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!!

Online
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #401

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:55 am
What does it mean for an amount to be limitless/endless in scope or to continue indefinitely?

It means if you start counting that amount of things, you would never finish.

So, the amount isn’t an infinite quantity (like 5 is a quantity), it’s just that you’ll never reach the quantity it is?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:55 amThen can you clarify what you meant when you said "Do you think that implies an actually infinite amount of integers or a potentially infinite amount of integers? I think it’s the latter."

I’m not sure if it’ll help but I’ll offer another wording. I’m asking whether you think that implies an actually infinite quantity of integers or a finite quantity that you’ll never finish reaching?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:55 amOkay, do you have any comment about my argument for "limited in size or extent" therefore a series has a particular end?

It seems like a different wording for the same concepts we are already discussing, so the comments would remain the same.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:55 amWhy would you have to have a start when you seemingly have no problem linking "1,2,3...X where X can" be anything to the conclusion "1,2,3...?"

Your premises require a starting X to remain logically consistent. I’m not sure why you think I would have no problem linking “1, 2, 3, ...X” to “1, 2, 3, …”. Those aren’t the same concepts.

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 #402

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:32 pm So, the amount isn’t an infinite quantity (like 5 is a quantity), it’s just that you’ll never reach the quantity it is?
Sure.
I’m not sure if it’ll help but I’ll offer another wording. I’m asking whether you think that implies an actually infinite quantity of integers or a finite quantity that you’ll never finish reaching?
Okay, and was my answer clear?
It seems like a different wording for the same concepts we are already discussing, so the comments would remain the same.
Well it can't be the same concept, one is supposedly finite the other is supposedly infinite.
Your premises require a starting X to remain logically consistent. I’m not sure why you think I would have no problem linking “1, 2, 3, ...X” to “1, 2, 3, …”. Those aren’t the same concepts.
I am not saying they are not the same concepts though, the point was, adding in the premise "X can be anything," the first concept implies the second one.

Online
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #403

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:53 am
So, the amount isn’t an infinite quantity (like 5 is a quantity), it’s just that you’ll never reach the quantity it is?

Sure.
I’m not sure if it’ll help but I’ll offer another wording. I’m asking whether you think that implies an actually infinite quantity of integers or a finite quantity that you’ll never finish reaching?

Okay, and was my answer clear?

From your “Sure” above, you seem to be saying that there is a finite quantity of integers that you’ll never finish reaching. I agree.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:53 amWell it can't be the same concept, one is supposedly finite the other is supposedly infinite.

Lay the argument you are referring to out again and I’ll share my thoughts with the above clarifications in mind.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:53 am
Your premises require a starting X to remain logically consistent. I’m not sure why you think I would have no problem linking “1, 2, 3, ...X” to “1, 2, 3, …”. Those aren’t the same concepts.

I am not saying they are not the same concepts though, the point was, adding in the premise "X can be anything," the first concept implies the second one.

I don’t see how it implies the second one. "X can be anything" was premise 8 in your argument. It also already exists to get us to counting "1, 2, 3, ... X" being possible. Why would adding it in again get us to "...1, 2, 3" or "1, 2, 3, ..."?

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 #404

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:40 pm From your “Sure” above, you seem to be saying that there is a finite quantity of integers that you’ll never finish reaching. I agree.
My bad, I read that wrong. It is infinite quantity, just like 5 is quantity, it’s just that you’ll never reach the quantity it is.
Lay the argument you are referring to out again and I’ll share my thoughts with the above clarifications in mind.
I am gonna lay it out anyway:

1) Finite vs infinite is a true dichotomy, collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive. (premise 1)
2) Infinite isn't a quantity therefore an infinite amount of something is an incoherent concept. (premise 2)
3) There is some amount of integers. (premise 3)
4) There is either an finite amount or an infinite amount of integers (from 3)
5) There is a finite amount of integers. (2 and 4)
6) There is no end to integers. (premise 4)
7) It is not the case that there is a finite amount of integers (from 4)
8) One or more of the premises is false. (from 5 and 6)

Justification for step 7: relevant definition of finite: limited in size or extent. All the premise looks solid apart from 2.
I don’t see how it implies the second one. "X can be anything" was premise 8 in your argument. It also already exists to get us to counting "1, 2, 3, ... X" being possible. Why would adding it in again get us to "...1, 2, 3" or "1, 2, 3, ..."?
We don't need "X can be anything" as a premise to get to "counting 1,2,3...X is possible" though. We are not adding it again as the sole purpose of that premise is to get from "counting 1,2,3...X is possible" to "counting 1,2,3... is possible." As for how one implies the other, X can be anything which means there is no particular end to the sequence. And not having a particular end is what exactly 1,2,3... means.

Online
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #405

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:24 amMy bad, I read that wrong. It is infinite quantity, just like 5 is quantity, it’s just that you’ll never reach the quantity it is.
How do you define "quantity"?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:24 am1) Finite vs infinite is a true dichotomy, collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive. (premise 1)
2) Infinite isn't a quantity therefore an infinite amount of something is an incoherent concept. (premise 2)
3) There is some amount of integers. (premise 3)
4) There is either an finite amount or an infinite amount of integers (from 3)
5) There is a finite amount of integers. (2 and 4)
6) There is no end to integers. (premise 4)
7) It is not the case that there is a finite amount of integers (from 4)
8) One or more of the premises is false. (from 5 and 6)

Justification for step 7: relevant definition of finite: limited in size or extent. All the premise looks solid apart from 2.

