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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #598]

Conservation applies to not only thermodynamics, but electronics, cosmology, particle physics, chemistry, every scientific discipline, not just thermo..

Therefore it is you who are wrong.

In addition, this applies even before the event you know nothing about came into play.

The mass-energy before = the m-e after.
No reason to suspect otherwise, except for your imaginary god to exist.
Which is not a reason, at all.

Good talk.

My question wasn't addressed so I'll ask again..

If the universe doesn't exist, where would you place matter? You will place the matter in what space, exactly?

[Goat]

]

My question wasn't addressed so I'll ask again..

If the universe doesn't exist, where would you place matter? You will place the matter in what space, exactly?

You are asking an 'IF' statement.

The universe has always existed, it merely has changed form now and then.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

[Willum]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #601]

If the universe doesn't exist, where would you place matter? You will place the matter in what space, exactly?

Your question was actually addressed, the thing is, your beliefs won't allow you to understand that answer.
Goat answered it again, immediately above.

it is sad that your religion prevents you from seeing the beauty and wonder of nature and the cosmos.

[The Tanager]

I’ve also affirmed multiple times that mathematicians treat infinity as a real quantity, but they do so by simply assuming it is a real quantity. I’ve no problem with that.

Fine. End of argument.

But then

The problem is then if someone bases an argument on it actually being a real quantity without showing it can be rightly treated as such.

Huh? You accept infinity as a "real quantity" and then you don't when the result conflicts with your religious claims. Which is it?

Not at all. Let me rephrase what I said. I’ve no problem with mathematicians who say “this is what would be mathematically true if infinity were a real quantity” (i.e., treat infinity as a real quantity). I’ve a problem with one who says “infinity is a real quantity,” especially when no argument is offered for it being so.

And what do you think their consensus is, if there is one, on this issue?

I don’t believe there is a consensus.

But an amount is literally defined as a quantity, and unending is an adjective.

To me, “unending” is a different kind of answer than saying “5”. Not just a different amount, but a different kind of answer to the same question. “Unending” makes sense when talking about hypothetical amounts (how many substitutions could my kids’ soccer game have?), but I don’t know that it makes sense when talking about an actual amount. It may. I’m open to hearing your argument, but we need support to do so.

By having some other sense of "expanding in total size" as the ones you hold.

What sense? You’ve said in the “infinity + 1 is still infinity” sense, but I think that is the exact same sense of “expansion”. That second sense of “expansion” is what you need to clarify.

What? No, counting all the members members of X is not a thing, it's counting all the members of M∞ I am proving. Also it discarding "X is not empty" as false, meaning X is empty. See if this mini proof helps. Note that qualifier "with the sequential nature {N, N+1}" is missing from "series," I am trying to keep it simple.

1) X is the set of all uncountable series. (define X)
2) You can count all series outside of X. (from 1, if a series is not countable then it would be in X by definition.)
3) X is empty (premise, we know this because its negation lead to a contradiction.)
4) You can count all series. (from 2 and 3, we can drop the "outside of X" qualifier because everything is outside, nothing is inside.)
5) M∞ is a set containing all series. (define M∞)
6) You can count all the members of M∞. (from 4 and 5)

Premise 6 does not logically follow. You can count all the members of M∞, if taken individually. You’ve got work to do to show that you can count all the members of M∞, taken all together.

And that's why I brought up "married to his job" when this analogy was first introduced to maintain the 1:1 match. The analogy breaks down without something like it, exactly because "moving through all the members" doesn’t contradict infinite while the usual meaning of married does contradict bachelor.

No, bringing in that equivocal sense of ‘married’ destroys the analogy completely because it is an equivocation. This ‘married’ semantically mirrors the term we used for our concept, but it is not that concept. It has nothing to do with the analogy.

The definition of 'complete' is "to finish making or doing". Complete, finish, end, are all synonyms in that sense. So, how can you complete/finish/end something that never ends?

As the one sense/definition/meaning dictates: by moving through all the elements of course.

