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!!

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 #581

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #579]

I am afraid that if you are making claims about series, and comparing them to the all-mighty without actually knowing, you have completely voided your opinion on the subject, except to know this; you’re incorrect.

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 #582

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:12 pm I’ve affirmed this multiple times.
Great, take the next step, affirm that mathematicians treats infinity as a quantity.
‘Actual infinity’ didn’t involve real world assumptions in its creation at all. Only afterwards did philosophers of mathematics, like Hilbert, start to think about whether it fits in the real world.
Okay, so no real world assumptions are involved, does that mean you accept that mathematicians (outside of philosophy) do not assume infinity is a quantity?
I think it’s coherent. I’m saying the answer of “infinity” is a concept akin to “there could always be more” or “it’s an unending amount.” If that is what you mean by infinity being a quantity but not like the number 2, then okay.
I would say "there could always be more" is more a fact about quantity, while "an unending amount" is itself a quantity. The latter is good enough for me.
You were previously saying it wasn’t expanding in the infinite +1 is still infinite sense, though.
I was working from your contention that since the universe doesn't have a boundary, it can't be measured, which in turn means it can't be expanding. In some senses it isn't; in others it is. It all depends on one's perspective.
I never accepted 5.1; I asked you how you supported it.
I offered a proof by contradiction, that's how I supported it. I produced a contradiction and I asked you which premise you would discard. I suggested discarding this one: 3) X (the set of series of the from {N, N+1} that cannot be counted) is not empty. You gave me the impression that you accepted that when you said "yes, starting at one number you can always reach the next number and stop there." That sounds like M∞ right there.

So what's wrong with my proof by contradiction, if you still don't accept it? Which step is invalid, if none of them are invalid, then which premise would you reject, if not premise 3?
I don’t accept premise 1 (although I do accept that you can count from any number to the next number).
Okay, let me formalize my quick proof for premise 1 (previously premise 4 in the longer version of my proof,) since you said you accepted C3.

1) C3 (premise)
2) If C3 then (if C2 then C3) (premise)
3) If C2 then C3

And before you ask, premise 2 is a tautology. Check out its truth table.
C2 C3 C3 - > (C2 -> C3)
F F T
F T T
T F T
T T T
I don’t accept premise 5.
Okay, here is a formal proof for it. There is a proof by contradiction embedded in it, I am going to skip asking you which one to discard this time and mark the one to discard as an assumption.

M0+ = can count series of the form {X, X+1} for all X >= 0 (as opposed to M∞ where X >= N)

1) M∞ and C1 (conditional clause)
2) if (M∞ and C1) then M0+ (premise)
3) M0+ (from 1 and 2)
4) Let X be set of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to. (define X)
5) X is not empty. (assumption)
6) Members of X, as integers > 0, can be ordered. (premise)
7) Let X0 be the lowest member of X. (define X0)
8) X0-1 is lower than X0, the lowest member of X. (from 6 and 7)
9) X0-1 >= 0 (from 8)
10) X0-1 is not a member of X. (from 8)
11) X0-1 can be counted to. (from 4 and 10)
12) {X0-1, X0} is in M0+ (from 3 and 9)
13) X0 can be counted to. (from 12)
14) X0 is not a member of X. (from 4 and 13)
15) contradiction, therefore the assumption is false. (from 7 and 14)
16) X, the set of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to, is empty (from 15)
17) Any set of integers >= 0, with members of X removed, is a series that can be counted. (premise)
18) {0, ...} - empty set = {0, ...} (premise)
19) B (from 17 and 18)
20) Therefore if (M∞ and C1) then B (from 1 and 19)
No, ‘married’ is not analogous to ‘all’ but to ‘complete a process’. We aren’t checking the definition of 'all', but of ‘complete a process’.
Ah huh, and what is the one definition "complete a process?" Moving through all the members, that's where the word "all" came from so...

