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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

No, that's your burden to show that the context changes things.

Then isn’t this a counterexample to the finite/infinite dichotomy applying in the context we are talking about, about quantity/amount/number?

I don't think so, why would infinite square not being a thing mean infinity isn't a quantity?

Infinity works as an idea about a boundary but not as an actual value.

That's fine, assuming by actual value you meant something like the number 5. I've already acknowledge that infinity is not like the number 5.

The “fixed things” refers to the amount/number itself, not the things there is an amount of.

Okay, why can't an unending amount of things, itself be fixed?

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

By separating out the iterative process of counting to something, one at a time, with the one off process of counting them all at once. You don't need to count to infinity to count infinitely many entities.

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?

I meant exactly that, reaching, counting to, arriving at a finite quantity, such as 5 or 0, both are examples of a finite quantity.

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

I got that impression when you stated that if the series is not dictional then it's not an analogy to the timeline. Either way, do you have any other objection against my attempt at showing the start-less series are possible?

[The Tanager]

No, that's your burden to show that the context changes things.

Why?

I don't think so, why would infinite square not being a thing mean infinity isn't a quantity?

At the least, it shows that the dichotomy does not always apply to things that can be quantified. Thus, you’ve got another reason to carry the burden of showing that the dichotomy applies in our specific context here.

That's fine, assuming by actual value you meant something like the number 5. I've already acknowledge that infinity is not like the number 5.

The Oxford Languages definition of value, in its mathematical sense, is “the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number.” To be a quantity is to be a value.

Okay, why can't an unending amount of things, itself be fixed?

Because fixed and unending are antonyms in this sense. A fixed value versus an unending/non-fixed value. Perhaps there is a better term you would want to substitute, fine.

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

By separating out the iterative process of counting to something, one at a time, with the one off process of counting them all at once. You don't need to count to infinity to count infinitely many entities.

Whether the counting is one at a time or all at once, it’s still counting. Thus, you’d still be counting something that is uncountable, which is a logical contradiction.

I meant exactly that, reaching, counting to, arriving at a finite quantity, such as 5 or 0, both are examples of a finite quantity.

You’ve ended on a finite number, sure, but I was talking about how many elements one has counted/reached/traversed having gone through the process that ends on such a finite number. If the infinite past contains an infinite amount of elements and one has moved through the whole past, then one has traversed an infinite quantity.

I got that impression when you stated that if the series is not dictional then it's not an analogy to the timeline. Either way, do you have any other objection against my attempt at showing the start-less series are possible?

I do not think that giving an ordering of the elements in a sequence establishes that that series can occur without a starting point. So, my objection is still just that you haven’t shown a start-less series is possible.

[Bust Nak]

Why?

Because that's what happens in a debate; I argue something, you make a counter point, I counter that counter with another point and so on? Pointing out the literal meaning of the words should be enough to send the ball into your court.

At the least, it shows that the dichotomy does not always apply to things that can be quantified.

An incoherent entity such as an infinite square can be quantified? Coherent squares can be quantified, but then the dichotomy applies, they are finite.

The Oxford Languages definition of value, in its mathematical sense, is “the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number.” To be a quantity is to be a value.

That's fine too, I've can also acknowledge that while infinity is a value, and can act as a boundary, it is unlike the value 5.

Because fixed and unending are antonyms in this sense. A fixed value versus an unending/non-fixed value. Perhaps there is a better term you would want to substitute, fine.

Are they really antonyms though? Same example, imagine an infinite universe, take a snapshot and count (all at once) the number of stars there in. Does the quantity of stars grow and shrink? Clearly it does not change since we are taking about a snap shot. That sounds like a "fixed" number of stars to me. Now organise the star into a set, earlier you said you have no problem acknowledging that the size of such a set is infinite. So it must make sense to you on some level. Does that understanding not gel with your concept of quantity, is that not a fixed, endless quantity?

Whether the counting is one at a time or all at once, it’s still counting. Thus, you’d still be counting something that is uncountable, which is a logical contradiction.

If you acknowledge that "all at once" is still counting, then why call infinity "uncountable" when it's only unreachable one at a time?

You’ve ended on a finite number, sure, but I was talking about how many elements one has counted/reached/traversed having gone through the process that ends on such a finite number.

Okay, then I don't understand what your earlier respond was about. I stated that infinity + 1 is still infinity, the quantity before +1 and after +1 is the same, hence counted/traversed infinity yet not reaching the quantity of infinity. Reaching is a different concept to counted/traversed. That's why transferring infinitely many elements does not imply reaching infinity. Your point about counting to being the same concept as reaching, doesn't tell me why you think my explanation was difficult to understand.