But if that sense/definition/meaning is an identical concept to “complete the process,” then it must contradict. Changing the semantics does not change the meaning. If 2+2 does not equal 5, then calling 5 “ghost” doesn’t change anything. That is all you are doing here. You are substituting a lack of linguistic contradiction for a lack of logical contradiction.

[Bust Nak]

I don’t believe there is a consensus.

Then go with the consensus that we do have. Mathematicians defined infinity is a quantity.

To me, “unending” is a different kind of answer than saying “5”. Not just a different amount, but a different kind of answer to the same question. “Unending” makes sense when talking about hypothetical amounts (how many substitutions could my kids’ soccer game have?), but I don’t know that it makes sense when talking about an actual amount. It may. I’m open to hearing your argument, but we need support to do so.

I gave you a couple of arguments.

"How many integers are there?" is a different kind of question to "can we always think of more integers?" You stance would mean there is no valid answer to the first question. Yet you maintain it is a coherent question to ask. A coherent question has a valid answer. That inconsistency can be avoided by adopting my stance.

Mathematicians defined it as a quantity. Dictionaries confirm that it is a common usage.

What sense? You’ve said in the “infinity + 1 is still infinity” sense, but I think that is the exact same sense of “expansion”.

That may well be the same sense of expansion, but there is a second part of that clause, "in total size." Are you familiar with cantor's set theory, in particular about what size mean?

Premise 6 does not logically follow. You can count all the members of M∞, if taken individually. You’ve got work to do to show that you can count all the members of M∞, taken all together.

It's the exact same thing. Consider a dozen eggs. The is no difference between the following:

Weighting the 1st egg by itself.
Weighting the 2nd egg by itself.
Weighting the 3rd egg by itself.
...
Weighting the 12th egg by itself.

Weighting egg 1 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.
Weighting egg 2 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.
Weighting egg 3 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.
...
Weighting egg 12 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.

I can weight all the members of a dozen, taken individually, therefore I can weight all the members of a dozen, taken all together. Are you confusing the above with (the equivalent of) putting all 12 eggs on a scale at the same time?

No, bringing in that equivocal sense of ‘married’ destroys the analogy completely because it is an equivocation. This ‘married’ semantically mirrors the term we used for our concept, but it is not that concept. It has nothing to do with the analogy.

I don't understand your complain. The whole point of an analogy is to using something that mirrors our concept but is not that concept, how is that an equivocation?

But if that sense/definition/meaning is an identical concept to “complete the process,” then it must contradict.

That's incorrect. We are only interested in this one sense/definition/meaning of "complete the process," meaning moving through all elements, that one sense/definition/meaning does not contradict with completing an endless process.

Changing the semantics does not change the meaning. If 2+2 does not equal 5, then calling 5 “ghost” doesn’t change anything.

We've already agreed on one sense of "complete the process" - it means moving through all elements, there is no need for me to change from that semantically. You are the one trying to substituting a linguistic contradiction for a logical contradiction with superficial word play re: ending the never ends.

[The Tanager]

Then go with the consensus that we do have. Mathematicians defined infinity is a quantity.

The definition of what it would be if it were a quantity isn’t the problem. Just like the definition of what God is isn’t necessarily an issue in theistic debates. The question is whether such things, as defined, exist.

"How many integers are there?" is a different kind of question to "can we always think of more integers?" You stance would mean there is no valid answer to the first question. Yet you maintain it is a coherent question to ask. A coherent question has a valid answer. That inconsistency can be avoided by adopting my stance.

I think those questions are conceptually linked. The valid answers are, respectively, “we can always think of more” and “yes”. Your stance is to answer with a term that means what my first answer does, but to say “No, it means something different” without clarifying what it actually means.

That may well be the same sense of expansion, but there is a second part of that clause, "in total size." Are you familiar with cantor's set theory, in particular about what size mean?

To a degree. I don’t think that helps you here, but let’s follow your thought to see.

