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]

Makes no sense at all. What is "a tree that never began to exist"? If it never began to exist then it never did exist, and therefore cannot be a tree (or anything else). It also could not be "planted in the dirt" if it never began to exist, because something that does not exist cannot be planted in the dirt.. And of course it could not have "moved" if it never existed. Given all this, then no ... we cannot say the tree has existed for eternity, in time or any other realm, because it never began to exist (by your initial definition).

If the existence of the god you are referring to is synonymous with the tree, then it never began to exist and so never did exist at any point in time or space. What am I missing? Have you not just given an analogy that would prove that this god being never existed (if the analogy actually did make sense)? Or did you mean to compare a seed that would become a tree to a germinated plant that eventually becomes a tree (in which case is the god being analogous to the seed, or the tree?).

Bruh, the tree analogy was only meant to demonstrate how something can exist, but not exist in time.

That was the point. Don't focus on the tree, because the tree can be substituted for any arbitrary thing.

I only used a tree because trees are typically stationary, which is the focal point of the entire analogy.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Somebody planted God in the dirt? Is that what you’re saying? And I’m wondering, why a tree? Does it not grow at all, or is this a very special case of ‘tree’?

You repeat ‘never began to exist’ twice, presumably to emphasise the importance of this fact. I’m guessing that the lack of movement is meant to be synonymous with lack of movement in time, but I don’t really know for sure. Who did the planting, and when was this? Where was the tree before it was planted, if it never began to exist? How could a tree existing outside of time be planted in time (if the act of planting is supposed to represent the beginning of the universe)?

Wow, now I know how Jesus must have felt as he talked to Nicodemus (John 3:1-15).

As I told DrNoGods, the tree is arbitrary. I could have used a basketball, tv, a couch, a trash can in the analogy.

The tree has no significance, no intrinsic value; besides the fact that it is known for being stationary, and I attempted to drive home a stationary point.

Got it?

And what’s an eternity that’s not in time? The word itself means “for all time’, coming from the Latin aeternus ‘without beginning or end’. This tree has existed for all time but not in time?

Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "Eternity" (would have posted link, but the page isn't working). It goes a bit deeper than that.

The tree, if it never began to exist, yet it sat stationary; there is no element of time there, is there?

There were no moments before the tree, and no moments after the tree. Time does not exist. The tree does not exist in time, nor is there a temporal element to reality.

You ask if this makes sense, but I’m fairly certain that I’m not the only one who will answer “No”.

I'm here for you

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #252]

Bruh, the tree analogy was only meant to demonstrate how something can exist, but not exist in time.

That was the point. Don't focus on the tree, because the tree can be substituted for any arbitrary thing.

I only used a tree because trees are typically stationary, which is the focal point of the entire analogy.

Now this is really getting confusing. But maybe it relates to presumed existence of the supernatural vs. actual existence of the natural, and analogies that use natural things (eg. trees) to explain the supernatural.

You're claiming that something can exist, but not exist in time. Presumably this thing is the god being you are postulating that has always existed ("eternal"), outside of time, and at some point decided it would be a good idea to create a universe and start the time clock ticking. This is the Genesis creation story (or any similar creation myth) with the additional claim that the god being doing the creating exists outside of time and has existed for eternity (qualititatively but not quantitatively of course, because of how you are selectively using the word infinity).

This conveniently gets around the question of how the god being itself came into existence, but "outside of time" means nothing in the real world so that phrase necessarily requires acceptance of the supernatural. The stationary-like-a-tree god being that exists eternally and outside of time is necessary for your argument, but doesn't seem to have any support beyond a statement that it is required as an initial condition (ie. it is assumed).

Is there any other entity of any kind that exists "outside of time"? What about all the other thousands of gods humans have imagined? Do/did they also exist outside of time, or not at all?

[benchwarmer]

The stationary-like-a-tree god being that exists eternally and outside of time is necessary for your argument, but doesn't seem to have any support beyond a statement that it is required as an initial condition (ie. it is assumed).

Bolding mine. Unfortunately for WEV, the bolded bit does not coincide with all the omni-butes either. Omnipresent would mean present in all time. Something can't both exist in time and out of time at the same 'time'.

Being outside of time also stops the god from:

1) listening and responding to prayers
2) having ANY effect in our universe which is "in time".
3) making decisions based on any input as things proceed "in time"

Basically, the argument being put forth is creating a god with no ability to actually do anything since doing something requires action which takes time. If you believe the Bible, it took 7 days just to create everything. In other words, there's no way to retrofit whatever god might fall out of this argument onto the Christian god.

