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.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Any infinite set's elements cannot all be counted in any way. No matter how many you count, there will always be more elements to count.

So you keep saying. Please prove it. So far you've only managed to show that it was impossible to start and then finish counting an infinite set, finish your proof by showing that it is impossible to finish, minus the starting part.

OK, by "minus the starting part" I assume you mean that the set has no least valued element and the values of all the elements are unique. The set of non-positive integers, for example, is a set like that. Here's the proof:

Any number of elements we count is always a finite number.
Any finite number's value is specific and limited.
Infinity is not limited.
Since infinity is not limited, it is larger than any finite, limited number.
The number we count to then never meets the infinite number of elements.
It is then impossible to count the elements in an infinite set.

You can start counting at any element in an infinite set. It doesn't matter. You'll never finish counting.

...explain why one must start to count at a particular element, in order for them to be counting.

You can start the count with any element in the set.

[Bust Nak]

Any number of elements we count is always a finite number...

But that's what I asked you to prove in the first place. Using that as a premise is circular reasoning. Or perhaps I am interpreting that incorrectly, did you mean something along the lines if I label every element I counted, the label is always a finite number? Either way...

The number we count to then never meets the infinite number of elements.
It is then impossible to count the elements in an infinite set.

That's non sequitur. The number we count to is not the same thing as the number of elements counted. Trivial example, we count 3, 2, 1, 0. The number we count to is 0, the number of elements counted is 4; 0 does not equal 4, so why would the fact that the number we counted to never meeting infinity, imply the number of elements counted isn't infinity or that any element is left uncounted?

You can start the count with any element in the set.

Still not what I asked you. Why are you still going on about starting the count when I've been asking you about always counting, never started.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm really at a loss here. The use of the zero signifies an end to the count, not a numerical element in itself. The idea of infinity where infinity is one way from a start, or both ways and no end or start anywhere, is not difficult to understand and counting numerical elements doesn't really help nor hinder comprehension of that.

The idea of infinite regression is not hard to comprehend and the problem with it is obvious - the sequence of created objects must end somewhere. Except with the god -claim, it seems.

The way this prime mover apologetic 'gap for god' has developed is that a god without any origin is becoming harder to see as plausible and a something from nothing origin is becoming a bit more probable.

But none of that really helps the cause of any particular religion, though some religions may think that it does.

I know how it works - get some sorta god on the table as First Cause and then the believer can claim their Holy Book as telling you which god it is.

To put it another way, the last resort of the apologist (or one of them ) is 'who made everything, then?' The argument about the Big Bang and turltes all the way down leads nowhere. The reply I've always found better is 'Well, the muslims say it's Allah'. That's when they start to argue the Bible against other religions. And the Bible, not cosmic origins and infinite recession, is what the debate is really about.

Kalam, ID and Creationism in fact only gets you to 'Which god'? Those apolgetics only help the claim to Biblegod and Jesus if they can make the god -claims of the Bible credible.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 113:

I'm really at a loss here.

Lost as a cow at a square dance

I just like to say that, I ain't apicking on ya.

...
The idea of infinite regression is not hard to comprehend and the problem with it is obvious - the sequence of created objects must end somewhere. Except with the god -claim, it seems.

Or teacups.

The way this prime mover apologetic 'gap for god' has developed is that a god without any origin is becoming harder to see as plausible and a something from nothing origin is becoming a bit more probable.

It also fails to address the possibility of the universe always existing in one form or another.

...
To put it another way, the last resort of the apologist (or one of them ) is 'who made everything, then?' The argument about the Big Bang and turltes all the way down leads nowhere. The reply I've always found better is 'Well, the muslims say it's Allah'. That's when they start to argue the Bible against other religions. And the Bible, not cosmic origins and infinite recession, is what the debate is really about.

Yep.

"Okay, so we provisionally accept God created the universe, what does that tell us?"

"He really don't like him no gays."

Kalam, ID and Creationism in fact only gets you to 'Which god'? Those apolgetics only help the claim to Biblegod and Jesus if they can make the god -claims of the Bible credible.