It's the exact same thing. Consider a dozen eggs. The is no difference between the following:

Weighting the 1st egg by itself.
Weighting the 2nd egg by itself.
Weighting the 3rd egg by itself.
...
Weighting the 12th egg by itself.

Weighting egg 1 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.
Weighting egg 2 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.
Weighting egg 3 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.
...
Weighting egg 12 of 12, taking the eggs together as one dozen.

I can weight all the members of a dozen, taken individually, therefore I can weight all the members of a dozen, taken all together. Are you confusing the above with (the equivalent of) putting all 12 eggs on a scale at the same time?

It’s the same thing when comparing finite to finite, but not necessarily when moving from finite to infinite. Premise 4 gives us truth about finite series. Premise 5 is not a finite series.

I don't understand your complain. The whole point of an analogy is to using something that mirrors our concept but is not that concept, how is that an equivocation?

Yes, but you’ve brought in a third something (‘married’ as in ‘married to my job’) that is a different thing than the initial ‘married’ we were talking about. You’ve brought in a new concept (under the disguise of the same term) to try to escape the conclusion. Sure, the new ‘married’ as in ‘married to my job’ doesn’t conflict with being a bachelor, but we weren’t asking about that concept, so it is irrelevant. The only reason to think it relevant is through equivocation, but that is a logical fallacy.

That's incorrect. We are only interested in this one sense/definition/meaning of "complete the process," meaning moving through all elements, that one sense/definition/meaning does not contradict with completing an endless process.

Why doesn’t it? If ‘moving through all elements’ is identical to ending a process (i.e., completing the process), then how does ending a process not contradict a process that is endless? You can’t end something that is endless.

We've already agreed on one sense of "complete the process" - it means moving through all elements, there is no need for me to change from that semantically. You are the one trying to substituting a linguistic contradiction for a logical contradiction with superficial word play re: ending the never ends.

How is that word play? To complete means to finish or end something. That ‘end’ is the same meaning as it is in “never ends”.

[Diogenes]

Then go with the consensus that we do have. Mathematicians defined infinity is a quantity.

The definition of what it would be if it were a quantity isn’t the problem. Just like the definition of what God is isn’t necessarily an issue in theistic debates. The question is whether such things, as defined, exist.

"... the definition of what God is isn’t necessarily an issue in theistic debates?" The definition of 'God' is a HUGE issue in theistic debates. It is the CENTRAL issue. To serious Christian theologians, it is THE issue.

But back to infinity as a quantity, perhaps this will help. If we take infinity, the number, and instead of adding '1' we subtract '1.' The resulting number is not infinity, but it certainly is a quantity. And since one less than infinity is a quantity, infinity must also be a quantity.

But comparing this concept to God is like comparing a horse to a unicorn.

[Bust Nak]

The definition of what it would be if it were a quantity isn’t the problem. Just like the definition of what God is isn’t necessarily an issue in theistic debates. The question is whether such things, as defined, exist.

Then what's the problem with accepting that infinity IS a quantity? Whether actual infinities exists or not isn't even all that important in the context of this debate, we are only debating whether it is possible or impossible.

I think those questions are conceptually linked. The valid answers are, respectively, “we can always think of more” and “yes”. Your stance is to answer with a term that means what my first answer does, but to say “No, it means something different” without clarifying what it actually means.

My answer is infinity, this is what it actually means, that's how many there are, an amount greater than any specific amount.

To a degree. I don’t think that helps you here, but let’s follow your thought to see.

Two sets have the same size if there is a one to one mapping with their members, which means there are just as many integers as there are even numbers - for every integer, I can give you a unique corresponding even number, without reusing any even number. Adding odd numbers to the set of even numbers, is an example of have more added to it, and not be expanding in total size.

It’s the same thing when comparing finite to finite, but not necessarily when moving from finite to infinite.

We know it holds in this case, because if it doesn't hold then there would be at least one series with the sequential nature {N, N+1} that is uncountable. If there is at least one such series then X would not be empty. We know X is empty, because if it isn't empty then there would be a contradiction.

