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!!

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 #461

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:10 pm If your claim is that it applies most but not all of the time, then you have the burden of showing it applies in the specific case under consideration, that that case is one of the ‘most’ and not the other.
My claim is that it is the default, it applies unless there is some special circumstances, then it's up to you to argue that it is special. Having said that, this seems to be moot since you have agreed that quantity is infinite below.
I think we are talking past each other with ‘quantity’. I have no problem saying a quantity is infinite, with the concepts I have of those terms. But you talked about infinity being a quantity in the same way the 5 is. To me 5 is a number in a way that speaks of being a determinate number, which infinity cannot be, by definition. So, I think we need to clear this up.
I've stated that infinity is not like 5 in that it is not a particular number, that one cannot count to or reach infinity. It is like 5 in that it is a quantity, i.e. the amount or number of something.
How can they meet (A) and not meet (non-A) in the same sense at the same time? There has to be an equivocation somewhere or that is a contradiction.
Why? Here is a third alternative. They don't meet and not meet in the same sense, there is no contradiction as they meet in one sense, but they don't meet in another sense; there is no equivocation because we are careful to keep those two senses separate.
The present is outside of the entire infinite set, so the gaps between elements within the set is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant when we are focusing on this very point that the present is outside of the entire infinite set; it is very relevant when we are talking about traversing infinite set.
If you move through 5 events you will have reached the quantity of 5. If through 2000 events, then you’ve reached the quantity of 2000. Why is it different when moving through an infinite number of events?
It's different because infinity + 1 is still infinity; where as 4+1 is 5 and 1999 + 1 is 2000. In the first scenario, the quantity before +1 and after +1 is the same, you were at infinity and you stay at infinity, hence no reaching infinity; in the later two scenarios, the before and after quantity is different, you start at one number and ends at another, hence reaching the latter number.
Sure. How does that change anything? My answer is still that there are a potentially infinite amount of numbers. I didn’t literally count anything out to give you that answer. It’s just about applying logic.
What does potentially infinite mean to you, earlier you say a potential infinite is always finite? There is a finite quantity of numbers?

According to in the usual argument, potential infinity refers to a non-terminating process. Figuring out an answer by applying logic terminates when you have an answer.
It is, of course, your responsibility to present the principles to support your view. (1, 2, 3, …, X) means we can start at a particular number and count to another particular number. (1, 2, 3, …) is an attempt to say that the above process never has to end; you can keep counting finite numbers/quantities forever. In both, there must be a starting number or none of the other numbers, much less the last number, could ever be counted.

I don’t see how you can use the same principles (however they are formulated) when trying to claim that there actually isn’t a start to the counting process at all, yet we have reached the middle of the counting process. That is the big difference. That must be supported in the case of moving from (X, ..., 3, 2, 1) to (..., 3, 2, 1), which isn't a part of moving from (1, 2, 3, ..., X) to (1, 2, 3, ...).
It doesn't really matter if (X, ..., 3, 2, 1) to (..., 3, 2, 1) relies on the same principles or a different one to (1, 2, 3, ..., X) to (1, 2, 3, ...). The only reason I brought up (1, 2, 3, …, X) is so that I can borrow your words to phrase explanations in a way that appeals to you. The actual principle I am appealing to is this: (... series 3, series 2, series 1) is equivalent to (..., 3, 2, 1); the former is possible, therefore the latter is also possible.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #462

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:42 pmMy claim is that it is the default, it applies unless there is some special circumstances, then it's up to you to argue that it is special. Having said that, this seems to be moot since you have agreed that quantity is infinite below.

First, I haven’t claimed it is infinite in the same sense you seem to be saying it is. Second, you can’t just claim it is the default and say the burden lies on proving you wrong. You have to establish that it is the default.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:42 pm
How can they meet (A) and not meet (non-A) in the same sense at the same time? There has to be an equivocation somewhere or that is a contradiction.

Why? Here is a third alternative. They don't meet and not meet in the same sense, there is no contradiction as they meet in one sense, but they don't meet in another sense; there is no equivocation because we are careful to keep those two senses separate.

That is the point. They have to meet in one sense but not another. They don’t meet within plane geometry, but they do meet within projective geometry. In the plane geometry sense, you can’t have parallel lines that meet.