Yep.

I've yet to find any of these 'first mover' arguments that ain't just the first move in attempting to preach about how much greater their favored god is than any of the thousand other proposed gods.

[TRANSPONDER]

From Post 113:

I'm really at a loss here.

Lost as a cow at a square dance

I just like to say that, I ain't apicking on ya.

...
The idea of infinite regression is not hard to comprehend and the problem with it is obvious - the sequence of created objects must end somewhere. Except with the god -claim, it seems.

Or teacups.

The way this prime mover apologetic 'gap for god' has developed is that a god without any origin is becoming harder to see as plausible and a something from nothing origin is becoming a bit more probable.

It also fails to address the possibility of the universe always existing in one form or another.

...
To put it another way, the last resort of the apologist (or one of them ) is 'who made everything, then?' The argument about the Big Bang and turltes all the way down leads nowhere. The reply I've always found better is 'Well, the muslims say it's Allah'. That's when they start to argue the Bible against other religions. And the Bible, not cosmic origins and infinite recession, is what the debate is really about.

Yep.

"Okay, so we provisionally accept God created the universe, what does that tell us?"

"He really don't like him no gays."

Kalam, ID and Creationism in fact only gets you to 'Which god'? Those apolgetics only help the claim to Biblegod and Jesus if they can make the god -claims of the Bible credible.

Yep.

I've yet to find any of these 'first mover' arguments that ain't just the first move in attempting to preach about how much greater their favored god is than any of the thousand other proposed gods.

I'm fine with some funnin' about.
Quite so. As they say 'It's teacups all the way down'. And, yes, the idea of .an eternal universe, or rather one that didn't need creating, is the possible way out of the dilemma without the need to assert the existence of a complex and advanced being that didn't need to come from anywhere.

Some time ago, I was musing on the edge of the universe - I mean, about it; I wasn't sitting on it, pondering. Ii can't go on for ever. Matter existing without end makes no sense. If it ends somewhere, what's beyond? It has to be nothing. So..can nothing be endless and infinite? It's easier to believe than a universe of matter without end.

The problem then is a universe coming from nothing. In our experience, that can't happen. No thing can come from nothing, as the creation -apologists say. But I have an idea that a nothingness may have the potential to produce energy without the need for it to be Created. And matter is just energy doing Stuff. Thus, an uncreated universe (and probably a lot of others) out of an eternal Nothing with (as physicists say) 'potential' to act like Stuff, is looking less unlikely than a fully developed creative intelligence without any origin of its' own. The biggest gap for god Theism had may be closing.

Of course this is just some vague gropings toward a Theory, and it doesn't really matter and isn't anything to worry about as it isn't going to be any of the man -made gods, even if it does exist. That is something I'd bet my life on. In fact, I may have to.

[historia]

What is inaccurate is the idea that the "stuff" in the universe is something that came from outside the universe.

You lost me here. Who is saying that the "stuff" of the universe came from outside the universe?

First, resorting to atheist sloganeering, like "logic a god into existence," does little except weaken your argument, in my opinion.

Is that an inaccurate statement on my part? I did not write it to offend.

No one imagines that logic alone can conjure something into existence. So, yes, this is clearly inaccurate -- and obviously a put-down.

Second, there is a conceptual difference between God and a god, so using the latter here in an attempt to score some rhetorical points just distracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

In your mind perhaps there is a conceptual difference. Again, I am writing my thoughts, as I see things. I don't see any substantial difference between any of the gods in human history, so I don't see the need to differentiate between them. I want a Buddhist or a Zoroasterist to see that the arguement applies to their god as well.

This is a bit confused. "God" is not the name of a god, as you seem to be suggesting here. Rather, God and a god (or the gods) are two distinct concepts, describing entities (should they exist) that are ontologically quite different from each other.

The concept of God appears in a number of religious traditions as well as in classical philosophy. Christians and Zoroastrians, for example, believe in God. Buddhists, generally speaking, do not. Some Hindus and ancient Greek philosophers believed in both God and the gods. Some religious traditions believe in just one or the other. What you or I personally believe with regard to either concept is irrelevant.

