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.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #630]

Infinity is something that cannot be over, completed, finished nor ended.

It would also be true to state that infinity cannot be started, begun?

[The Tanager]

It would also be true to state that infinity cannot be started, begun?

I don't think so. {0, ...} is an infinite series that has a beginning.

[The Tanager]

Boundaries of amounts is fine, boundaries but not also an amount isn't intuitive. As for why, there isn't really a way to explain intuition, it's not intuitive because infinity just looks like an amount at a glance to most people.

I’m not sure what most people think, but popularity isn’t a good test of truth, regardless.

Sure, given the premise that expanding and infinite are mutually exclusive, if the universe is expanding, then it can’t be infinite. I've affirmed that previously. With that premise in mind, since the universe is infinite, the universe isn't expanding.

Okay, so all of your talk about different perspectives was just a red herring?

Exclusively a boundary but not also an amount? Not that I am aware of.

I think the common term is “infinity” for both concepts. Mathematicians clarify by speaking of potential infinity and actual infinity.

How can every section of the universe can be expanding but the extent of the universe not be expanding, with the same sense of expanding?

I have no idea. I was the one saying such a thing was nonsense and then you equivocated on “expanding” and (I think) “size,” to disagree with me.

1) Let X be the set (finite or infinite) of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to from 0. (define X)
2) X is not empty (assumption)
3) Let x0 be the lowest member of X (define x0)
4) Let y be the integer x0-1 (define y)
5) y can be counted to from 0 (from 4)
6) x0 can be counted to from y (from 4)
7) x0 can be counted to from 0 (from 5 and 6)
8) contradiction, therefore the assumption is false (from 1, 3 and 7)
9) X, the set of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to from 0, is empty (from 2 and 8)
10) all integers >= 0 falls into 1 of 2 categories: can be counted to from 0, or cannot be counted to from 0 (premise)
11) a (finite or infinite) set of integers >= 0, with members of X removed, leaves a set that contains only members that can be counted to from 0 (from 10)
12) {0, ...} with members of X removed is {0, ...} (from 9)
13) {0, ...} contains only members that can be counted to from 0 (from 11 and 12)
14) an integer that can be counted to from 0, is an integer that can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} (from 15)

I've narrowed the premises down to two. Which of the two you have a problem with? Which of the (from...) step don't you think is logically valid?

I don’t understand why you think 16 follows from 15. A series that contains members that can be moved through in different situations says nothing about being able to move through those same members in this new situation. You need an additional step(s) to justify that move.

This might be a fallacy of composition. All members of {0, …} have the property P, thus, {0, …} itself has the property P.

Given that you can move through all members of infinity, "completed," "over," "end," or "finish" cannot possibly be the same concept between the two statements.

The question we are discussing is whether one can move through all members of an infinite series. “Given that…” is clearly just begging that question.

[William]

It would also be true to state that infinity cannot be started, begun?

I don't think so. {0, ...} is an infinite series that has a beginning.

{0, ...} [when symbolized like that] does indeed represent a beginning.

This would be expected of someone who believes Creatio ex nihilo to be true.

However, in reality, {0} cannot be represented in that manner and called 'true' because we also know that it really represents a point - not a beginning - and thus should be symbolized as
{...0 ...} in order to reflect creatio ex Deo

No thing comes from nothing - everything which can be seen to have a beginning comes from something.

({0} does not represent 'no thing'.)

It is more logical that something has always existed than nothing existed before something existed

"Zero" does not actually represent "nothing" because "nothing" does not exist and so cannot be represented.

Do the math.

The simplest coding [Mandelbrot set] produces sets of beginnings and ends [boundaries], infinitely.

It would thus be true to state that infinity cannot be started, begun...

[Bust Nak]

I’m not sure what most people think, but popularity isn’t a good test of truth, regardless.

It's a good test of what makes sense and what doesn't though.

Okay, so all of your talk about different perspectives was just a red herring?

Why would it mean it was a red herring?

I think the common term is “infinity” for both concepts. Mathematicians clarify by speaking of potential infinity and actual infinity.

Yeah, that's the point, both, not exclusively a limit but not quantity.

I have no idea. I was the one saying such a thing was nonsense and then you equivocated on “expanding” and (I think) “size,” to disagree with me.

