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]

I get what you are saying but, unlike the number line, doesn't the arrow of time point in one direction?

Yes. Everything I said still applies to the number line, if we disallow counting down, where we only every count up. You still need two reference points for a distance; there is no negative number on the infinite number line from which zero cannot be reached by counting up a finite amount.

Now can only be reached from a starting point in the past. That starting point doesn't exist in an infinite past.

Now can only be reached from a reference point in the past, that reference point need not be a start of the entire time line.

If space-time began at the Big Bang, that gives us the starting point.

No disagreement here.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Yes, and you think that somehow stops you from counting every elements in that set?

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.

The never finishing part is simple enough, but why do you think you need to finish shoveling the sand, to shovel an infinite amount of sand?

To traverse an infinite number of days you would need to reach infinity...

Why?!

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.

I don't see anything in that post where it would indicate that one would reach infinity by counting an infinite amount of integers/traverse an infinite number of days.

[Diagoras]

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.

Also see Post #48:
viewtopic.php?p=1038295#p1038295

And for an engaging and useful explanation of infinity, I recommend this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Infinity- ... 0465094813

I went to a talk by the author and learned a lot. She’s adept at explaining rather abstract concepts in a way that anyone can understand.

[historia]

I fail to see how any particular theory of time can negate the infinite regression problem.

Let's see if I can help you understand.

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?

Sure.

My point is, there is no theory of time which prohibits me from counting events

Indeed, I should hope not.

Now, let's assume we can count all events from the present backward into the past. And, in doing so, we actually arrive at the very first event in the universe, and thus discover that the series of past events is not infinite.

What can we conclude at that point?

On the A-Theory of time, we can conclude that the universe is not past eternal, since there was a moment (the earliest event) when the universe came into being. In which case, your conclusion from the OP is warranted.

On the B-Theory, however, we are not justified in reaching that conclusion. According to the B-Theory, the entirety of the universe (past, present, and future) just exists eternally as a four-dimensional spacetime block.

The B-Theory allows for (and to some extent even presumes that) the number of past events is finite (it is not infinite in number), and yet on that model the universe is nevertheless eternal. If true, that negates your conclusion from the OP.

Again, Craig has said as much in the quote above. Here is another quote from a lecture he gave in 2012 where he says much the same:

[S]ome of the arguments for the finitude of the past seem to presuppose that temporal becoming [as described by the A-Theory] is real. For example, the argument I shared earlier tonight, about how you get through an infinite series of events by going one event at a time -- that presupposes that these events are actually happening, that they're actually lapsing.

But, you see, on the B-Theory, that idea of a temporal lapse of time is an illusion. The whole yard stick just exists and nobody is moving from the first inch to the last inch. It just is there. So it seems to me the A-Theory does underly the kalam argument in several ways.

Hope that helps.

[Paul of Tarsus]

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.

Yes, and you think that somehow stops you from counting every elements in that set?

Of course it does. There will always be uncounted elements in an infinite set no matter how many you count. In fact, the number of uncounted elements is always infinite.

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.

The never finishing part is simple enough, but why do you think you need to finish shoveling the sand, to shovel an infinite amount of sand?

You can't finish shoveling an infinite amount of sand. There is no end to the shoveling by definition.

To traverse an infinite number of days you would need to reach infinity...

Why?!

Because infinity by definition can never be reached.

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.

I don't see anything in that post where it would indicate that one would reach infinity by counting an infinite amount of integers/traverse an infinite number of days.

Again, you can never reach infinity. An infinite quantity has no end to it. You can't get to an end if there is no end.

[Paul of Tarsus]

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.

Also see Post #48:
viewtopic.php?p=1038295#p1038295

And for an engaging and useful explanation of infinity, I recommend this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Infinity- ... 0465094813

I went to a talk by the author and learned a lot. She’s adept at explaining rather abstract concepts in a way that anyone can understand.

How can you finish counting the elements of an infinite set? If you finished counting the elements in the set, then it would be finite by definition.

[Bust Nak]

Of course it does. There will always be uncounted elements in an infinite set no matter how many you count. In fact, the number of uncounted elements is always infinite.

Sure there is more to count, but why would that stop me from counting all of them?

You can't finish shoveling an infinite amount of sand. There is no end to the shoveling by definition.

That's not what I asked you though. I asked you why you cannot shovel infinite amount of sand, here you are talking about finishing.

Because infinity by definition can never be reached.

Yes, but that doesn't tell me why you would need to reach infinity to traverse an infinite number of days.

Again, you can never reach infinity. An infinite quantity has no end to it. You can't get to an end if there is no end.

Right, but why would that mean you cannot traverse an infinite number of days.

These are just four ways of asking you the same thing. Perhaps you can just simply tell me which integer on the number line it is that I cannot count to or count from, alternatively couldn't have counted to or counted from.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Of course it does. There will always be uncounted elements in an infinite set no matter how many you count. In fact, the number of uncounted elements is always infinite.

Sure there is more to count, but why would that stop me from counting all of them?

In an infinite set, you can never count the last element because there is no last element.

You can't finish shoveling an infinite amount of sand. There is no end to the shoveling by definition.

That's not what I asked you though. I asked you why you cannot shovel infinite amount of sand, here you are talking about finishing.

If you're not interested in finishing the shoveling, then you can shovel part of the sand, of course.

Because infinity by definition can never be reached.

Yes, but that doesn't tell me why you would need to reach infinity to traverse an infinite number of days.

An infinite number of days has no end, so you can never get to an end that isn't there.

These are just four ways of asking you the same thing. Perhaps you can just simply tell me which integer on the number line it is that I cannot count to or count from, alternatively couldn't have counted to or counted from.

You can count to or from any integer. I think that might be where you misunderstand infinity. Integers are numbers and are finite each of them having a specific, constant value. Infinity isn't really a number and has no specific value. Infinity is an absence of an upper limit on something that can be described using numbers. To count the elements in a finite set, you start with the first element and end with the last element. In an infinite set there is no last element so counting the elements in the set is impossible.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #59]

In an infinite set there is no last element so counting the elements in the set is impossible.

Determining the total number of elements in an infinite set is impossible (other than definining it as an infinity), but counting the elements in the set is possible ... eg. the set of integers is a countably infinite set.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #59]

In an infinite set there is no last element so counting the elements in the set is impossible.

Determining the total number of elements in an infinite set is impossible (other than definining it as an infinity), but counting the elements in the set is possible ... eg. the set of integers is a countably infinite set.

Great point about ‘countable infinite sets’. Here’s another link which may help explain that concept further:

https://plus.maths.org/content/maths-mi ... infinities

Learning that there exist ‘larger infinities’ was one of many surprising things for me in ‘Beyond Infinity’. I’m glad Paul of Tarsus (above) pointed out that ‘infinity’ isn’t really a number: it doesn’t ‘behave’ like one. That’s a really important point that’s often overlooked.