Importantly for our purposes here, the kalam argument, the ontological argument, and similar arguments concern God, not a god. So to use the latter term in your rebuttals is either an elementary error or just bad rhetoric.

I appreciate the fact that certain message board symbiotes are likely overstating their argument in this thread, but prominent Christian proponents of these (and other) arguments, like William Lane Craig, are not arguing that we can be certain about how the universe came into existence or whether God ultimate exists. If you imagine they are, then you haven't read them carefully enough.

In the kalam argument, for example, Craig is not setting out to "prove" (in some absolute sense) that God is the cause of the universe. For starters, the argument is supported in large part by an inductive argument from accepted cosmogenic theories, and so his conclusion that the universe has a cause is, at best, only probably true. So too, Craig's concluding conceptual analysis, from which he derives several properties of the cause of the universe (which Venom borrows in the OP), is also clearly an inference to the best explanation, and so does not "prove" the cause is God.

Perhaps we will have to disagree on that. If I was debating prominent Christian proponents here, perhaps you would be right. But I'm not.

Except you did not limit your critique to just how the kalam argument (and others) are being presented in this forum. Rather, you made a sweeping assertion about the arguments themselves:

Not that the logic of the ontological argument, or Kalam, is good anyway.

Consider an analogy: If you came across a poor or exaggerated argument in favor of Evolution on this message board, I suspect you wouldn't, in turn, say "That's the problem with the Theory of Evolution . . ." right? To do so is to extend your critique to the idea itself, not just its immediate presentation, and thus implicitly to challenge the arguments made by its most able proponents, not just randos on the internet.

I'm not changing what they are arguing, I am pointing out additional information that has a bearing on the topic. I like it to Craig looking at it narrowly, while I am bringing in the 10,000 foot overview. Perhaps he doesn't see the forest for the trees, as the say.

Let's go back to the comment I was addressing:

Did the universe appear as an effect of a cause? Dunno. Did the universe appear uncaused? Dunno. Does there need to be a cause for a universe to appear? Dunno. Can true "nothingness" even actually exist? Dunno (because, if it can't, then you can't have something coming from nothing because nothing is not an actual state in reality). Although we live in a cause and effect universe (thanks to entropy), we have no way of knowing what the rules were before the universe. If entropy is unique to our universe then the idea of cause and effect doesn't mean much, because when the universe appeared it did so under a different set of rules that we know nothing about. Which is why any attempt to "logic" a god into existence is silly, because there is too much missing data on the matter.

This critique only has force if the kalam argument entails a claim to certainty about the origin of the universe. It does not. So this argument has no force against the kalam argument itself.

Moreover, Craig has already addressed all of these points, and then some, in his published works on the kalam argument, so you are not adding any additional information with regard to the argument itself.

Perhaps you haven't read Craig's scholarly articles and books on kalam, and so don't realize that. But, if so, then perhaps you should refrain from making sweeping comments about the argument itself, and limit your critique to just its immediate presentation in this thread.

[Kenisaw]

What is inaccurate is the idea that the "stuff" in the universe is something that came from outside the universe.

You lost me here. Who is saying that the "stuff" of the universe came from outside the universe?

That sentence was part of a paragraph. Here is the entire paragraph: "So you could say the universe is something from nothing as long as you understand that the something is the nothing broken up into a lot of pieces, like the mathematical equation example I used in my earlier post. What is inaccurate is the idea that the "stuff" in the universe is something that came from outside the universe. It isn't. It's just the universe with the pluses and minuses separated out."

You and I were talking about "nothing". I was pointing out that the "stuff" in the universe came from within the universe. It does not have an outside source.

First, resorting to atheist sloganeering, like "logic a god into existence," does little except weaken your argument, in my opinion.

Is that an inaccurate statement on my part? I did not write it to offend.

No one imagines that logic alone can conjure something into existence. So, yes, this is clearly inaccurate -- and obviously a put-down.

