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]

If we start from now, an infinite future can never be reached. If we consider the past, any time we choose before now is a finite distance back. We can always go further back. Now is always a finite distance ahead of that time. With an infinite past, now has to be an infinite distance in the future, but an infinite future can never be reached. So, now can never be reached if we have an infinite past. Have I mucked up somewhere?

Yes, this bit "with an infinite past, now has to be an infinite distance in the future..." is wrong. Distance only make sense in the context of distance between 2 reference points. Now is one of the two points, where is the other point suppose to be? Given that "now is always a finite distance ahead of [any time we choose]," there is no point in the infinite past from which now is an infinite distance in the future.

Here's how I look at it - there is no such thing as the middle of infinity...

Where is the number 217, if not somewhere in the middle of the infinite number line? If there is a finite amount between any two integers on the infinite number line, then why would it be any different on an infinite time line? The set of positive integers has a starting point but no ending point, is that set technically not infinite?

[Paul of Tarsus]

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”.

This doesn't follow, you don't need to reach infinity to have traversed an infinite amount of days.

Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole... 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.

This analogy is useless for your argument, since the fact that the sand will never reach the top, doesn't imply he hasn't already, or cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand into the pit.

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).

By traversing an infinite number of days, analogous with shovelling an infinite amount of sand into the pit (as opposed to filling the sand pit.)

You cannot traverse an infinite number of days because no matter how long you go, you must go longer. Also, if the amount of sand is infinite, then no matter how much sand you shovel, there will be more. So Venom is correct that an infinite number of days cannot be traversed. Where he is going wrong is his assumption that if the past is infinite, then we cannot now be at the present. To be at the present, we do not need to traverse an infinite number of days; in fact we have not and cannot do so. All we need to do is be at a point in time, and there are an infinite number in the set of points at which events take place.

Venom also failed to come up with a necessary maximal possible age for the universe. Such a maximal age is necessary if he's right that the past cannot be eternal. He failed to come up with that maximal age because there is no maximal age, and therefore the past can be infinite.

Finally, rather than engage my points, he ordered me to leave the thread.

[Kenisaw]

Here's how I look at it - there is no such thing as the middle of infinity...

Where is the number 217, if not somewhere in the middle of the infinite number line? If there is a finite amount between any two integers on the infinite number line, then why would it be any different on an infinite time line? The set of positive integers has a starting point but no ending point, is that set technically not infinite?

All positive numbers may not have an ending point, but they have a starting point (number 1), therefore it is technically not infinite.

A lot of this is semantics really. Mathematicians have argued about this for a long time. For example, are there an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1? The answer should be yes, because 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...1/n means you would never run out of numbers. But is 2/1 between 0 and 1? No, obviously. So how can you add to infinity? It's like saying there are subsets of infinity within the big set of infinity, and that might actually be a true statement, mathematically speaking.

That's why I termed it in that post as "I see it" in the last sentence. When I talk about infinity at this website, I am thinking about it in terms of a god always existing. A time value if you will. If we want to talk specifically about number lines, perhaps the case can be made that 0 is the middle of infinity. But that isn't really a discussion for this site...

[We_Are_VENOM]

This is surely mistaken. The thing that distinguishes the A- and B-theories is precisely how each one conceives of the nature and relationship of events within time.

On the A-Theory, only events in the present are real -- past events no longer exist, and future events have yet to come into existence.

On such a theory, for the universe to be past eternal, there would have to be an infinite series of past events, each one having come into and then passed out of existence -- which, as you've explained above, is problematic.

On the B-Theory, however, all events (past, present, and future) are equally real. They all exist. The apparent flow of time we experience is just an illusion -- a purely subjective psychological feature of human consciousness.

On such a theory, there does not have to be an infinite number of past (or rather 'earlier than') events for the universe to be eternal, since on this theory the entirety of the universe (past, present, and future) just exists eternally as a four-dimensional space-time block.

Craig has already confirmed that in the quote above, and surely we should accept his expert understanding over the objections of Eddie Brock.

I hear you...but my point is..

1. I woke up this morning
2. Had breakfast
3. Began talking to you and others on this great forum

Do you see how I just counted those three events?