So far, we seem to have a god that doesn't move, can't be seen or shown to exist, and is entirely unneeded to explain how the current universe began its expansion from the furthest back point we can extrapolate to. In other words, we have 20 some pages of trying to plug all the holes, understand what infinity means, and basically a god of the gaps explanation that gets us no usable information or ability to predict anything. Fun.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #255]

So far, we seem to have a god that doesn't move, can't be seen or shown to exist, and is entirely unneeded to explain how the current universe began its expansion from the furthest back point we can extrapolate to. In other words, we have 20 some pages of trying to plug all the holes, understand what infinity means, and basically a god of the gaps explanation that gets us no usable information or ability to predict anything.

Yes ... this is what usually happens when the premise(s) of an argument is wrong and there are attempts to dance around that fundamental problem. The point of the OP was that infinite regression is not possible, therefore god must exist. And the various examples (sandman, convergent series, etc.) all related to arguing that inifinity is not a valid concept in the real world (though it is obviously a very valid and useful concept in mathematics and many real world applications of mathematics) and so the universe must have had a beginning.

Then the giant leap was made that the thing responsible for this beginning had to be a god being. But if the primary argument is that the universe began to exist, there are other possibilities (eg. a "Big Bang" scenario, or some other proposed scheme based on natural processes that we simply do not understand yet). So if it were accpeted that infinite regression is not possible, it does not follow that a god being must exist, which is the claim of the OP.

That is just one option of many, and to date no god being has ever been demonstrated to exist so that explanation is on no better footing than something like the Big Bang (and I'd argue much less footing since at least the Big Bang hypothesis does have evidence to support some mechanism along those lines ... namely the cosmic background radiation, present expansion, etc.).

[We_Are_VENOM]

You're claiming that something can exist, but not exist in time. Presumably this thing is the god being you are postulating that has always existed ("eternal"), outside of time, and at some point decided it would be a good idea to create a universe and start the time clock ticking.

Perhaps you need to start asking questions before you go assuming stuff. Because if you ask questions, you wouldn't be WRONG in your assumptions.

Wrong#1: God did not "decide it would be a good idea to create a universe". God had an eternal will to create the universe. The will to create was always there, it never "started" or began.

This is the Genesis creation story (or any similar creation myth) with the additional claim that the god being doing the creating exists outside of time and has existed for eternity (qualititatively but not quantitatively of course, because of how you are selectively using the word infinity).

Wrong #2: It isn't about the "word", it is about the "concept".

If you don't like word used to describe God in that way; then fine, come up with a new word and we will go with that one.

It really doesn't matter, as long as the concept remains intact.

This conveniently gets around the question of how the god being itself came into existence

Wrong #3: Strawman. No one has said nor implied that God came into existence...in fact, my argument was for an UCC (uncaused cause), which, by definition, means precisely that God did NOT come into existence.

SMH.

, but "outside of time" means nothing in the real world

Then maybe your definition of "real world" needs to be tweaked. And besides, God is certainly within time now, and is forever operating within time.

The key is, God is the one who started the clock.

so that phrase necessarily requires acceptance of the supernatural.

It sure does. Got a problem with that?

The stationary-like-a-tree god being that exists eternally and outside of time is necessary for your argument, but doesn't seem to have any support beyond a statement that it is required as an initial condition (ie. it is assumed).

Wrong #4: Again, God does not currently exist outside of time, but time did not begin until God kicked it off.

Is there any other entity of any kind that exists "outside of time"? What about all the other thousands of gods humans have imagined? Do/did they also exist outside of time, or not at all?

Wrong #5: See what happens when you assume? When time began, it was irreversible. God is officially within time.

Do you understand that?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Bolding mine. Unfortunately for WEV, the bolded bit does not coincide with all the omni-butes either. Omnipresent would mean present in all time. Something can't both exist in time and out of time at the same 'time'.

You know, that would be an excellent point; if it weren't the fact that no one is claiming that God has existed in and out of time at the same "time".

Strawman.

Being outside of time also stops the god from:

1) listening and responding to prayers
2) having ANY effect in our universe which is "in time".
3) making decisions based on any input as things proceed "in time"

And with that faulty assumptions, comes even more faulty conclusions^.

