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]

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.

Yes, and as I kept saying I fulfilled that much by pointing out that the context in general and math matches the standard definition of the words.

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.

Right, so spell it out, how does infinite squares not being a coherent thing, cast doubt on the validity infinity as a quantity?

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.

But why do you believe that when you can't tell me what's so different in how you use infinite quantity and how I use it?

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.

How did you went from the premise "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" to the conclusion "you’ll never actually write any number down?"

[The Tanager]

But why do you believe that when you can't tell me what's so different in how you use infinite quantity and how I use it?

I did. Infinity is an idea, not a numerical value. You are saying it is both. I'm saying it's not the latter.

How did you went from the premise "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" to the conclusion "you’ll never actually write any number down?"

It's logically impossible. One can only begin writing the series in sequence with a number that had no number preceding it. In this series, there is no such number. Thus, the series cannot be written down in sequence. Can you type any of these numbers, following the rule? If so, type it.

[Bust Nak]

I did. Infinity is an idea, not a numerical value. You are saying it is both. I'm saying it's not the latter.

I did? I said infinity is an idea and a quantity. I also said it's not an actual value like number 5 is an actual value re: infinity + 1. We still seem to have a match here.

One can only begin writing the series in sequence with a number that had no number preceding it.

Why? Can you show how one has to begin writing the series in sequence at all, why not eternally writing, without ever starting?

Can you type any of these numbers, following the rule? If so, type it.

Any of them, as opposed to all of them? Sure. 3, 2, 1.

[The Tanager]

I did? I said infinity is an idea and a quantity. I also said it's not an actual value like number 5 is an actual value re: infinity + 1. We still seem to have a match here.

Yes, you said it is a value, although not in all the ways the number 5 is a value. I don’t see any reason to view it as a value at all.

Why? Can you show how one has to begin writing the series in sequence at all, why not eternally writing, without ever starting?

Even assuming one could have been eternally trying to write the series, that individual would never have written any number because they must always write a preceding number before writing any number.

Any of them, as opposed to all of them? Sure. 3, 2, 1.

Yes, any number. You didn’t follow the rule above. You can’t write 3 (and therefore 2 or 1, either) without first writing 4. Since you didn’t write 4, you can’t write 3.

[JoeyKnothead]

We can't count from there.

We can't count to there.

Therefore god.

What ain't we saw in amongst any of this fussing?

Evidence that God exists, at any point amongst these numbers.

God exists in the minds of humans. Any other claim is folly.

And don't this beat all, an infinite level of folly.

[brunumb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #485]

I don't know about you but this thread is approaching infinity and I ain't seen no God yet. If we get to infinity and there's no God there I'm going to be quite miffed.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to brunumb in post #486]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #485]

You may just be making this point in case anyone is misunderstanding (which I welcome); so is my next point. Anyone following my discussion with Bust Nak should neither think I am trying to prove God's existence in it nor that Bust Nak is trying to disprove or critique such a claim, at least not with me.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to brunumb in post #486]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #485]

You may just be making this point in case anyone is misunderstanding (which I welcome); so is my next point. Anyone following my discussion with Bust Nak should neither think I am trying to prove God's existence in it...

Of course not, cause ya can't.

Which brings us to questioning the existence of a half God, half human hybrid that can hop up after a three day dead.

Heck, I find it hard to hop up after a night of drinking.

nor that Bust Nak is trying to disprove or critique such a claim, at least not with me.

I've come to trust Bust Nak to support his claims and arguments beyond mere faith in em.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #488]

I am trying to prove God's existence

Of course not, cause ya can't.

Convenient, ain't it? At least limitations are known. Well.... looking at other threads, perhaps not

Which brings us to questioning the existence of a half God, half human hybrid that can hop up after a three day dead.

To be fair, in today's world, one can question if blue is blue or is 2+1=3. So even if someone witnessed this 'miracle', they could still doubt.
That said, for many, seeing is believing. But god doesn't want belief, it wants faith. Which, to me, seems to be more of a 'real thing' and a means to errors and, ultimately, one missing out on heaven - the heaven the bible so emphatically pontificates god wants for humanity.
Contradictory at least.
Verification of wishful thinking at best.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, you said it is a value, although not in all the ways the number 5 is a value. I don’t see any reason to view it as a value at all.

Google list quantity as a synonym to value. What is a value to you?

Even assuming one could have been eternally trying to write the series, that individual would never have written any number because they must always write a preceding number before writing any number.

Why wouldn't that individual would never have written any number by following the rule that they must always write a preceding number before writing any number?

Yes, any number. You didn’t follow the rule above.

But I did though. I can write 3 because I have written 4, and I can write 4 because I have written 5 and so on. You asked me for any number instead of all, so I just pick a selection of numbers to show you here.

PS I didn't get a notification that you've replied to my post, you seemed to have a misplaced quote that confused to notification system.