My point is, there is no theory of time which prohibits me from counting events and I fail to see how any particular theory of time can negate the infinite regression problem.

So, even if the B-theory of time is correct...guess what? I still counted the events and I long as I can count, the infinite regression problem is not negated.

[We_Are_VENOM]

All positive numbers may not have an ending point, but they have a starting point (number 1), therefore it is technically not infinite.

A lot of this is semantics really. Mathematicians have argued about this for a long time. For example, are there an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1? The answer should be yes, because 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...1/n means you would never run out of numbers. But is 2/1 between 0 and 1? No, obviously.

Exactly...and to really drive that point home..

If there are an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1, if you count from zero to 1, you are theoretically skipping an infinite number of numbers and landing at 1.

Yet, if you were to count all of the numbers in between 0 and 1, you would never arrive at 1.

Makes no sense.

So how can you add to infinity? It's like saying there are subsets of infinity within the big set of infinity, and that might actually be a true statement, mathematically speaking.

Yup, and that is what is so absurd about it.

1. Millennium
2. Century
3. Decade
4. Year
5. Month
6. Day
7. Hour
8. Minute

Now, if the past was infinite, that would mean that there were an infinite amount of millenniums, centuries, decades, years, etc...

DESPITE the fact that each time-frame has different values!! Yet, each time frame would have the same amount (infinite amount) of traversions <--new word

Or, lets say you have an infinite amount of 100 dollar bills....and I have an infinite amount of pennies...yet technically, we have the same amount of money!!

There is nothing that you can buy with your infinite amount of dollar bills, that I can't buy with my infinite amount of pennies.

Makes no sense.

That's why I termed it in that post as "I see it" in the last sentence. When I talk about infinity at this website, I am thinking about it in terms of a god always existing. A time value if you will. If we want to talk specifically about number lines, perhaps the case can be made that 0 is the middle of infinity. But that isn't really a discussion for this site...

Yeah, but there are problems with that too. If 0 is the middle of infinity, then if you were to travel down the positive side of the numbers line and stopped equal distance of the negative line, what number would you stop at?

Absurd, is what it is.

[Bust Nak]

You cannot traverse an infinite number of days because no matter how long you go, you must go longer.

Why would the fact that you must go longer mean you cannot traverse an infinite number of days? The fact that there is room for you to go longer means you can traverse an infinite number days; only if you hit the day where there isn't a tomorrow, can you say one cannot traverse an infinite number of days.

Also, if the amount of sand is infinite, then no matter how much sand you shovel, there will be more.

Same thing here. The fact that the amount of sand is infinite, and there is always more, is why you can shovel an infinite amount of sand; only when the sand runs out, can one cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand.

I think you have equated "traverse an infinite number of days" with "reaching infinity."

[Paul of Tarsus]

All positive numbers may not have an ending point, but they have a starting point (number 1), therefore it is technically not infinite.

The set of positive numbers is infinite because that set increases without bound. There is no "starting" point in the set of positive real numbers either.

I think you may be referring to the set of positive integers which is also known as the set of natural numbers or the counting numbers: 1, 2, 3,... The set of positive integers is infinite because it increases without bound, and there is no largest number in that set. Also, there is no "starting point" in the set of positive integers although 1 is the least number in the set.

A lot of this is semantics really. Mathematicians have argued about this for a long time. For example, are there an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1? The answer should be yes, because 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...1/n means you would never run out of numbers. But is 2/1 between 0 and 1? No, obviously. So how can you add to infinity?

I'm not sure why you are asking if 2 is between 0 and 1, but you can add to infinity. Consider, for example, 0.9999... where the digit 9 repeats forever. This number can be represented with the infinite geometric series 9/10 + 9/100 +9/1000 + .... The terms of this series go on forever, and each term beyond the first term is 1/10 the previous term. The 1/10 is referred to as the "common ratio," and is normally denoted r. If we call the first term a, then the sum of this series S = a/(1 - r) = 9/10/(1-1/10) = 1! We have then added an infinite number of numbers to arrive at a finite sum.

It's like saying there are subsets of infinity within the big set of infinity, and that might actually be a true statement, mathematically speaking.