That's all the more reason for you to abandon some of your concepts and adopt the common ones. Your concepts lead to this nonsense, this is what happens when you insist that expanding is mutually exclusive with being infinite, and expanding space implies the universe is also expanding, you end up with having to come up with an explanation of how expanding space without the universe is also expanding. It is incompatible with what scientists have observed. I was highlighting a way out for you to make sense of the situation - expanding, size, boundary or whatever, some of these words has to give; some of these to be referring to two different concept with one word. If these words are limited to only one concept each, you end up with nonsense.

1) Let X be the set (finite or infinite) of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to from 0. (define X)
2) X is not empty (assumption)
3) Let x0 be the lowest member of X (define x0)
4) Let y be the integer x0-1 (define y)
5) y can be counted to from 0 (from 4)
6) x0 can be counted to from y (from 4)
7) x0 can be counted to from 0 (from 5 and 6)
8) contradiction, therefore the assumption is false (from 1, 3 and 7)
9) X, the set of all integers > 0 that cannot be counted to from 0, is empty (from 2 and 8)
10) all integers >= 0 falls into 1 of 2 categories: can be counted to from 0, or cannot be counted to from 0 (premise)
11) a (finite or infinite) set of integers >= 0, with members of X removed, leaves a set that contains only members that can be counted to from 0 (from 10)
12) {0, ...} with members of X removed is {0, ...} (from 9)
13) {0, ...} contains only members that can be counted to from 0 (from 11 and 12)
14) an integer that can be counted to from 0, is an integer that can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} (from 15)

I don’t understand why you think 16 follows from 15.

16 follows from 15 because you can move through any member that has the property P "can be moved through." All members of {0, ...} have the property P, therefore you can move through all members of {0, ...}.

A series that contains members that can be moved through in different situations says nothing about being able to move through those same members in this new situation.

What is the new situation supposed to be here, what is the old situation? I only see one situation - moving through members with the property "can be moved through." Sounds to me like you are suggesting that "can be moved through" needs some sort of "in this situation" qualifiers applied? If so then perhaps your objection is with another premise?

This might be a fallacy of composition. All members of {0, …} have the property P, thus, {0, …} itself has the property P.

I don't see how. What do you think P might be? 16 just says you can do action A to all members with property P in {0, …}, how is there is a hidden implication, thus {0, …} itself has the property P?

The question we are discussing is whether one can move through all members of an infinite series. “Given that…” is clearly just begging that question.

That's what the proof is for. That question has been answered with a definite "yes." If there is any question begging, it is the with by assuming that one can't move through all members of an infinite series.

[Bust Nak]

{0, ...} [when symbolized like that] does indeed represent a beginning.

This would be expected of someone who believes Creatio ex nihilo to be true.

That would also be expected of someone who doesn't believe Creatio ex nihilo to be true. Time has a beginning but will tick on forever.

[William]

{0, ...} [when symbolized like that] does indeed represent a beginning.

This would be expected of someone who believes Creatio ex nihilo to be true.

That would also be expected of someone who doesn't believe Creatio ex nihilo to be true. Time has a beginning but will tick on forever.

Time is just the stuff between beginning and end points. Time itself is a construct of the mind, rather than something which actually physically exists in this universe and this universe cannot be said in any absolute way to have had a beginning, and if it did not pop into existence [Creatio ex nihilo] then it must have gained any beginning it had, from something which existed prior to it beginning.

The logical premise would then have to be that existence has always existed, in one form or another, infinitely.
Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless.

[The Tanager]

{0, ...} [when symbolized like that] does indeed represent a beginning.

This would be expected of someone who believes Creatio ex nihilo to be true.

My statement had nothing to do with the issue of the creation of the universe.

We’ve talked about these things before. You still seem to misunderstand creatio ex nihilo (for God eternally exists and, thus, it’s not stating that “nothing existed”); it’s about God bringing into existence something that didn’t exist before. It’s a true creation. Your view is probably more rightly called transformatio ex Deo. I don’t see one of these, considered in itself, as more logical than the other.

Time is just the stuff between beginning and end points. Time itself is a construct of the mind, rather than something which actually physically exists in this universe and this universe cannot be said in any absolute way to have had a beginning, and if it did not pop into existence [Creatio ex nihilo] then it must have gained any beginning it had, from something which existed prior to it beginning.

The logical premise would then have to be that existence has always existed, in one form or another, infinitely.
Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless.