Basically, the argument being put forth is creating a god with no ability to actually do anything since doing something requires action which takes time. If you believe the Bible, it took 7 days just to create everything. In other words, there's no way to retrofit whatever god might fall out of this argument onto the Christian god.

So far, we seem to have a god that doesn't move, can't be seen or shown to exist, and is entirely unneeded to explain how the current universe began its expansion from the furthest back point we can extrapolate to. In other words, we have 20 some pages of trying to plug all the holes, understand what infinity means, and basically a god of the gaps explanation that gets us no usable information or ability to predict anything. Fun.

I guess being wrong doesn't seem to bother you folks. *shrugs*.

[Diagoras]

No one has said nor implied that God came into existence...in fact, my argument was for an UCC (uncaused cause), which, by definition, means precisely that God did NOT come into existence.

<snip>

God is certainly within time now, and is forever operating within time.

The key is, God is the one who started the clock.

<snip>

God does not currently exist outside of time, but time did not begin until God kicked it off.

<snip>

God is officially within time.

<bolding mine>

I like the fact that this is official. Presumably God can provide some form of certificate if asked.

From the perspective of any observer in this physical universe, everything ‘came into existence’ at t=0.

This includes God, because if (as you state), he’s within time now (and forever), and able to interact with the universe, then he exists in the real world. The exact point t = 0 is when he changed from supernatural to natural.

I also like how (according to you) God’s not currently outside time - as if it’s something God might at any point change his mind about. You seem strangely confident in proclaiming these properties of a deity, so would you mind clarifying whether God can ‘pop out for a bit’ whenever he chooses, or has he been restricted to existing within time ever since the universe began?

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #219]

I will give you the last word here, BW. This goes for Joey and DrNoGods as well

You guys can have the last word.

I remember this from a couple of pages back. Was there a genuine intent when you said this?

SMH

I’ve seen you do this more than once as well. Does it help?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #257]

Wrong#1: God did not "decide it would be a good idea to create a universe". God had an eternal will to create the universe. The will to create was always there, it never "started" or began.

And just how do you know this god being well enough to make those claims? Did you have a beer with him/her/it at some point? I didn't assume anything other than that you made the claim that this god being created the universe and started the clock ticking. Even if that were the case, how could you possibly know the mind of this being and whether or not it just decided to create a universe one day, or had some eternal will to do so (and what is the difference)? You're apparently just making stuff up at this point.

Wrong #2: It isn't about the "word", it is about the "concept".

If you don't like word used to describe God in that way; then fine, come up with a new word and we will go with that one.

You're the one making a distinction between "eternal" and "infinite", and things that exist outside of time and within time regarding real world events, and god beings. It seems defending this god hypothesis is very slippery, but in any case you cannot possibly know whether this being has existed for eternity (or infinity) or not without simply believing a holy book's description (or interpretation). So you cannot make the conclusion in the OP title ... infinite regression being impossible does not lead to the necessary existance of a god being.

Wrong #3: Strawman. No one has said nor implied that God came into existence...in fact, my argument was for an UCC (uncaused cause), which, by definition, means precisely that God did NOT come into existence.

Then my point is valid. If your god being did not come into existence and has always existed (for eternity), then the concept of infinity (see "wrong #2") must apply to this god being. You're trying to present this god being as able to exist eternally outside of time, but once it kickstarted the universe it is now existing within time like the rest of us. But none of this supports the OP title claim that if infinite regression is impossible, a god being must exist. There are other options for how the universe got kickstarted.

Then maybe your definition of "real world" needs to be tweaked. And besides, God is certainly within time now, and is forever operating within time.

The key is, God is the one who started the clock.

Is forever operating within time? What about before he/she/it started the clock/universe? Was it not operating outside of time then? You can't have it both ways.

It sure does. Got a problem with that?

Yes ... the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist (just like gods BTW).

Wrong #4: Again, God does not currently exist outside of time, but time did not begin until God kicked it off.

Wrong #5: See what happens when you assume? When time began, it was irreversible. God is officially within time.

Do you understand that?

I understand that you are all over the place when it comes to time and how this god being exists within/without it based on what is convenient for the argument. And you evidently have a direct line into what it was thinking (or willing) long before anything resembling humans (or planets) existed. Next time he's in the Phoenix area let me know and I'll drive up for lunch. I have a few questions I'd like to ask.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I remember this from a couple of pages back. Was there a genuine intent when you said this?

It is now