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 was taking you to mean that if there is a general rule, it must be true in all specific cases. And that you were concluding that, therefore, how could it be generally true but not in the specific case of quantity. I'm okay with it being true in some or most cases (and, therefore, generally true) but not all (the specific case of quantity).

I was going in that direction, but won't rule out exceptions to the rule. If you accept that it is generally true, then it's your job to show that it isn't true in a specific case.

Because “unlimited in size or scope” is not a quantity; it is a statement about a quantity. I am limited in my height. My height is 71 inches. I’ve given you two different pieces of information about the quantity there. You want to say, theoretically, that I one could say they are unlimited in their height and their height is infinite inches. We are wondering whether ‘infinite’ can refer to both of those pieces of information or not. You’ve got to establish that the second way makes sense.

The second way makes sense because that's how it's used in mathematics and it's simpler because it avoids having two concepts of height, as a quantity for the limited height and a non-quantity for the unlimited height.

How can a line that doesn’t end have an endpoint at which it can meet another line?

Mathematicians say such lines end at infinity.

If the present is considered a part of the infinite series, but it’s not. The infinite series is the past by itself. The present is something outside of that series. You’d have to reach the end of infinity (the end of an endless thing) before the present could take place.

So lets set the present aside for now and focus on last Monday the 20th of Sept, 2021. Do you have to reach infinite to pass through infinitely many past events to reach last Monday? The same count-argument applies: No, since each of the infinitely many event is a finite amount of time away from last Monday. Last Monday is considered a part of the infinite series, not outside of it, yet it changes nothing about my argument.

I’m saying it has a size, but not a particular size (whether that particular size = 0, 1, 15, two million, etc.)

So it has a size and size is a quantity, its size is unlimited, that etc. is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Isn't infinity that etc?

But I’ve asked about your definition of ‘quantity’

Okay, to be more specific, my definition is "the amount or number of a something."

Why does series Z equal the above? It seems to me you’d either have:

Let series Z = (series 1, series 2, series 3…) which is equivalent to (1, 2, 3, …) because you are making a series of all the other series...

You tell me, you seemed to have accepted that series Z is equivalent to (1, 2, 3, …). I will try and use the same wordings for the inverse series Z being equivalent to (…, 3, 4, 5).

Unless you can establish that you can count to a number without starting at a particular number.

That's what the proof was supposed to do. The conclusion is (..., 3, 4, 5) is possible.

I agree with the above. Step 6 shows that you can count to a number if you start at a previous particular number. I also agree that you can count to a number if you start at any previous particular number, so you don’t need to show those steps.

You accept that if you can count to a number then you can count from a number; and you accept (1, 2, 3, ...) is possible, if you can count to ... then you can count from ... While we are here, how do you reconcile (1, 2, 3, ...) is possible with the idea that (1 + 1 + 1 + ...) is impossible?

What you need to show is that ‘infinity’ or, perhaps here, ‘negative infinity’ is a particular number. Or, to put it a different way, show that you can count to a number without starting at any particular number.

How are these equivalent things "put in a different way" at all? I don't think infinity is a particular number, and I think one can count to a number without starting at any particular number. I have been trying to show that latter all along.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]
I find none of this argument persuasive in the least.
There is no reason to suppose the universe, as defined in the 1st post, has not always existed in some form.

Supposing a 1st Cause, changes nothing, even if one arbitrarily calls it "God," because then one must accept that God has always existed.
Cutting through the bales of verbiage and sophistic analysis, labeling this "First Cause", or the "eternal" or "God" or "X" only gets one back to the conclusion of infinite existence.

[The Tanager]

I was taking you to mean that if there is a general rule, it must be true in all specific cases. And that you were concluding that, therefore, how could it be generally true but not in the specific case of quantity. I'm okay with it being true in some or most cases (and, therefore, generally true) but not all (the specific case of quantity).

I was going in that direction, but won't rule out exceptions to the rule. If you accept that it is generally true, then it's your job to show that it isn't true in a specific case.

If you were claiming that the dichotomy is applicable in all cases (like I thought you were), then it is your burden to show that. I see reason to accept the dichotomy in at least some cases. Even if it’s true in most cases, that still doesn’t support the claim that it is applicable in all cases.

If you mean it in the weaker sense of the dichotomy applies in most cases, then wouldn’t you be implying that there are some cases where it doesn’t apply? I don’t think the default would be to put some new case in the majority category until proven otherwise. I’m agnostic on if it even applies in the majority of cases. I don’t even know what all the different kinds of cases there are.