What justifies moving from the series of integers not being “limited in size or extent” (6) to the quantity of integers not being “limited in size or extent” (7)? I thought you believed the iterative process was distinct from how many integers there are.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:24 amAs for how one implies the other, X can be anything which means there is no particular end to the sequence. And not having a particular end is what exactly 1,2,3... means.

No, “X can be anything” means there is always a particular end to the sequence, it’s just that that end can be any positive integer. While (1, 2, 3, …) means that there is no particular end to the sequence. I think both are true but it’s not because one implies the other.

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 #406

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:15 am How do you define "quantity"?
The dictionary version would do: the amount or number of a material.
What justifies moving from the series of integers not being “limited in size or extent” (6) to the quantity of integers not being “limited in size or extent” (7)?
The size of a series is a quantity. It is not limited, which means the quantity is also not limited.
I thought you believed the iterative process was distinct from how many integers there are.
I still hold that to be true, the size of a series of integers is a matter of how many integers there are, which is distinct from iterative processes.
No, “X can be anything” means there is always a particular end to the sequence, it’s just that that end can be any positive integer.
How are these concepts not exclusive? A "particular integer" is the result of selecting one from "any integer." Have a "particular integer" implies selecting one, at which point, said integer is no longer "any integer."

Online
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #407

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:23 pmThe dictionary version would do: the amount or number of a material.

I don’t see how an amount or number can be limitless, endless, continuing indefinitely. A quantity, an amount, a number is a determinate thing. How could a determinate thing not be reachable, in principle? But, assuming such a thing could exist, wouldn’t you be saying that this present moment (on an A-theory infinite past) could not be reached?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:23 pm
What justifies moving from the series of integers not being “limited in size or extent” (6) to the quantity of integers not being “limited in size or extent” (7)?

The size of a series is a quantity. It is not limited, which means the quantity is also not limited.

Yes, the size of a series is a quantity but I didn’t ask about moving from the size of a series not being limited to the quantity of integers not being limited. If this is what you mean by premise 6, then what is the justification for this? How can the number of elements in a series that doesn’t end even have a quantity?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:23 pm
No, “X can be anything” means there is always a particular end to the sequence, it’s just that that end can be any positive integer.

How are these concepts not exclusive? A "particular integer" is the result of selecting one from "any integer." Have a "particular integer" implies selecting one, at which point, said integer is no longer "any integer."

Once the particular integer is selected, then yes, the particular series looked at would be something like “1, 2, 3, …, 1875”. This follows the general rule you speak of when you say “X can be anything.” X refers to where the series ends. When you write, “1, 2, 3, ...” you are saying the series doesn’t end, so there isn’t an X. These are two different principles at work.

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 #408

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:18 am I don’t see how an amount or number can be limitless, endless, continuing indefinitely. A quantity, an amount, a number is a determinate thing. How could a determinate thing not be reachable, in principle?
Can't you imagine the universe being infinite in size? If you can, how many stars and planets are there?
But, assuming such a thing could exist, wouldn’t you be saying that this present moment (on an A-theory infinite past) could not be reached?
No, just as any number can be reached, yet there are infinitely many of them.
Yes, the size of a series is a quantity but I didn’t ask about moving from the size of a series not being limited to the quantity of integers not being limited. If this is what you mean by premise 6, then what is the justification for this? How can the number of elements in a series that doesn’t end even have a quantity?
Here is how the size of a set is defined: The size of a set (also called its cardinality) is the number of elements in the set. The members of a series together is a set. Therefore the size of a series is the same as the quantity of members. Which in turn means the size of a series being limitless implies the number of elements within the series is also limitless.
Once the particular integer is selected, then yes, the particular series looked at would be something like “1, 2, 3, …, 1875”. This follows the general rule you speak of when you say “X can be anything.” X refers to where the series ends. When you write, “1, 2, 3, ...” you are saying the series doesn’t end, so there isn’t an X. These are two different principles at work.
So before a particular integer is selected, there is no particular end to the series. No particular end therefore doesn't end. Two different principle, one implies the other.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #409

Post by Willum »

Infinite regression is impossible, huh?
It is very possible, and can easily add up to a finite sum.

Some many people would abandon God if they only attended a second year of college math...

Online
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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 #410

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:35 amCan't you imagine the universe being infinite in size? If you can, how many stars and planets are there?

Not “infinite” as a quantity.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:35 amNo, just as any number can be reached, yet there are infinitely many of them.

What did you mean when you said that you’ll never reach the quantity it is, if it is infinite?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:35 amHere is how the size of a set is defined: The size of a set (also called its cardinality) is the number of elements in the set. The members of a series together is a set. Therefore the size of a series is the same as the quantity of members. Which in turn means the size of a series being limitless implies the number of elements within the series is also limitless.

I’m not asking about the size of the series and the quantity of members. Those are synonyms. I’m asking about the move from the series, itself and the quantity/size. The series {1, 2, 3} has three members. One can give the amount of members a series that ends has. But how can we give an actual amount of members for a series that doesn’t end? Why, by calling it infinite, are we saying the amount is infinity instead of 5 rather than saying we can’t give an amount because the series just keeps going and the amount of members approaches but never reaches infinity?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:35 amSo before a particular integer is selected, there is no particular end to the series. No particular end therefore doesn't end. Two different principle, one implies the other.

How do you get from no particular end (but an end nonetheless) to “therefore doesn’t end”? That's a contradiction. There is always an end in the first principle. What the end can be doesn't end but that is different than, and a direct contradiction of, saying there is no end.

Post Reply