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.

[William]

I find there are far simpler reasons to discount god beliefs.

I don't think either a finite or an infinite universe discounts that we exist within a creation.

Yeah, I never found either of it very compelling as relates to proving / disproving much of anything. If God's god and all, I'd think how long he's been around is kinda moot. I just happen to think he ain't never been around.

But, as relates to the OP, I hear often that "God always existed", and that does engage the whole infinite past deal. But again, considering the paucity of evidence, I still conclude gods are the product of human thought and imagination.

That said, I think you do, here and elsewhere, present some innovative thinking and arguments that have taught me a good bunch about how a god could potentially, possibly exist within a reasoned and logical set of rules or ideas. I find em a bit difficult to argue against, beyond "na-ah!" You expose my atheism for the agnosticism it really is.

Well that is good. Also you don't appear to be overly surprised Joey. Perhaps underneath it all you have always been Agnostic.

[Maybe that is the true default setting of a new born human?]

It is gratifying to read how my words have helped you with realization.

The thing about words [and the exchanges of words] is that when feedback occurs, it leads on to more and it really isn't just a case of me throwing out wonderful innovative meals of words, because I can only feedback from what is also fed to me, so it would discourteous of me to receive all the praise when the buffet is more than just I what contribute to the table.

So my gratitude to you for your willingness to interact with me in a sensible and serious manner without losing your wonderful sense of humor. You have taught me things too. I enjoy the challenge of intelligent innovated musings...

[Time for another brew I think. Gets up and puts the pot to boil]

[The Tanager]

Do you believe in the A-Theory or B-theory of time?

I don't have a preference here.

Is temporal becoming an objective feature of the natural universe, in your view?

Is this just another way of the same question as above? If not then I would say the temporal is (rather than becoming) an objective feature of the natural universe whether the past, present and future are fundamentally different or not.

They were ways to ask the same thing. I asked because I think that is what our disagreement logically hinges on. If the A-theory of time is true, then the past is a sequential series of events that pass one after the other.

For the past to be an actual infinite, it would need, at the least, a “core” of past events that eternally, tenselessly co-exist. Thus, our discussion would need to turn to analyzing the case for/against the B-theory of time.

[Bust Nak]

They were ways to ask the same thing. I asked because I think that is what our disagreement logically hinges on. If the A-theory of time is true, then the past is a sequential series of events that pass one after the other...

Sure, I don't see what the problem is with this, why can't a sequential series of events that pass one after the other be an actual infinity? The "core" of the past events eternally, co-exist in both theories; in A they co-exist in the same tense, in B they co-exist tenselessly. Why must actual infinity be tenseless?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Take a step.

Measure that step.

Start dividing that measurent by twos.

You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.

Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.

Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.

Makes no sense.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).

However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.

Yet, this can be accomplished with a single step.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If infinite segments are not traversed, then how many segments are traversed with each step when each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?

I dont know the precise amount...but the answer must lie in the "finitude".

[bluegreenearth]

If infinite segments are not traversed, then how many segments are traversed with each step when each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?

I dont know the precise amount...but the answer must lie in the "finitude".

Are you suggesting that the distance between your starting point and your first step can be divided into a finite number of segments where each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?

[We_Are_VENOM]

If infinite segments are not traversed, then how many segments are traversed with each step when each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?

I dont know the precise amount...but the answer must lie in the "finitude".

Are you suggesting that the distance between your starting point and your first step can be divided into a finite number of segments where each segment is half the length of the segment ahead of it?

Yeah, since the fact that I can obviously succeed in taking my first step only concludes that there is a finite distance between my starting point and my first step.

[benchwarmer]

Yeah, since the fact that I can obviously succeed in taking my first step only concludes that there is a finite distance between my starting point and my first step.

I think the point being missed is that even a finite distance can be subdivided into an infinite number of segments. That's just simple math and easy to show. Starting from the start point, make a segment half the distance to the end point. That's segment 1. For each subsequent segment, repeat the process. From the end of segment N, create a new segment that is half the distance to the end point. N is infinite unless you have found a distance that can't be cut in half.

Have you found a distance that can't be cut in half? Only then would the NUMBER of segments be finite.

Clearly the size of each subsequent segment approaches 0, but it's always possible to cut any segment in half. If you only ever walk half way from your current position to the final position you will never reach the end.

Obviously if you don't walk half the distance, but the full distance, you will reach the end. That doesn't negate the fact that there are an infinite number of segments that can be created.

[JoeyKnothead]

Take a step.
Measure that step.
Start dividing that measurent by twos.
You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.
Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.

Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.
Makes no sense.

All I can do is present the data, I can't make you understand it.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).
However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.
...

Anything that can be measured can be subdivided an infinite amount of times.
I really can't tell it no plainern that.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Take a step.
Measure that step.
Start dividing that measurent by twos.
You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.
Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.

Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.
Makes no sense.

All I can do is present the data, I can't make you understand it.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).
However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.
...

Anything that can be measured can be subdivided an infinite amount of times.
I really can't tell it no plainern that.

Sure, you can explain it until the cows come home...but notice how you are saying EVERYTHING but replying directly to my point.

Instead of trying to make sense of what is absurd, you need to understand why it is absurd in the first place.

Because on one hand, the idea is that there are an infinite amount of points between step 1 and step 2.

So when I take one step, Ive successfully traversed all of the points between 1 and 2 (an infinite amount).

However, if I was tasked to count every single point (in numerical order) between 1 and 2, for some "reason", I will never arrive at the second point.

Yet, I had no problem arriving at 2 when I took the step, despite traversing the same amount of points that is preventing me from arriving at the second point if I was to begin counting.

You've yet to address this conundrum.

To your point, anything measured can be divided an infinite number of times...this is theoretically true....but when you apply that concept to the real world, you get contradictory results...because if what you say is true, motion would be impossible...as one would never be able to reach any single point, if that were the case.

Not only that, but even if I were to successfully traverse infinity with a single step, I would traverse infinity in a finite proper time, which is equally absurd, but for a completely different reason.

So either way, the entire concept is fundamentally flawed.