The second way makes sense because that's how it's used in mathematics

Infinity is used in both ways in mathematics. For my understanding, mathematics involving actual infinites simply assume they are true and investigate what follows, assuming that, so that’s not support for the second way being a real way.

and it's simpler because it avoids having two concepts of height, as a quantity for the limited height and a non-quantity for the unlimited height.

That’s assuming “unlimited height” can be a real thing. If it can’t be, then lacking that isn’t having a second concept of height.

How can a line that doesn’t end have an endpoint at which it can meet another line?

Mathematicians say such lines end at infinity.

Then isn’t there either a contradiction or an equivocation going on? An end for an unending line (logical contradiction). Or this ‘infinity’ being limited and, therefore, not infinite (equivocation).

So lets set the present aside for now and focus on last Monday the 20th of Sept, 2021. Do you have to reach infinite to pass through infinitely many past events to reach last Monday? The same count-argument applies: No, since each of the infinitely many event is a finite amount of time away from last Monday. Last Monday is considered a part of the infinite series, not outside of it, yet it changes nothing about my argument.

So, again, we reach the contradictions of actual infinites rearing up. At some point 9-20-21 was the present moment preceded by an infinite past and, thus, to reach it reality would have had to traverse the infinite past, an actual infinity, and then they would be able to reach it. Yet, such a thing is impossible. But once 9-20-21 becomes part of the infinite past, then the exact same process becomes a finite to finite process that is still somehow an infinite process.

So it has a size and size is a quantity, its size is unlimited, that etc. is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Isn't infinity that etc?

Could you rephrase this?

But I’ve asked about your definition of ‘quantity’

Okay, to be more specific, my definition is "the amount or number of a something."

I’m not sure why I wrote that.

You tell me, you seemed to have accepted that series Z is equivalent to (1, 2, 3, …). I will try and use the same wordings for the inverse series Z being equivalent to (…, 3, 4, 5).

With series Z you were just adding the various series of that type together. I don’t see why changing what type of series (which have infinite cases) you are adding together would change how series Z looks.

You accept that if you can count to a number then you can count from a number;

Yes, but this seems like a vague phrase, so when we expand from here we must keep note of the qualifications used.

and you accept (1, 2, 3, ...) is possible, if you can count to ... then you can count from ...

‘…’ isn’t a number. It’s a symbol that means there are other numbers there. If you can count to one of those numbers represented by “...” then you can count from that number as well.

While we are here, how do you reconcile (1, 2, 3, ...) is possible with the idea that (1 + 1 + 1 + ...) is impossible?

The iterative process (and forming a set of that process) is a separate issue than working out a sum.

How are these equivalent things "put in a different way" at all? I don't think infinity is a particular number, and I think one can count to a number without starting at any particular number. I have been trying to show that latter all along.

I’m saying your reasoning shows that starting at any particular number you can count to 5. If you are saying that this means that you can start at infinity and count to 5, then either infinity is a particular number or there is an equivocation on “start” or the latter doesn’t logically follow from the former.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I find none of this argument persuasive in the least.
There is no reason to suppose the universe, as defined in the 1st post, has not always existed in some form.

If the universe has always existed in some form, that would mean that the entire physical system (STEM) has existed for eternity.

I already gave reasons as to why this is not possible. I'd like my points to be addressed. If you can't provide logical defeaters to my case, then I will take the dub.

Supposing a 1st Cause, changes nothing, even if one arbitrarily calls it "God," because then one must accept that God has always existed.
Cutting through the bales of verbiage and sophistic analysis, labeling this "First Cause", or the "eternal" or "God" or "X" only gets one back to the conclusion of infinite existence.

Um, no; because no one is arguing that God has endured for an infinite amount of time, which is what the argument against infinite regression applies to.

[Diogenes]

I find none of this argument persuasive in the least.
There is no reason to suppose the universe, as defined in the 1st post, has not always existed in some form.

If the universe has always existed in some form, that would mean that the entire physical system (STEM) has existed for eternity.

I already gave reasons as to why this is not possible. I'd like my points to be addressed. If you can't provide logical defeaters to my case, then I will take the dub.

Supposing a 1st Cause, changes nothing, even if one arbitrarily calls it "God," because then one must accept that God has always existed.
Cutting through the bales of verbiage and sophistic analysis, labeling this "First Cause", or the "eternal" or "God" or "X" only gets one back to the conclusion of infinite existence.

Um, no; because no one is arguing that God has endured for an infinite amount of time, which is what the argument against infinite regression applies to.