That's nonsense, and you know it. We're both grizzled veterans at this website. I believe you know exactly why those arguments exist, and what the point of them is. If people didn't think that a formal logic argument was proof of the existence of a god then they wouldn't bring it up in the first place. It is an attempt to circumvent evidentiary discussions and create an argument for a deity without the need to provide empirical data.

Second, there is a conceptual difference between God and a god, so using the latter here in an attempt to score some rhetorical points just distracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

In your mind perhaps there is a conceptual difference. Again, I am writing my thoughts, as I see things. I don't see any substantial difference between any of the gods in human history, so I don't see the need to differentiate between them. I want a Buddhist or a Zoroasterist to see that the argument applies to their god as well.

This is a bit confused. "God" is not the name of a god, as you seem to be suggesting here. Rather, God and a god (or the gods) are two distinct concepts, describing entities (should they exist) that are ontologically quite different from each other.

The concept of God appears in a number of religious traditions as well as in classical philosophy. Christians and Zoroastrians, for example, believe in God. Buddhists, generally speaking, do not. Some Hindus and ancient Greek philosophers believed in both God and the gods. Some religious traditions believe in just one or the other. What you or I personally believe with regard to either concept is irrelevant.

Importantly for our purposes here, the kalam argument, the ontological argument, and similar arguments concern God, not a god. So to use the latter term in your rebuttals is either an elementary error or just bad rhetoric.

Duly noted.

I appreciate the fact that certain message board symbiotes are likely overstating their argument in this thread, but prominent Christian proponents of these (and other) arguments, like William Lane Craig, are not arguing that we can be certain about how the universe came into existence or whether God ultimate exists. If you imagine they are, then you haven't read them carefully enough.

In the kalam argument, for example, Craig is not setting out to "prove" (in some absolute sense) that God is the cause of the universe. For starters, the argument is supported in large part by an inductive argument from accepted cosmogenic theories, and so his conclusion that the universe has a cause is, at best, only probably true. So too, Craig's concluding conceptual analysis, from which he derives several properties of the cause of the universe (which Venom borrows in the OP), is also clearly an inference to the best explanation, and so does not "prove" the cause is God.

Perhaps we will have to disagree on that. If I was debating prominent Christian proponents here, perhaps you would be right. But I'm not.

Except you did not limit your critique to just how the kalam argument (and others) are being presented in this forum. Rather, you made a sweeping assertion about the arguments themselves:

Not that the logic of the ontological argument, or Kalam, is good anyway.

Consider an analogy: If you came across a poor or exaggerated argument in favor of Evolution on this message board, I suspect you wouldn't, in turn, say "That's the problem with the Theory of Evolution . . ." right? To do so is to extend your critique to the idea itself, not just its immediate presentation, and thus implicitly to challenge the arguments made by its most able proponents, not just randos on the internet.

You are correct, I would not do that in regards to the Theory of Evolution. The reason for that however is because there are arguments for the Theory of Evolution that rely on empirical data and evidence, and therefore it WOULD be a sweeping overgeneralization. (Side note: I would still point out the error in that argument though, I don't like bad arguments no matter who makes them). What I said about formal logic arguments for supernatural beings is accurate.

Hey, I'm willing to eat crow on this. All it takes is for you to post one logical argument for the existence of any supernatural being that does use empirical data, or that doesn't rely on suspect initial statements, or that can do what they set out to do without holes getting poked in the statements, and I will stand corrected.

I look forward to your reply.

I'm not changing what they are arguing, I am pointing out additional information that has a bearing on the topic. I like it to Craig looking at it narrowly, while I am bringing in the 10,000 foot overview. Perhaps he doesn't see the forest for the trees, as the say.

Let's go back to the comment I was addressing:

Did the universe appear as an effect of a cause? Dunno. Did the universe appear uncaused? Dunno. Does there need to be a cause for a universe to appear? Dunno. Can true "nothingness" even actually exist? Dunno (because, if it can't, then you can't have something coming from nothing because nothing is not an actual state in reality). Although we live in a cause and effect universe (thanks to entropy), we have no way of knowing what the rules were before the universe. If entropy is unique to our universe then the idea of cause and effect doesn't mean much, because when the universe appeared it did so under a different set of rules that we know nothing about. Which is why any attempt to "logic" a god into existence is silly, because there is too much missing data on the matter.

