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.

[The Tanager]

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.

Anticipating possible clarifications is a great skill. I wouldn't have walked away with that idea but thank you for clarifying with the length you did.

[Bust Nak]

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

There is a contradiction when you throw in this premise, finite amount implies there is an end to them.

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.

I am saying they are compatible beliefs.

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.

Okay. I was under the impression that you accepted the possibility of a B-theory infinite past (as opposed to accepting the possibility of being wrong.)

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Anticipating possible clarifications is a great skill. I wouldn't have walked away with that idea but thank you for clarifying with the length you did.

It's like a chess game. You guard against possible moves even if the other player isn't likely to see it.

[The Tanager]

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

There is a contradiction when you throw in this premise, finite amount implies there is an end to them.

Why do you think that? Do you think there is an end to counting? Or that, at some point, we pass from counting a finite amount into an infinite amount?

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.

I am saying they are compatible beliefs.

And you think I think those terms are incompatible? They seem equivalent to me. We seem to misunderstanding each other somewhere.

[Bust Nak]

Why do you think that?

A common definition of finite is "limited in size or extent." That limit sounds like an end to me.

Do you think there is an end to counting? Or that, at some point, we pass from counting a finite amount into an infinite amount?

Neither. I think there is no end to counting, I think that trivially implies there is an infinite amount of integers, and I think that at no point does it pass from counting a finite amount to an infinite amount.

And you think I think those terms are incompatible? They seem equivalent to me. We seem to misunderstanding each other somewhere.

Okay, let me add the word "merely" here. I am saying they are merely compatible, they are not equivalent. Not counting to infinite need not result in a finite quantity. Counterexample: counting ... one, two, three, four and five, results in an infinite, not finite, quantity. At every point in this example, the counter has counted an infinite amount.

But they are compatible beliefs: counting from one, two, three, four and five, does result in a finite quantity - five. At every point in this example, the counter has counted a finite amount.

Both are examples of "not counting to infinity," the counter stopped at five. One resulted in an infinite amount while the other finite. In neither example, did such a thing as "passing from a finite to an infinite amount" occurred.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah. I think I see where the problem may have arisen. Let us imagine a finite universe with nothing beyond it (a mental model, not a hypothesis of reality).

So the measurement of that universe is of course finite; there is nothing to measure beyond its' (expanding) boundary. But theoretically. one could carry on counting infinitely into the emptiness beyond the universe (counting being infinite), even if (in practical terms) there is nothing to count and one might even question whether counting has any meaning.

Does that explain where the disagreement lies?

[The Tanager]

A common definition of finite is "limited in size or extent." That limit sounds like an end to me.

Neither. I think there is no end to counting, I think that trivially implies there is an infinite amount of integers, and I think that at no point does it pass from counting a finite amount to an infinite amount.

Do you think that implies an actually infinite amount of integers or a potentially infinite amount of integers? I think it’s the latter. A potential infinite is always finite, though. It will always be limited in size or extent. The limit is infinity, the boundary that it never reaches. Having infinity as a limit or boundary doesn’t imply there is a particular finite end, though.

Okay, let me add the word "merely" here. I am saying they are merely compatible, they are not equivalent. Not counting to infinite need not result in a finite quantity. Counterexample: counting ... one, two, three, four and five, results in an infinite, not finite, quantity. At every point in this example, the counter has counted an infinite amount.

Sure, if that is a counterexample that can actually be done but you haven’t shown it can.

[Bust Nak]

Do you think that implies an actually infinite amount of integers or a potentially infinite amount of integers?

Actual infinity. Potential infinity is only relevant when dealing with iterative processes, the amount of integers there are and the iterative process counting them are separate issues.

I think it’s the latter.

I thought you said infinite (both actual and potential) isn't a quantity. So how is "a non-quantity amount of something" an coherent concept? Doesn't quantity and amount go hand and hand?

A potential infinite is always finite, though. It will always be limited in size or extent. The limit is infinity, the boundary that it never reaches. Having infinity as a limit or boundary doesn’t imply there is a particular finite end, though.

Okay, but here you are talking about a potentially infinite amount, an finite amount still has a particular end.

Sure, if that is a counterexample that can actually be done but you haven’t shown it can.

I was content with just sticking to ask you "why can't it?" You brought the impossibility of passing from finite amount to an infinite amount up as an reason. Can you acknowledge that this objection is not valid? If my counterexample cannot be done, then obviously finite amount stays finite; if it can be, then either finite amount stays finite, or infinite amount stays infinite. In none of the possible scenarios is there such a thing as passing from finite to infinite.