I do not think that giving an ordering of the elements in a sequence establishes that that series can occur without a starting point. So, my objection is still just that you haven’t shown a start-less series is possible.

What's wrong with my previous argument? Don't you agree there are endless negative integers? Don't you accept that they can be strictly ordered? The elements are possible, the organisation of said elements is possible. That's all it takes to establish the series is possible: The set of negative integers, ordered by the operator "<" is a start-less series.

[The Tanager]

Because that's what happens in a debate; I argue something, you make a counter point, I counter that counter with another point and so on? Pointing out the literal meaning of the words should be enough to send the ball into your court.

And then I respond with how context changes the literal meaning of words, so why do you think that literal meaning fits this context? It’s not my burden to show it doesn’t fit. You are making the claim that it fits, so it is your burden to show it fits.

An incoherent entity such as an infinite square can be quantified? Coherent squares can be quantified, but then the dichotomy applies, they are finite.

The question is whether the dichotomy must apply to quantity. A square can be quantified and, therefore, gives us an example of quantity within which to test the dichotomy out. So, the question is whether the dichotomy applies to squares. In other words, can there be finite and infinite squares? We see that there cannot be an infinite square, as the concept is illogical. Therefore, the dichotomy is shown not to apply. The dichotomy is shown to not apply in an example of quantity.

That's fine too, I've can also acknowledge that while infinity is a value, and can act as a boundary, it is unlike the value 5.

Unlike it in which specific way?

Are they really antonyms though? Same example, imagine an infinite universe, take a snapshot and count (all at once) the number of stars there in. Does the quantity of stars grow and shrink? Clearly it does not change since we are taking about a snap shot. That sounds like a "fixed" number of stars to me. Now organise the star into a set, earlier you said you have no problem acknowledging that the size of such a set is infinite. So it must make sense to you on some level. Does that understanding not gel with your concept of quantity, is that not a fixed, endless quantity?

Yes. The size is immeasurable in the normal way of measuring the number of stars. Infinite is a term stating that immeasurability, not because stars aren’t the types of things that can normally be measured but because we are saying the number of stars is endless. An endless thing can’t be measured. Infinity denotes that truth.

You can’t subtract 5 from infinity like you can subtract it from 20, not in the same sense. Yes, I know infinite mathematics will do calculations like that, but still that is saying that if the group you are subtracting from is endless and immeasurable, and you take out 5 of those things, you’ll still have an endless, immeasurable amount of things.

If you acknowledge that "all at once" is still counting, then why call infinity "uncountable" when it's only unreachable one at a time?

I was working off of your statements, trying to reconcile them or clear up misunderstandings. You seemed to be saying infinity was uncountable and that “all at once” was how infinity was counted, which is illogical.

From the very beginning I’ve said that infinity (if it is a coherent idea as a “reachable” value) would seem to be reachable “all at once”; that’s the B-theory of time. It’s the unreachableness of infinity one at a time that is the issue since the A-theory of time involves reality moving through events one at a time. If infinity cannot be reached one at a time, then the A-theory past cannot be infinite.

Okay, then I don't understand what your earlier respond was about. I stated that infinity + 1 is still infinity, the quantity before +1 and after +1 is the same,

How can a number plus one be itself? This should help one to see infinity is an idea rather than an actual value.

hence counted/traversed infinity yet not reaching the quantity of infinity. Reaching is a different concept to counted/traversed. That's why transferring infinitely many elements does not imply reaching infinity. Your point about counting to being the same concept as reaching, doesn't tell me why you think my explanation was difficult to understand.

Perhaps we are just talking past each other there, then, because I see them as synonyms. When I count 20 numbers, I would say I’ve reached the number of 20 things being counted. If I could count an infinite (as an actual value) amount of numbers, then I would have reached the number of infinity things being counted. And I would have traversed that many elements.

What's wrong with my previous argument? Don't you agree there are endless negative integers? Don't you accept that they can be strictly ordered? The elements are possible, the organisation of said elements is possible. That's all it takes to establish the series is possible: The set of negative integers, ordered by the operator "<" is a start-less series.

I’m also talking about ‘series’ in the sense of it being sequential. That is what you need to establish. Not just that it can be conceptually ordered but that the ordering can be conceptually moved through without a start.

[Bust Nak]

And then I respond with how context changes the literal meaning of words, so why do you think that literal meaning fits this context?

Because the context doesn't seem to change anything in this case, it's just the typical mathematical context.

The question is whether the dichotomy must apply to quantity. A square can be quantified and, therefore, gives us an example of quantity within which to test the dichotomy out. So, the question is whether the dichotomy applies to squares. In other words, can there be finite and infinite squares? We see that there cannot be an infinite square, as the concept is illogical. Therefore, the dichotomy is shown not to apply. The dichotomy is shown to not apply in an example of quantity.