This critique only has force if the kalam argument entails a claim to certainty about the origin of the universe. It does not. So this argument has no force against the kalam argument itself.

Moreover, Craig has already addressed all of these points, and then some, in his published works on the kalam argument, so you are not adding any additional information with regard to the argument itself.

Perhaps you haven't read Craig's scholarly articles and books on kalam, and so don't realize that. But, if so, then perhaps you should refrain from making sweeping comments about the argument itself, and limit your critique to just its immediate presentation in this thread.

Kalam does entail a claim that whatever began to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist (ergo, the universe has a cause). Those are not a conditional statement, that is a necessary presupposition for the rest of the argument to work. If you re-read my paragraph above that you quoted, you will note that this is where my attack on the logic starts. No one can say, with 100% certainty, that everything that begins to exist has to have a cause, or that the universe began to exist. I fail to see where I am not addressing the specific point of the argument. Kalam assumes truths that are not, in fact, known to be true.

[historia]

First, resorting to atheist sloganeering, like "logic a god into existence," does little except weaken your argument, in my opinion.

Is that an inaccurate statement on my part? I did not write it to offend.

No one imagines that logic alone can conjure something into existence. So, yes, this is clearly inaccurate -- and obviously a put-down.

That's nonsense, and you know it. We're both grizzled veterans at this website. I believe you know exactly why those arguments exist, and what the point of them is.

Proponents of the kalam argument certainly believe that one can deduce God's existence from various philosophical arguments and cosmological evidence.

Inferring conclusions from logic and evidence happens all the time in various areas of human inquiry. Do you go around saying that Einstein logic-ed black holes into existence? Or that historians logic the past into existence? Who talks like this?

You might find the kalam argument uncompelling, but to describe the structure of the argument as "logic-ing [something] into existence" is just sloganeering. That's a lazy attempt at an insult, which just cheapens your critique.

Consider an analogy: If you came across a poor or exaggerated argument in favor of Evolution on this message board, I suspect you wouldn't, in turn, say "That's the problem with the Theory of Evolution . . ." right? To do so is to extend your critique to the idea itself, not just its immediate presentation, and thus implicitly to challenge the arguments made by its most able proponents, not just randos on the internet.

You are correct, I would not do that in regards to the Theory of Evolution. The reason for that however is because there are arguments for the Theory of Evolution that rely on empirical data and evidence, and therefore it WOULD be a sweeping overgeneralization. (Side note: I would still point out the error in that argument though, I don't like bad arguments no matter who makes them).

Okay, so here you seem to recognize that there is an important difference between how an argument is presented on a message board by non-experts and the argument itself as (properly) articulated by experts.

My point here is this:

You can either (a) critique the kalam argument as it is being presented on this message board by non-experts, or (b) critique the kalam argument itself, in which case you are implicitly critiquing how it is articulated by experts.

At various points in post #83 and post #118 you have explicitly directed your critique at the kalam argument itself. So, if I come back and point out that your critique misrepresents how experts articulate the argument, you cannot cry foul saying that you aren't debating the experts, as you did in post #83, since you chose to pursue option (b).

With that in mind, let's continue with your critique:

Kalam does entail a claim that whatever began to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist (ergo, the universe has a cause). Those are not a conditional statement, that is a necessary presupposition for the rest of the argument to work. If you re-read my paragraph above that you quoted, you will note that this is where my attack on the logic starts. No one can say, with 100% certainty, that everything that begins to exist has to have a cause, or that the universe began to exist. I fail to see where I am not addressing the specific point of the argument. Kalam assumes truths that are not, in fact, known to be true.

I'm afraid this is mistaken all around.

Proponents of the kalam argument, like William Lane Craig, do not just "presuppose" or "assume" the premises of the argument. Rather, they set out philosophical arguments and marshal scientific evidence in favor of those propositions. Each premise, then, is itself the conclusion of earlier, contributing arguments.