As for showing it:

1) it is possible to count from 0 to 5. (premise)
2) let n be an integer less than or equal to 0. n is 1 step away from n-1. (definitional)
3) it is possible to count from one integer to another, if there is one step between them (premise)
4) it is possible to count from n-1 to n. (from 2 and 3)
5) if it is possible to count from a to b, and it is possible to count from b to c, then it is possible to count form a to c. (premise)
6) if it is possible to count from n to 5, then it is possible to count from n-1 to 5. (from 4 and 5)
7) it is possible to count from any integer less than or equal to 0, to 5 (from 1 and 6)
8) there is no end to integers less than or equal to 0. (premise)
9) Therefore counting ... one, two, three, four and five is possible. (from 7 and 8)

[The Tanager]

Actual infinity. Potential infinity is only relevant when dealing with iterative processes, the amount of integers there are and the iterative process counting them are separate issues.

So, why do you think there being no end to counting trivially implies an actual infinite amount of integers?

I thought you said infinite (both actual and potential) isn't a quantity. So how is "a non-quantity amount of something" an coherent concept? Doesn't quantity and amount go hand and hand?

A potential infinite isn’t a quantity but it does imply a finite quantity.

Okay, but here you are talking about a potentially infinite amount, an finite amount still has a particular end

Why must a finite amount have a particular end? You defined finite as “limited in size or extent.” Why does that mean the thing has a particular end?

Okay, let me add the word "merely" here. I am saying they are merely compatible, they are not equivalent. Not counting to infinite need not result in a finite quantity. Counterexample: counting ... one, two, three, four and five, results in an infinite, not finite, quantity. At every point in this example, the counter has counted an infinite amount.

Sure, if that is a counterexample that can actually be done but you haven’t shown it can.

I was content with just sticking to ask you "why can't it?"

You carry the burden of making sure your counterexample is an actual counter.

You brought the impossibility of passing from finite amount to an infinite amount up as an reason. Can you acknowledge that this objection is not valid? If my counterexample cannot be done, then obviously finite amount stays finite; if it can be, then either finite amount stays finite, or infinite amount stays infinite. In none of the possible scenarios is there such a thing as passing from finite to infinite.

I was trying to get clarity on your view, not using it as an objection.

As for showing it:

1) it is possible to count from 0 to 5. (premise)
2) let n be an integer less than or equal to 0. n is 1 step away from n-1. (definitional)
3) it is possible to count from one integer to another, if there is one step between them (premise)
4) it is possible to count from n-1 to n. (from 2 and 3)
5) if it is possible to count from a to b, and it is possible to count from b to c, then it is possible to count form a to c. (premise)
6) if it is possible to count from n to 5, then it is possible to count from n-1 to 5. (from 4 and 5)
7) it is possible to count from any integer less than or equal to 0, to 5 (from 1 and 6)
8) there is no end to integers less than or equal to 0. (premise)
9) Therefore counting ... one, two, three, four and five is possible. (from 7 and 8)

I think the wording of premises 7-8 is tricking you. Let’s replace “integer less than or equal to 0” with x to see this more clearly:

7) It is possible to count from any x to 5
8) There is no end to x.
9) Therefore, counting (x...one, two, three, four and five) is possible.

[Bust Nak]

So, why do you think there being no end to counting trivially implies an actual infinite amount of integers?

The relevant definition of infinite in general sense means, limitless or endless in scope; and in mathematic means a series that continued indefinitely. Seems to fit the definition of "infinite" perfectly. As for actual vs potential, I am sticking to my previous answer - how many integers there are, and the iterative process of counting them are separate issues, the concept of "potential infinity" only applies when dealing with the iterative process, so there are actual infinite amount of integers.

A potential infinite isn’t a quantity but it does imply a finite quantity.

Right, that sounds like you agree that you can't say "an infinite amount" only "a finite amount." Can you give me a definite yes or no?

Why must a finite amount have a particular end? You defined finite as “limited in size or extent.” Why does that mean the thing has a particular end?

Think of a variation of my proof: the thing does not have a particular end, therefore the series does not end on 0; if it doesn't end on n then it doesn't end on n+1; therefore it does not end; therefore it's not limited in size or extend.

You carry the burden of making sure your counterexample is an actual counter.

That I do, and you carry yours for claiming it is impossible.

I was trying to get clarity on your view, not using it as an objection.

Okay, is the issue clarified? As for objections, please remind me, do you have any other objection against the possibility of adding infinitely many 1's together (or its variation in the form of counting ... 3, 4, 5) other than denying infinite as a quantity?

I think the wording of premises 7-8 is tricking you. Let’s replace “integer less than or equal to 0” with x to see this more clearly:

7) It is possible to count from any x to 5
8) There is no end to x.
9) Therefore, counting (x...one, two, three, four and five) is possible.

That's fine, it is indeed provably true that counting (x...one, two, three, four and five) is possible. So combine 8 and 9 and we still get to the same conclusion counting ... one, two, three, four and five is possible.

A minor quibble, x is one integer, so 8) should really be something like "there is no end to what x can be."