Still not seeing how an incoherent concept such as an infinite square is supposed to cast doubt over the coherency of infinite quantity.

Unlike it in which specific way?

Can't count to it being the most relevant feature here, and as you mentioned there are things like infinity minus 5 is infinity.

Yes. The size is immeasurable in the normal way of measuring the number of stars. Infinite is a term stating that immeasurability, not because stars aren’t the types of things that can normally be measured but because we are saying the number of stars is endless. An endless thing can’t be measured. Infinity denotes that truth.

You can’t subtract 5 from infinity like you can subtract it from 20, not in the same sense. Yes, I know infinite mathematics will do calculations like that, but still that is saying that if the group you are subtracting from is endless and immeasurable, and you take out 5 of those things, you’ll still have an endless, immeasurable amount of things.

Okay, how does that stop infinity from being an quantity though?

I was working off of your statements, trying to reconcile them or clear up misunderstandings. You seemed to be saying infinity was uncountable and that “all at once” was how infinity was counted, which is illogical.

I didn't say uncountable though, that was you. Same with immeasurability above.

From the very beginning I’ve said that infinity (if it is a coherent idea as a “reachable” value) would seem to be reachable “all at once”; that’s the B-theory of time. It’s the unreachableness of infinity one at a time that is the issue since the A-theory of time involves reality moving through events one at a time. If infinity cannot be reached one at a time, then the A-theory past cannot be infinite.

And it's still not clear why not, when time and time again I've pointed out that you don't need to reach infinity to have infinitely many stars.

How can a number plus one be itself? This should help one to see infinity is an idea rather than an actual value.

Why not both an idea and a value?

Perhaps we are just talking past each other there, then, because I see them as synonyms. When I count 20 numbers, I would say I’ve reached the number of 20 things being counted. If I could count an infinite (as an actual value) amount of numbers, then I would have reached the number of infinity things being counted. And I would have traversed that many elements.

Okay, if you insist they are synonym, then discard everything I said so far, and go with this instead: infinity is reachable, measurable and countable.

I’m also talking about ‘series’ in the sense of it being sequential. That is what you need to establish. Not just that it can be conceptually ordered but that the ordering can be conceptually moved through without a start.

What's the difference between "sequential" and "be conceptually ordered?" What's the difference between conceptually ordering them without a start and conceptually moving through them without a start?

[The Tanager]

Because the context doesn't seem to change anything in this case, it's just the typical mathematical context.

Saying that and showing that are two different things. To put the burden on your opponent, you have to show the context doesn’t change anything. On top of that, the typical mathematical context isn’t what you think is typical as the example about the square shows.

The question is whether the dichotomy must apply to quantity. A square can be quantified and, therefore, gives us an example of quantity within which to test the dichotomy out. So, the question is whether the dichotomy applies to squares. In other words, can there be finite and infinite squares? We see that there cannot be an infinite square, as the concept is illogical. Therefore, the dichotomy is shown not to apply. The dichotomy is shown to not apply in an example of quantity.

Still not seeing how an incoherent concept such as an infinite square is supposed to cast doubt over the coherency of infinite quantity.

The example of the square shows that the finite/infinite (as a value, not an idea) dichotomy doesn’t apply in a very typical mathematical context. Thus, within any mathematical context, you have the burden to show the dichotomy applies rather than shifting that burden to your opponent showing it doesn’t apply.

Yes. The size is immeasurable in the normal way of measuring the number of stars. Infinite is a term stating that immeasurability, not because stars aren’t the types of things that can normally be measured but because we are saying the number of stars is endless. An endless thing can’t be measured. Infinity denotes that truth.

You can’t subtract 5 from infinity like you can subtract it from 20, not in the same sense. Yes, I know infinite mathematics will do calculations like that, but still that is saying that if the group you are subtracting from is endless and immeasurable, and you take out 5 of those things, you’ll still have an endless, immeasurable amount of things.

Okay, how does that stop infinity from being an quantity though?

Either you are saying (a) that kind of idea is one example of being a quantity or (b) infinity can be both that kind of idea as well as a quantity.

If you are saying (a), then I don’t see where we disagree.

If you are saying (b), then you are positing two kinds of infinity. I see reason to believe in the first (the kind of idea) but not the second. Your position requires the existence of the second. It is your burden to show the second sense is a real thing.

What's the difference between "sequential" and "be conceptually ordered?" What's the difference between conceptually ordering them without a start and conceptually moving through them without a start?