Moreover, as already noted above, the argument as a whole is an inference to the best explanation, and, as such, does not require 100% certainty. Nor do Craig and other prominent proponents claim such certainty. Indeed, we never have 100% certainty in philosophy, history, or science, so why require it here?

Look, if you're only familiar with the short, summarized form of the kalam argument as it is presented on websites, then I can see how one might mistakenly think that the argument is just making assumptions. But that would be a gross error, as that summary is just that, a summary, and does not constitute the sum total of the argument itself. For that, you need to read the proper literature.

[Bust Nak]

To carry on an off-topic discussion from another thread...

It was a phrase used for lack of a better term. Yes, there would be no beginning in such a thing. Actual infinites can't have a beginning. Potential infinites have beginnings but actual infinites don't.

Right, and since you have not ruled out actual infinites (but have instead pointed out that a potential infinity cannot become an actual infinity by successive addition,) what's stopping a natural universe from being an actual infinity?

...I think the focus should be on whether the natural universe could be eternal. I don't think it could, because that would require the series of events to be an actual infinite formed by successive addition, which I think is logically impossible.

Expanding on my question above, while I agree that turning a potential infinity into an actual infinite by successive addition is impossible, why can't a natural universe simply be an actual infinite in the first place? You spoke of successive addition, but had an natural universe been an actual infinity, as time passes, we are adding successive steps to an infinite that is already actual; forming an actual infinity by successive steps doesn't look like a requirement.

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #81]

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

I think IF you are correct that {A} can be discarded THEN;

I think you are incorrect that {B} therefore becomes the only alternative explanation.

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.

I think your analogy is possibly not accurate as it assumes an up and down position only. It is much like the timeline posted by Paul of Tarsus; [post#2]



and in that it may well fail in its presumption [premise] that a timeline functions in that manner - going off in opposite directions forever.

The main problem I see with the bottomless hole analogy is that it presumes to contain the infinite with walls [of the pit] and attempts to channel a continuous flow of 'sand' [time?] by making the claim that there is no end to the pit and the sand is going in a downwards direction - implying some kind of force.

4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist: As explained, infinite regression is impossible, so an uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

No. Infinite Regression must be possible in order for your bottomless sand pit analogy to be accurate.

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

Because of the premise(s) assumed prior to the exclamations made regarding the "UCC"

[1] presumes 'supernatural' based upon [3] "the ability to create 'things' from "no things" something which is unknown, and thus shouldn't be presumed.

It may very well be that all "things" are created within the Mind of such a being, and thus the Mind of such a being cannot be considered to be 'nothing' so therefore it would have to be concluded that "things" are created from "A Thing".

In reading this thread [and liking some of the post therein] I think that the overall problem is that folk are accepting the analogies as possible, and thus good premise.

Now suppose [for example] we take the mathematical symbol for Infinity ∞ and have that as our time-line/bottomless pit.

Instead of the line stretching linear forever, we have a line which circles back upon itself.

Now what do the numbers look like when the minuses and the pluses converge at a point along the line?
What do the numbers do?

Is this point of convergence representative of beginning/end?

What does the bottomless pit now look like?

Perhaps something more like this;



where the 'infinite time' [sand] flows on within the structure, recreating/reinventing itself at the convergence point.

As such, it is feasible [and certainly imaginable] that infinite regression can happen.

As such - there is no particular requirement for a Creator Being [UCC] although the existence of such a Universe does not rule that out. There could well be infinite enclosed perpetual systems, [universes] perhaps even all linked together [thus traversable with the right technology] but even the existence of the one we know [a little bit] about gives us hints that it is finite, yet here we are - apparently comfortable - with the notion of infinity.

But what I get from all this is - why presume that because 'things' exist, coupled with the idea that they are 'caused' to exist, does that mean that they have not always existed in the Mind of that which 'caused' them to exist?

In other words, why bring in the factor of the "supernatural" as a separate entity from the natural, when the easier [simpler] explanation is that all 'things' are of the one 'thing' and there is no differentiating to be done?