Throw in this premise if you are still unsure: "whether a series is countable or not, does not change depends on how many peers there are." The defence for this is same idea. If this premise is false, then premise 4 would no longer be true, it would no longer be the case that all finite series are countable, as some would be uncountable, X is not empty, which leads to a contradiction.

Premise 4 gives us truth about finite series. Premise 5 is not a finite series.

So? Your challenge is still giving me the impression that you are mixing a claim about members of a set, with a claim about the set itself. I do not need premise 4's truth to carry over to infinite series. Truths about members of a set need not apply for the set itself, and my proof does not assume that they would.

Yes, but you’ve brought in a third something (‘married’ as in ‘married to my job’) that is a different thing than the initial ‘married’ we were talking about. You’ve brought in a new concept (under the disguise of the same term) to try to escape the conclusion.

Escaping the conclusion is exactly the point, the conclusion in question is the result of a false analogy. It's a false analogy because the initial ‘married’ we were talking about, conflicts with being a bachelor; where as the "completing the process" that we are talking about doesn't conflict with endless series. I offered an alternative to fix the analogy with a new concept of "married" doesn’t conflict with being a bachelor, to highlight exactly why the analogy breaks down.

Why doesn’t it?

It doesn't because "complete the process" is identical to "moving through all elements" and you can indeed move through all the elements of an endless process. Moving through all the elements is how you end something that is endless.

How is that word play? To complete means to finish or end something. That ‘end’ is the same meaning as it is in “never ends”.

There are two meanings though. The "end" in "end something" being a synonym of complete, means moving though all members. On the other hand, the "end" in "never ends" means finite in length or duration.

[The Tanager]

The definition of what it would be if it were a quantity isn’t the problem. Just like the definition of what God is isn’t necessarily an issue in theistic debates. The question is whether such things, as defined, exist.

"... the definition of what God is isn’t necessarily an issue in theistic debates?" The definition of 'God' is a HUGE issue in theistic debates. It is the CENTRAL issue. To serious Christian theologians, it is THE issue.

The key word in my sentence was “necessarily”. If people agree on the definition of God, then there is still the much bigger question of whether God, so defined, exists. Thus, my point was that defining a term a certain way isn’t enough. At least not for our discussion about whether an infinite A-theory past could exist in reality.

But back to infinity as a quantity, perhaps this will help. If we take infinity, the number, and instead of adding '1' we subtract '1.' The resulting number is not infinity, but it certainly is a quantity. And since one less than infinity is a quantity, infinity must also be a quantity.

(Assuming infinity as a quantity): No, infinity minus 1 is still infinity. This set {1, 2, 3, …} has an infinite amount of integers. Let’s take one member away. This set {2, 3, …} also has an infinite amount of integers. Infinity is not just 1 number bigger than the last finite number. There is no last finite number.

What is even stranger than this is that if you subtract infinity from infinity you can get all kinds of different answers. Take away all even numbers from this set {1, 2, 3, …} (which is an infinity minus infinity) and the set leftover still has an infinite amount of integers. Infinity minus infinity here is infinity. Take away all numbers above 1 from the first set (which is still an infinity minus infinity), however, and the answer would be 1. You could also get an answer of 2 or 3 and so on. You can even get negative numbers. Take infinity (all even numbers) and subtract infinity (all positive numbers) and you have negative infinity.

[The Tanager]

Then what's the problem with accepting that infinity IS a quantity? Whether actual infinities exists or not isn't even all that important in the context of this debate, we are only debating whether it is possible or impossible.

We are debating whether an actual infinity is possible/impossible in reality. Could the number of real past events in A-theory time be an actual infinite?

My answer is infinity, this is what it actually means, that's how many there are, an amount greater than any specific amount.

But you’ve got to show that last part makes sense. We can put “square circle” into a sentence that, if one doesn’t know the terms, won’t catch that such a concept is illogical. I need to see that “an amount greater than any specific amount” makes sense. The example of a non-specfic amount that you gave, ‘several’ is non-specific but it’s not greater than any specific amount.