I’m talking about the difference between an ordering method and actually ordering something with that method. Without a starting point no actual ordering could get done. If you want to order something from "infinity" to 1, then you've got to write down 2 before you write down 1. You've got to write down 3 before you write down 2. And so on. To the point where you will never write any number down and no actual order will be had.

[Bust Nak]

Saying that and showing that are two different things.

I've done that much over and over again by appealing to dictionary definitions though, you say the context changes thing, you have the burden.

The example of the square shows that the finite/infinite (as a value, not an idea) dichotomy doesn’t apply in a very typical mathematical context.

Infinite square isn't coherent therefore finite/infinite as a value dichotomy doesn’t apply... how?

If you are saying (b), then you are positing two kinds of infinity. I see reason to believe in the first (the kind of idea) but not the second.

The fact that it is how it is used in math isn't a good enough reason?

I’m talking about the difference between an ordering method and actually ordering something with that method. Without a starting point no actual ordering could get done. If you want to order something from "infinity" to 1, then you've got to write down 2 before you write down 1. You've got to write down 3 before you write down 2. And so on. To the point where you will never write any number down and no actual order will be had.

Okay, so why would that mean the sequence in question cannot be ordered with the method I presented?

[The Tanager]

I've done that much over and over again by appealing to dictionary definitions though, you say the context changes thing, you have the burden.

Do you really think context doesn’t change the literal meaning of words? If so, then what does bank mean?

Infinite square isn't coherent therefore finite/infinite as a value dichotomy doesn’t apply... how?

It doesn’t apply in a very typical mathematical context concerning quantity (squares). Therefore, we can’t simply assume it will apply (or not apply) in another mathematical context. You are simply assuming it applies in the mathematical context and saying it’s my burden to show it doesn’t apply in that specific context. It is your burden to show it applies because you are making the positive claim that it does apply in order to support another argument.

The fact that it is how it is used in math isn't a good enough reason?

I don’t think it is used in math in the way you seem to be thinking it does. You haven't shown anything that shows otherwise. Infinity is an idea, even when talking about doing things like subtracting infinities.

Okay, so why would that mean the sequence in question cannot be ordered with the method I presented?

What method? The series is (..., 3, 2, 1). You will never be able to “write down” any actual number of that series in sequence.

[Bust Nak]

Do you really think context doesn’t change the literal meaning of words?

No, context can change things, I said the context doesn't, the dictionary definition is apt for the current context.

It doesn’t apply in a very typical mathematical context concerning quantity (squares).

Squares are not quantities though. Length is a quantity, the number of sides is a quantity.

I don’t think it is used in math in the way you seem to be thinking it does. You haven't shown anything that shows otherwise.

Again, I gave you dictionary definitions, I gave you articles from mathematicians. It's even consistent with pretty much everything you said about infinity, apart from that final step that says infinity is a quantity. Why don't those count?

Infinity is an idea, even when talking about doing things like subtracting infinities.

Again, that's fine, that much isn't being disputed. I gave you all these thing to show that infinity is a quantity, you respond with "infinity is an idea" as if it would invalidate what I said, why?

What method?

The method of ordering by the less than operator (or greater than.)

The series is (..., 3, 2, 1). You will never be able to “write down” any actual number of that series in sequence.

What on Earth are you trying to say here? 3, 2 and 1 are not actual numbers of that series in sequence?!

[The Tanager]

No, context can change things, I said the context doesn't, the dictionary definition is apt for the current context.

The question on this part of our conversation is whether the context does change it or not. Just saying it doesn’t, isn’t carrying your burden.

Squares are not quantities though. Length is a quantity, the number of sides is a quantity.

Obviously. I figured you got that without me spelling it all out, especially since we continued on with the discussion in that way. Next time, I’ll try to remember to spell it out more.

Again, I gave you dictionary definitions, I gave you articles from mathematicians. It's even consistent with pretty much everything you said about infinity, apart from that final step that says infinity is a quantity. Why don't those count?

And I shared why I didn’t think those articles said what you thought they were saying. Again, I’m okay with talking about an infinite quantity, I just don’t think it is a quantity in the way you seem to using it.

What on Earth are you trying to say here? 3, 2 and 1 are not actual numbers of that series in sequence?!

Of course not. Before you actually write down the actual number 3, you’ll have had to actually write down the actual number 4. Before actually writing that down, though, you’ll have had to actually write down the actual number 5. And so on. You’ll never actually write any number down, thus the series will never be written. The sequence will never actually occur. So, yes, you can (pardon me for the equivocation on this term here but I keep it because I think you will have easily distinguished it) write (..., 3, 2, 1) but that doesn't mean the sequence is do-able in reality. You can write the words a "square circle" but that doesn't mean one can actually be made.