So, going back to the original counter example of an infinite square, in the plane geometry sense, it seems that you can’t have an infinite square. You can only have finite squares.

Remember that this was brought up in response to your argument that “The amount of something is either limited or not limited, because finite and infinite is a true dichotomy, since finite quantity is a coherent concept then so too is infinite quantity.”

Now, like I’ve said, I have no problem with saying a quantity is infinite, but I’m not sure that when you say that and when I say that that we are referring to the same concept.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:42 pmI've stated that infinity is not like 5 in that it is not a particular number, that one cannot count to or reach infinity. It is like 5 in that it is a quantity, i.e. the amount or number of something.

How do you define “number”?
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:42 pmIt's different because infinity + 1 is still infinity; where as 4+1 is 5 and 1999 + 1 is 2000. In the first scenario, the quantity before +1 and after +1 is the same, you were at infinity and you stay at infinity, hence no reaching infinity; in the later two scenarios, the before and after quantity is different, you start at one number and ends at another, hence reaching the latter number.

So, the semantics is messing you up? Substitute a different term than “reaching” then. It’s still that reality has moved through an infinite number of events and then the present moment comes after that. It’s still, analogically, that one had to have counted through an infinite number of numbers before the next step can occur. You still have to traverse an infinite amount before reaching the present.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:42 pmWhat does potentially infinite mean to you, earlier you say a potential infinite is always finite? There is a finite quantity of numbers?

According to in the usual argument, potential infinity refers to a non-terminating process. Figuring out an answer by applying logic terminates when you have an answer.

That seems like another equivocation. The final answer is that the quantity is non-terminating.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:42 pmIt doesn't really matter if (X, ..., 3, 2, 1) to (..., 3, 2, 1) relies on the same principles or a different one to (1, 2, 3, ..., X) to (1, 2, 3, ...). The only reason I brought up (1, 2, 3, …, X) is so that I can borrow your words to phrase explanations in a way that appeals to you. The actual principle I am appealing to is this: (... series 3, series 2, series 1) is equivalent to (..., 3, 2, 1); the former is possible, therefore the latter is also possible.

Then you need to establish that they are equivalent and that the former is possible. Why do you think 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 #463

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:33 pm First, I haven’t claimed it is infinite in the same sense you seem to be saying it is.
Well I am using the usual sense as recorded in dictionaries, re: the amount or number of a material. Your objection was that infinity is not a particular number like the number 5. I agree with that, what other difference do you see?
Second, you can’t just claim it is the default and say the burden lies on proving you wrong. You have to establish that it is the default.
That much I've done earlier by deconstructing the words into A and ¬A form.
So, going back to the original counter example of an infinite square, in the plane geometry sense, it seems that you can’t have an infinite square. You can only have finite squares.

Remember that this was brought up in response to your argument that “The amount of something is either limited or not limited, because finite and infinite is a true dichotomy, since finite quantity is a coherent concept then so too is infinite quantity.”
Right, I said that was a good point when you first brought it up, and that's why I am asking you to show that quantity is a special case.
How do you define “number”?
The google definition would do: "an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations."
So, the semantics is messing you up? Substitute a different term than “reaching” then.
It's not the word, it's the whole concept. Changing the word won't help, the concept of reaching, arriving, counting to, landing on infinity, is impossible.
It’s still that reality has moved through an infinite number of events and then the present moment comes after that. It’s still, analogically, that one had to have counted through an infinite number of numbers before the next step can occur. You still have to traverse an infinite amount before reaching the present.
All of these are fine, I've agreed with these every time you've brought them up. The only thing I have said no to, is that these things equates to, is equivalent to, or implies "reaching" infinity, which is impossible.
That seems like another equivocation. The final answer is that the quantity is non-terminating.
Processes, series, sequences can potentially terminate, so it make sense to speak of non-terminating version of such things, what does non-terminating quantity mean to you?
Then you need to establish that they are equivalent and that the former is possible. Why do you think that?
Let the series Z be (... series3, series 2, series 1) where each member is a series that fits the model (X, ..., 3, 2, 1), Z is equivalent to (..., 3, 2, 1) because each element in the set is a partial sequence ending in 1 in (..., 3, 2, 1); and there are no partial sequence ending in 1 in (..., 3, 2, 1) that does not appear in Z. There is a one to one correspondence. Series Z is possible because it is just a collection of possible series, ordered by length.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #464

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:53 am
Second, you can’t just claim it is the default and say the burden lies on proving you wrong. You have to establish that it is the default.