Two sets have the same size if there is a one to one mapping with their members, which means there are just as many integers as there are even numbers - for every integer, I can give you a unique corresponding even number, without reusing any even number. Adding odd numbers to the set of even numbers, is an example of have more added to it, and not be expanding in total size.

Either “having more added to it” and “not expanding in total size” mean two different things or they mean the same thing with contradicting answers.

If it is the former, then it avoids the critique by redefining the term being discussed. That’s the equivocation fallacy. Yes, “in total size” could have a different meaning that works here, but we weren’t talking about that meaning (just like ‘married to my job’).

If it is the latter, then we have a clear contradiction.

We know it holds in this case, because if it doesn't hold then there would be at least one series with the sequential nature {N, N+1} that is uncountable. If there is at least one such series then X would not be empty. We know X is empty, because if it isn't empty then there would be a contradiction.

I’m asking how you logically jump from truths about finite amounts to truths about infinite amounts [especially when it’s clear that when infinity is treated as a quantity, the math does stuff that doesn’t happen with finite amounts (such as infinity minus infinity having an infinity of different answers].

The above response seems to be “because it holds in every finite case.” X is made up of all finite cases. "It holds in all finite cases" is not rational support to make the jump to "it holds in the case of infinity as well".

Throw in this premise if you are still unsure: "whether a series is countable or not, does not change depends on how many peers there are." The defence for this is same idea. If this premise is false, then premise 4 would no longer be true, it would no longer be the case that all finite series are countable, as some would be uncountable, X is not empty, which leads to a contradiction.

How many peers there are?

So? Your challenge is still giving me the impression that you are mixing a claim about members of a set, with a claim about the set itself. I do not need premise 4's truth to carry over to infinite series. Truths about members of a set need not apply for the set itself, and my proof does not assume that they would.

Premise 4 concerns the truth about members of the set X, right? You can count all series of the type {N, N+1}. You can count {0, 1}. You can also count {5, 6}. And so on.

Premise 5 changes the discussion to the set X (the set containing all series of the type {N,N+1}.

In premise 6, on the basis of 4 and 5, you concluded that you can count set X. What am I misunderstanding, to where this isn’t applying the truth about members of X (in premise 4) to the entire set (premise 5)?

Escaping the conclusion is exactly the point, the conclusion in question is the result of a false analogy. It's a false analogy because the initial ‘married’ we were talking about, conflicts with being a bachelor; where as the "completing the process" that we are talking about doesn't conflict with endless series. I offered an alternative to fix the analogy with a new concept of "married" doesn’t conflict with being a bachelor, to highlight exactly why the analogy breaks down.

‘Married’ as in ‘married to my job’ is an equivocation of ‘married’ as in non-bachelor. You are escaping the conclusion via an equivocation. Escaping the conclusion via an equivocation is a fallacy. If the only way you can cause the analogy to break down is via an equivocation, then the analogy stands.

If you give an argument that God doesn’t exist and then I come back with but God is “a being than which none greater can be imagined” and your argument didn’t show that, would your argument have failed? Not for that reason, at least. I would either be equivocating on the term (and thus not defeating your actual argument) or I would be presenting a synonym and the exact same argument that succeeded would still have to succeed because we are talking about the same thing.

It doesn't because "complete the process" is identical to "moving through all elements" and you can indeed move through all the elements of an endless process. Moving through all the elements is how you end something that is endless.

That’s just restating that it doesn’t contradict, not showing why it doesn’t contradict. The only way something can end something that is endless is if we are equivocating on either ‘end’ or ‘endless’ to where they aren’t complete, mutually exclusive opposites.

There are two meanings though. The "end" in "end something" being a synonym of complete, means moving though all members. On the other hand, the "end" in "never ends" means finite in length or duration.

That’s the problem. You’ve changed what I mean in my critique. That’s an equivocation fallacy. The ‘end’ in “never ends” does not mean finite in length or duration. It means to “not complete”. It’s not bound to only finite or infinite things, but is a general definition.