You have moved from saying “something which existed,” i.e., viewing existence as a property a being/thing has to saying “existence has always existed,” i.e., existence is a being/thing that also has a property called existence. That seems like an equivocation on “existence”. If you are just saying that some being/thing has always existed, then you agree with the one who believes in creatio ex nihilo on this point.

[The Tanager]

It's a good test of what makes sense and what doesn't though.

Why do you think that?

Why would it mean it was a red herring?

Because it seems to have nothing to do with the claims I was discussing.

That's all the more reason for you to abandon some of your concepts and adopt the common ones. Your concepts lead to this nonsense, this is what happens when you insist that expanding is mutually exclusive with being infinite, and expanding space implies the universe is also expanding, you end up with having to come up with an explanation of how expanding space without the universe is also expanding. It is incompatible with what scientists have observed. I was highlighting a way out for you to make sense of the situation - expanding, size, boundary or whatever, some of these words has to give; some of these to be referring to two different concept with one word. If these words are limited to only one concept each, you end up with nonsense.

Why are your concepts with those terms the common ones? Defining size as “one-to-one correspondence” isn’t the common one.

I don't see how. What do you think P might be? 16 just says you can do action A to all members with property P in {0, …}, how is there is a hidden implication, thus {0, …} itself has the property P?

In premises 14 and 15, you are making statements about individual members/parts of a series, in and of themselves. In premise 16, you then make the same statement about the whole series. Not all compositions are fallacies, of course, but you’ve got to show why it’s not in this case to justify premise 16.

The question we are discussing is whether one can move through all members of an infinite series. “Given that…” is clearly just begging that question.

That's what the proof is for. That question has been answered with a definite "yes." If there is any question begging, it is the with by assuming that one can't move through all members of an infinite series.

The Question: Can one move through all members of an infinite series?
Your Answer: Yes.
Your Support: “Given that you can move through all members of infinity,” yes, one can move through all members of an infinite series.

An analogical argument:

The Question: Does God exist?
An Answer: Yes.
A Support for that Answer: Given that God exists, yes God exists.

The only possible inroad I could see would be to say “an infinite series” is different than “members of infinity” but I think those are equivalent statements.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #638]

{0, ...} [when symbolized like that] does indeed represent a beginning.

This would be expected of someone who believes Creatio ex nihilo to be true.

My statement had nothing to do with the issue of the creation of the universe.

It does however have something to do with the thread subject ""God must exist".
If someone who believes Creatio ex nihilo to be true, they too would write {0, ...} as you have done.

creatio ex nihilo (for God eternally exists and, thus, it’s not stating that “nothing existed”); it’s about God bringing into existence something that didn’t exist before.

Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for "creation out of nothing") is the doctrine that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act.

The doctrine is faulty because it is referring to the formless as 'nothing' [non-physical] when it is really something which has yet to be formed into something physical.

All physical things are made up of that same something...no physical form is made up of nothing.

Therefore, in relation to "God eternally exists" the only thing GOD can use to create forms, has to be something that is made up of and thus comes from, GOD. GOD cannot make something from nothing, as Creatio ex nihilo implies, because GOD is within all things and nothing cannot exist/be absent, besides/outside of GOD. Those who believe in Creatio ex nihilo are attempting to have it both ways, when there really is only the One way.

It’s a true creation.

Undoubtably. But it is not logically true that the true creation was Creatio ex nihilo

Your view is probably more rightly called transformatio ex Deo. I don’t see one of these, considered in itself, as more logical than the other.

The logical becomes apparent when one understand that there is no thing separated from GOD.

Therefore, creation of any thing [be it this or be it any other universe, be it forming or formless] must logically be from the substance of GOD rather than something GOD created from the substance of nothing, because - logically - there is no substance to nothing. "Nothing" doesn't exist.

If you are just saying that some being/thing has always existed, then you agree with the one who believes in creatio ex nihilo on this point.

The point of agreement therefore isn't the issue. We agree something has always existed. We can even agree to refer to this as GOD and leave the imagery [God/gods] out.

We can agree that this universe appears to have had a beginning and indeed is still in the process of being shaped [as per observation].

Where the branching away from agreement occurs, is in our differing understanding of the stuff which we know comprises all forms shaping in this universe. I say the source is the same as GOD, whereas those who believe in creatio ex nihilo say it was created [presumably out of nowhere] by GOD, from some other substance which was not of GOD [that which is not of GOD = no thing.]