That much I've done earlier by deconstructing the words into A and ¬A form.

Just because you can create a dichotomy doesn’t mean the dichotomy applying is the default in every situation unless proven otherwise.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:53 amRight, I said that was a good point when you first brought it up, and that's why I am asking you to show that quantity is a special case.

Yes, and I’ve shared that an infinite square seems to be logically impossible, by definition, since that would require unending lines that end. Your response seems to equivocate on “unending” (at least by analogy, since you used the example of parallel lines instead) by talking about it ending in a projective geometrical sense, while my unending is talking about it ending/unending in a plane geometrical sense.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:53 am
It is like 5 in that it is a quantity, i.e. the amount or number of something.

How do you define “number”?

The google definition would do: "an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations."

So, plugging that back in to your definition of quantity we get: “the amount or [an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations] of something. Having “quantity” within your definition of “quantity” is unhelpful.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:53 amAll of these are fine, I've agreed with these every time you've brought them up. The only thing I have said no to, is that these things equates to, is equivalent to, or implies "reaching" infinity, which is impossible.

I don’t understand why you agree that in counting to, say, 20, you’ve reached the quantity of 20, but in counting to infinity you haven’t reached the quantity of infinity.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:53 amProcesses, series, sequences can potentially terminate, so it make sense to speak of non-terminating version of such things, what does non-terminating quantity mean to you?

In the situation we were talking about, that there is no end to the quantity of elements that “...” represents.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:53 amLet the series Z be (... series3, series 2, series 1) where each member is a series that fits the model (X, ..., 3, 2, 1), Z is equivalent to (..., 3, 2, 1) because each element in the set is a partial sequence ending in 1 in (..., 3, 2, 1); and there are no partial sequence ending in 1 in (..., 3, 2, 1) that does not appear in Z. There is a one to one correspondence. Series Z is possible because it is just a collection of possible series, ordered by length.

If the order is because of length (longest to smallest), then what does (..., 3, 2, 1) have to do with the movement of time in A-theory or possibly counting up to the present moment?

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 #465

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:24 pm Just because you can create a dichotomy doesn’t mean the dichotomy applying is the default in every situation unless proven otherwise.
Why not? It's literally what the words mean, surely literal meaning is the starting point.
Yes, and I’ve shared that an infinite square seems to be logically impossible, by definition, since that would require unending lines that end. Your response seems to equivocate on “unending” (at least by analogy, since you used the example of parallel lines instead) by talking about it ending in a projective geometrical sense, while my unending is talking about it ending/unending in a plane geometrical sense.
Why would that mean infinite quantity is not a thing (the way I meant by infinity quantity?) While we are here, it's still not clear how you are using quantity different from I am.
So, plugging that back in to your definition of quantity we get: “the amount or [an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations] of something. Having “quantity” within your definition of “quantity” is unhelpful.
Alright, here is another, this time from wiki that does not mention quantity: A number is a mathematical object used to count, measure, and label.
I don’t understand why you agree that in counting to, say, 20, you’ve reached the quantity of 20, but in counting to infinity you haven’t reached the quantity of infinity.
Seems to be some miscommunication here. I do agree: Counting to 20 mean you’ve reached the quantity of 20, just as counting to infinity mean reaching the quantity of infinity. Counting to and reaching is interchangeable.

I said traversing an infinite amount of event does not implies "reaching" infinity. Swapping the word: traversing an infinite amount of event does not implies "counting to" infinity. That's why I said the problem wasn't the word, but the concept itself.
In the situation we were talking about, that there is no end to the quantity of elements that “...” represents.
What does that even mean, "no end to the quantity?" No end to the elements that "..." represent, I can understand. "..." represent many elements, but there is just one quantity.
If the order is because of length (longest to smallest), then what does (..., 3, 2, 1) have to do with the movement of time in A-theory or possibly counting up to the present moment?
It represent the time line. Not sure what you are getting at here, how does ordering Z by length change anything about counting through all the negative integers to 1 being analogous to traversing all prior event to the present moment?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #466

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:41 am
Just because you can create a dichotomy doesn’t mean the dichotomy applying is the default in every situation unless proven otherwise.

