, to make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying this makes the most sense to you but the theistic alternative isn’t logically impossible, right? You aren’t claiming that the theistic answer is logically impossible.

[Bust Nak]

“Potential infinite” isn’t a quantity, it’s a shorthand way to say that finite numbers go on without end, without ever reaching an actually infinite quantity.

So how many integers are there? You can't use "potentially infinite" nor "infinite" as a quantity, you are left with the quantity "an finite amount" as an answer.

If we have a quantity, then that quantity would be countable, so I think it would apply to both cases.

Countable infinite set is a thing, going back to one of my earliest claim - you can count every single integer, all infinitely many of them, without ever counting to infinity. This is pretty much 99% match of what you were saying just before, surely that's easier close that last 1% and reconcile "counting infinitely many" with "not counting to infinite" than to stick with the idea that adding finite quantities together will always result in a finite quantity.

If an infinite quantity can actually exist, then time with a B-theory nature could be infinite in quantity of events. If an infinite quantity cannot actually exist, then B-theory time would have a finite amount of events that all tenselessly exist.

But haven't you already ruled out infinite as a quantity? You forced to reject infinite past in both A and B-theory.

[The Tanager]

So how many integers are there? You can't use "potentially infinite" nor "infinite" as a quantity, you are left with the quantity "an finite amount" as an answer.

Yes, there is a finite amount of them and there is no end to them. What’s the problem with a concept doing that?

Countable infinite set is a thing, going back to one of my earliest claim - you can count every single integer, all infinitely many of them, without ever counting to infinity. This is pretty much 99% match of what you were saying just before, surely that's easier close that last 1% and reconcile "counting infinitely many" with "not counting to infinite" than to stick with the idea that adding finite quantities together will always result in a finite quantity.

Your wording is a bit confusing to me. It sounds like “not counting to infinity” is equivalent to “result in a finite quantity,” yet you seem to be pitting them as alternatives to each other.

But haven't you already ruled out infinite as a quantity? You forced to reject infinite past in both A and B-theory.

I don’t think infinity as a quantity makes sense, yes. If an actual infinity cannot exist in reality, then whatever the nature of time, there couldn’t be an infinite “past”. But, if I’m wrong and an actual infinite can exist, then time could have a B-theory nature but not an A-theory nature.

[TRANSPONDER]

That seems to be the only way out of the 'Infinite Regression' impasse, because I cannot buy into an uncreated Cosmic creative mind, let alone one that cares about whether we mutter poems about it in places of education or not.

So, to make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying this makes the most sense to you but the theistic alternative isn’t logically impossible, right? You aren’t claiming that the theistic answer is logically impossible.

I wasn't thinking in terms of possible and impossible but which seems more or less likely. Since we know so little about cosmic origins (ok.. ...nothing) who knows what is possible? I just say that a creator is complex and to say causality is not an issue is unlikely, so it seems to me, not to say dismissive.

The idea of everything being made of nothing and nothing doesn't need creation leaves just this nagging question of yours (and mine) as to whether nothing can behave as though it's something without any other input. I get your doubt. I get it too, but it just seems to have less of a causality hurdle to get over.

I suppose you could say that I'm interested in this 'potential' idea and I'm not able to see much of a probability for an uncreated (complex) creator.

Sorry for the length but I could see a trap in a flat request for me to say 'Ok..the theist alternative is possible'. I have seen too many theists walk away with the idea I'd just admitted that God probably exists.