There are an infinite number of infinite subsets within the set of real numbers. Between any two unequal real numbers, there is an infinite set of real numbers. For example, between 1 and 2 you have 1.1, 1.11, 1.111 and so on. Just add another rightmost 1 digit, and you can do so forever to come up with another number between 1 and 2. The set of real numbers between 1 and 2 is then both a subset of the real numbers and is infinite. Since the set of real numbers is infinite, we can come up with an infinite number of unique pairs of unequal real numbers, each pair representing an infinite subset of the set of real numbers.

If we want to talk specifically about number lines, perhaps the case can be made that 0 is the middle of infinity.

The set of real numbers has no midrange value. To calculate a midrange, you must subtract the least value from the largest value, and then divide that difference by two. Since there is no maximal value and no minimal value in the set of real numbers, there is no "middle" value in that infinite set.

Now, if you want the middle value between two unequal real numbers, then you have it by using the calculation above. So such infinite sets have midranges, but the midrange is only zero if the largest number and the least number have equal absolute values.

But that isn't really a discussion for this site...

I think math is an important issue for discussion here. Many apologists use mathematics to try to prove God, and as I have demonstrated, much of that math is wrong.

I'd recommend studying calculus to better understand infinity.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #44]

A lot of this is semantics really. Mathematicians have argued about this for a long time. For example, are there an infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1? The answer should be yes, because 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...1/n means you would never run out of numbers. But is 2/1 between 0 and 1? No, obviously. So how can you add to infinity? It's like saying there are subsets of infinity within the big set of infinity, and that might actually be a true statement, mathematically speaking.

True. There are sets that are countably infinite (eg. the set of integers which extend to infinity in both positive and negative directions) and uncountably infinite sets (eg. the set of real numbers). Both are infinite by definition, but one is countable and the other is not. And one is intuitively (and practically) "larger" than the other because there are an infinite number of real numbers between any two sequential integers. So there are multiple levels of infinity:

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the ... f-infinity

and Cantor's uncountability proof of 1874:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinali ... _continuum

[brunumb]

If we start from now, an infinite future can never be reached. If we consider the past, any time we choose before now is a finite distance back. We can always go further back. Now is always a finite distance ahead of that time. With an infinite past, now has to be an infinite distance in the future, but an infinite future can never be reached. So, now can never be reached if we have an infinite past. Have I mucked up somewhere?

Yes, this bit "with an infinite past, now has to be an infinite distance in the future..." is wrong. Distance only make sense in the context of distance between 2 reference points. Now is one of the two points, where is the other point suppose to be? Given that "now is always a finite distance ahead of [any time we choose]," there is no point in the infinite past from which now is an infinite distance in the future.

I get what you are saying but, unlike the number line, doesn't the arrow of time point in one direction? Now can only be reached from a starting point in the past. That starting point doesn't exist in an infinite past. If space-time began at the Big Bang, that gives us the starting point.

[Paul of Tarsus]

You cannot traverse an infinite number of days because no matter how long you go, you must go longer.

Why would the fact that you must go longer mean you cannot traverse an infinite number of days? The fact that there is room for you to go longer means you can traverse an infinite number days; only if you hit the day where there isn't a tomorrow, can you say one cannot traverse an infinite number of days.

The amount of additional time is always infinite no matter how long you go. In an infinite set, no matter how many elements you remove, the remaining number of elements is still infinite.

Also, if the amount of sand is infinite, then no matter how much sand you shovel, there will be more.

Same thing here. The fact that the amount of sand is infinite, and there is always more, is why you can shovel an infinite amount of sand; only when the sand runs out, can one cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand.

You cannot shovel an infinite amount of sand because no matter how much you shovel, there will always be more to shovel. Therefore, you can never finish shoveling the sand. I can't explain it more simply than that.

I think you have equated "traverse an infinite number of days" with "reaching infinity."

To traverse an infinite number of days you would need to reach infinity which is impossible to do. Any number of days that can be traversed must be a finite number of days.

You may wish to read my post 47 where I explain the basic concepts of infinite sets. I'd also recommend studying calculus to better understand infinity.