Why not? It's literally what the words mean, surely literal meaning is the starting point.

Scenarios/situations/(I’m not sure the best term for this concept) have different natures from each other. Whether a literal dichotomy applies to that situation depends also on the nature of that situation. The default is agnosticism, not knowing whether it applies in that situation.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:41 am
Yes, and I’ve shared that an infinite square seems to be logically impossible, by definition, since that would require unending lines that end. Your response seems to equivocate on “unending” (at least by analogy, since you used the example of parallel lines instead) by talking about it ending in a projective geometrical sense, while my unending is talking about it ending/unending in a plane geometrical sense.

Why would that mean infinite quantity is not a thing (the way I meant by infinity quantity?) While we are here, it's still not clear how you are using quantity different from I am.

It’s not clear to me either or if the difference is in another term or concept, but we obviously disagree somewhere. What would it mean to you to have a square with sides whose quantity is an infinite length?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:41 amAlright, here is another, this time from wiki that does not mention quantity: A number is a mathematical object used to count, measure, and label.

Okay. So, quantity is “the amount or mathematical object used to count, measure, and label something.” So, an infinite quantity would be an endless amount or an endless counting, measuring, and labeling process. I think that is true. Infinity is an idea speaking to an unending process, not an answer after the process is over.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:41 amSeems to be some miscommunication here. I do agree: Counting to 20 mean you’ve reached the quantity of 20, just as counting to infinity mean reaching the quantity of infinity. Counting to and reaching is interchangeable.

I said traversing an infinite amount of event does not implies "reaching" infinity. Swapping the word: traversing an infinite amount of event does not implies "counting to" infinity. That's why I said the problem wasn't the word, but the concept itself.

But why doesn’t it? Are you saying that traversing an infinite amount of events would mean reaching a finite quantity? Or something else?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:41 am
If the order is because of length (longest to smallest), then what does (..., 3, 2, 1) have to do with the movement of time in A-theory or possibly counting up to the present moment?

It represent the time line. Not sure what you are getting at here, how does ordering Z by length change anything about counting through all the negative integers to 1 being analogous to traversing all prior event to the present moment?

If the series does not denote a movement in a certain direction, then series Z is not equivalent to the timeline. I can grasp the concept of the series, but we are talking about moving through the series one element at a time.

If the series does denote a movement in a certain direction, then you need to establish that the series can occur with no starting point. When you move from (X, …, 3, 2, 1) to (..., 3, 2, 1) you are moving from getting to 1 with having a starting point to getting to 1 in the same method without having a starting point at all. That is what you need to establish as possible.

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 #467

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:15 am Scenarios/situations/(I’m not sure the best term for this concept) have different natures from each other. Whether a literal dichotomy applies to that situation depends also on the nature of that situation. The default is agnosticism, not knowing whether it applies in that situation.
Okay, in which case, the literal dichotomy is enough to tilt things beyond that default.
It’s not clear to me either or if the difference is in another term or concept, but we obviously disagree somewhere. What would it mean to you to have a square with sides whose quantity is an infinite length?
I would try to make sense of it the only way I know, by appealing to projective geometry, where the all lines meet at some point. Had I not been aware that mathematicians has invented such a thing, I would have dismissed infinite square as incoherent.
Okay. So, quantity is “the amount or mathematical object used to count, measure, and label something.” So, an infinite quantity would be an endless amount or an endless counting, measuring, and labeling process...
How am I supposed to parse that? Infinite quantity is an endless amount, okay, that much is simple enough. With this understanding, we can say things like: given an infinite universe, there are infinitely many stars; the amount of stars is infinite; the quantity of starts is infinite. That's a great fit for what I have in mind.

But what does latter clause infinite quantity is "an endless counting, measuring, and labelling process" mean? A quantity is an endless process? That doesn't sound right at all. A quantity is used to count, measure, label an endless process, surely.
But why doesn’t it? Are you saying that traversing an infinite amount of events would mean reaching a finite quantity? Or something else?
Depends on which type of infinite series one is traversing. A series of infinite amount of events lacks either a beginning, an end, or both. For traversing a series without an end, reaching the end is an incoherent concept, as such it would mean neither reaching a finite quantity nor reaching an infinite quantity. For a series with an end, it would trivially mean reaching a finite quantity.