1. Moving through all the members
2. All A-theory pasts
2a. Finite
2b. Infinite

1. Married
2. All Chinese people
2a. Non-bachelor(ette)
2b. Bachelor(ette)

1 and 2, in both, don’t necessarily contradict. 1 and 2a, in both, don’t contradict. 1 and 2b, only the bottom set contradicts.
Those aren’t two meanings/sense of ‘complete a process’; only the second one is a definition.
Great, then there is a clear answer to the question, does "a never ending process" contradict with "a process being completed?"

No, "a never ending process" does not contradicts with "a process being completed," meaning "moving through all the members."

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 #583

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to Willum in post #581]

Okay, so don't compare series to the all-mighty without actually knowing, fine, I get that much, but I just don't see what that's got to do with your claim that a divergent series "must conclude before too long."

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 #584

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #583]

Real life.

If they didn’t, the applied series you speak about would mean that, for example, the universe would only be made of one positively attractive substance.

Or fires would burn forever.

Etc..

On the bright side, you do have proof you should reverse your opinion.

And also on the bright side, you know that reverse is correct.

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 #585

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to Willum in post #584]

If 1+1/2+1/3... adds up to infinity, then fire would burn forever... what? You've lost me completely.

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 #586

Post by Willum »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:55 am [Replying to Willum in post #584]

If 1+1/2+1/3... adds up to infinity, then fire would burn forever... what? You've lost me completely.
As stated, this does not surprise me at all. You are speaking out of your element.

Just for mental exercise, I'll explain it to you. Say the amount of fuel available to a fire is non-convergent, like the series you pointed out. That fire would burn forever, as there is an infinite amount of fuel.

You're wrong, you've been shown so, and it's been explained to you.
An honest person would reverse their constraint based belief.

I won't hold my breath.
But I won't wait for you to try some logical legerdemain to try to pull your beliefs from non-existence either.

Your stance is NOW:
God cannot exist: Infinite regression is not only possible, but a useful tool in the physical sciences to address real world problems.
It kicked the poop out of God.

QED

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 #587

Post by Bust Nak »

Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:07 pm Just for mental exercise, I'll explain it to you. Say the amount of fuel available to a fire is non-convergent, like the series you pointed out. That fire would burn forever, as there is an infinite amount of fuel.
Okay, but why would you say that the amount of fuel available to a fire is non-convergent? You think that if 1+1/2+1/3+... = ∞ then there would be infinite amount of fuel for a fire? Which fire in particular, all fires?
Your stance is NOW:
God cannot exist: Infinite regression is not only possible, but a useful tool in the physical sciences to address real world problems.
It kicked the poop out of God.
That's not my stance. My stance is the arguments used against infinite regression is not sound, therefore those proofs of God that relies on the impossibility of infinite regress are also not sound.

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 #588

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #587]

It can't, therefore it must terminate.
I don't think it can be more obvious why it must terminate, the universe is not made up of fuel for the fire, so even though the series is divergent, one does run out of fuel.

I leave you to your denial.

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 #589

Post by Willum »

Conservation of mass, matter and energy tells us that "mass, matter and energy are not created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another."

it is probably the most employed principle of modern science, which were it not true, electronics, most things, even, wouldn't even work.

This means that the atoms around us, if we reverse time conceptually speaking, never began nor stopped existing. There is never a point in time where they did not exist in some form or other.

In fact it is impossible.
Even anti-matter needs to be formed from annihilating pairs, thus keeping the total the same.

So, since there is no creation, there is no creator.
Simple as that.

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 #590

Post by Bust Nak »

Willum wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:26 pm I don't think it can be more obvious why it must terminate, the universe is not made up of fuel for the fire, so even though the series is divergent, one does run out of fuel.
So why not both 1+1/2+1/3+... = ∞ AND fires would run out of fuel eventually? It's really odd how you are seemingly unable to disassociate mathematical series from trivial physical phenomena.

Post Reply