In conclusion, neither scenario of traversing an infinite amount of elements involves reaching infinity.
If the series does not denote a movement in a certain direction...
Okay, but that's moot because Z clearly denote a movement in a certain direction, i.e. ordering by length from longer to shorter.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #468

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:03 pmOkay, in which case, the literal dichotomy is enough to tilt things beyond that default.

I don’t see why.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:03 pmI would try to make sense of it the only way I know, by appealing to projective geometry, where the all lines meet at some point. Had I not been aware that mathematicians has invented such a thing, I would have dismissed infinite square as incoherent.

But we are talking about infinity within plane geometry, so that is irrelevant.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:03 pmHow am I supposed to parse that? Infinite quantity is an endless amount, okay, that much is simple enough.

I’m not sure that is simple enough. I can understand an endless process, but not an endless amount or number. Numbers are fixed things.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:03 pmBut what does latter clause infinite quantity is "an endless counting, measuring, and labelling process" mean? A quantity is an endless process? That doesn't sound right at all. A quantity is used to count, measure, label an endless process, surely.

You’ve said you can’t count to infinity. So, an uncountable number is used to count something?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:03 pmDepends on which type of infinite series one is traversing. A series of infinite amount of events lacks either a beginning, an end, or both. For traversing a series without an end, reaching the end is an incoherent concept, as such it would mean neither reaching a finite quantity nor reaching an infinite quantity. For a series with an end, it would trivially mean reaching a finite quantity.

In conclusion, neither scenario of traversing an infinite amount of elements involves reaching infinity.

The set of the so-called A-theory infinite past has an end, so you are saying there is a finite quantity of events in that set? If so, then why call it the infinite past?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:03 pmOkay, but that's moot because Z clearly denote a movement in a certain direction, i.e. ordering by length from longer to shorter.

Then you need to establish that the series can occur with no starting point. Even in the longest to shortest ordering, you won’t be able to start the series because there is no longest series.

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 #469

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:53 pm I don’t see why.
Because looking at what the words mean is usually the next step when examining a concept.
But we are talking about infinity within plane geometry, so that is irrelevant.
Then my latter clause would also apply, I would dismiss that as incoherent.
I’m not sure that is simple enough. I can understand an endless process, but not an endless amount or number. Numbers are fixed things.
What difference would being fixed things make? Can't there be an endless amount of fixed things?
You’ve said you can’t count to infinity. So, an uncountable number is used to count something?
Count, measure or label, yes.
The set of the so-called A-theory infinite past has an end, so you are saying there is a finite quantity of events in that set?
No! Of course not. Merely knowing which event is the end is not enough information to make a conclusion about the quantity of events.
Then you need to establish that the series can occur with no starting point.
That's what the argument is for. You suggested that the argument wouldn't establish that the series can occur with no starting point unless there is a strict ordering of the elements in the sequence. Well, there is a strict ordering. With the latest objection resolved, are you ready to accept that the series can occur with no starting point?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #470

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:39 amBecause looking at what the words mean is usually the next step when examining a concept.

Context is a part of that as well. If you are going to talk about a concept within a specific situation the burden is on you to show that it applies to that context.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:39 amThen my latter clause would also apply, I would dismiss that as incoherent.

Then isn’t this a counterexample to the finite/infinite dichotomy applying in the context we are talking about, about quantity/amount/number? Infinity works as an idea about a boundary but not as an actual value.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:39 amWhat difference would being fixed things make? Can't there be an endless amount of fixed things?

The “fixed things” refers to the amount/number itself, not the things there is an amount of.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:39 amCount, measure or label, yes.

How can an uncountable number be used to count or an unmeasurable number be used to measure or an unlabel-ble number be used to label? Those seem to logically contradict
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:39 amNo! Of course not. Merely knowing which event is the end is not enough information to make a conclusion about the quantity of events.

Then what did you mean when you said that a series with an end (which the A-theory infinite past would be) would mean reaching a finite quantity?
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:39 am
Then you need to establish that the series can occur with no starting point.

That's what the argument is for. You suggested that the argument wouldn't establish that the series can occur with no starting point unless there is a strict ordering of the elements in the sequence. Well, there is a strict ordering. With the latest objection resolved, are you ready to accept that the series can occur with no starting point?

I’m not sure why you think I suggested that.

Post Reply