You wrote in your initial post, "Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary."
This is an unsupported claim. WE humans (or at least Hawking and I) are positing the universe has always been, not mother nature or natural law. Claiming "nature cannot be used to explain its own origin" begs the question it assumes an origin.
That is the very point of my assertion, that nature has no origin. It needs none. The problem is that we (most of us) cannot imagine something with no beginning. . . THEN you make a special pleading for the external force which you call 'God.' You are making your case with unfounded a priori assumptions.
If we accept God as an external force, where did God come from? How did God begin? What is his origin? Are you not claiming 'God' has always has always existed? If X can be eternal and with no origin or beginning, why cannot Y be the same? (X=God, Y=universe).

To say God, or a First Cause 'caused' the universe is the same as claiming there is a First Turtle in that famous infinite regress argument. I do not pretend I have done the work or even understand what follows, but Stephen Hawking dealt with this ancient question in a new way:

'The “no-boundary proposal,” which Hawking and his frequent collaborator, James Hartle, fully formulated in a 1983 paper, envisions the cosmos having the shape of a shuttlecock. Just as a shuttlecock has a diameter of zero at its bottommost point and gradually widens on the way up, the universe, according to the no-boundary proposal, smoothly expanded from a point of zero size. Hartle and Hawking derived a formula describing the whole shuttlecock — the so-called “wave function of the universe” that encompasses the entire past, present and future at once — making moot all contemplation of seeds of creation, a creator, or any transition from a time before.

“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said in another lecture at the Pontifical Academy in 2016, a year and a half before his death. “It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.”'
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicis ... -20190606/

[We_Are_VENOM]

You wrote in your initial post, "Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary."
This is an unsupported claim.

I gave reasons why a supernatural cause is necessary. Please address those points.

And again, if you have only two options; A (God) and B (Mother Nature)...

To negate A is to grant B...and/or to negate B is to grant A.

This is called the law of excluded middle. No middle ground.

In this case, B is successfully ruled out (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), therefore, option A is the only game left in town.

The syllogism can go a little something like this..

1. Either God did it, or Mother Nature did it.

2. Mother nature did not do it.

3. Therefore, God did it.

Plain and simple. Simple and plain.

WE humans (or at least Hawking and I) are positing the universe has always been, not mother nature or natural law. Claiming "nature cannot be used to explain its own origin" begs the question it assumes an origin.

My argument against infinite regression is a defeater of what you and Hawking posits.

The argument is completely independent of science, and the argument does not care what scientist or cosmological model of the universe you appeal to.

That is the very point of my assertion, that nature has no origin. It needs none. The problem is that we (most of us) cannot imagine something with no beginning. . .

This^ is special pleading. Empty claim. I laid an argument for my case (which you've yet to address).

Not only don't I see evidence for your position, but I actually have evidence against your position.

If you have evidence supporting your position, please present it.

THEN you make a special pleading for the external force which you call 'God.' You are making your case with unfounded a priori assumptions.

This is not special pleading when I have evidence for the existence of "God".

If we accept God as an external force, where did God come from? How did God begin? What is his origin?

This is a loaded question. It is not logical to ask what caused the uncaused cause.

Are you not claiming 'God' has always has always existed?

Yes, but not in time. That is the point that you are missing.

If X can be eternal and with no origin or beginning, why cannot Y be the same? (X=God, Y=universe).

Because Y is always in a state of constant change, and change can only occur in time.

God was not always in a state of change, and therefore, did not endure through past eternity.

To say God, or a First Cause 'caused' the universe is the same as claiming there is a First Turtle in that famous infinite regress argument. I do not pretend I have done the work or even understand what follows, but Stephen Hawking dealt with this ancient question in a new way:

'The “no-boundary proposal,” which Hawking and his frequent collaborator, James Hartle, fully formulated in a 1983 paper, envisions the cosmos having the shape of a shuttlecock. Just as a shuttlecock has a diameter of zero at its bottommost point and gradually widens on the way up, the universe, according to the no-boundary proposal, smoothly expanded from a point of zero size. Hartle and Hawking derived a formula describing the whole shuttlecock — the so-called “wave function of the universe” that encompasses the entire past, present and future at once — making moot all contemplation of seeds of creation, a creator, or any transition from a time before.

“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said in another lecture at the Pontifical Academy in 2016, a year and a half before his death. “It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.”'
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicis ... -20190606/

See, that is the problem with most of those scientist guys...as great as they are in the field of science, they are terrible when it comes to philosophy (logic).

The obvious question would be..

If the conditions that caused the Big Bang to explode (expand, or whatever) had existed for eternity, then why would it begin to expand only a finite time ago?? Why not sooner? Why not later?

Makes no sense whatsoever. Do you not understand how that question is completely independent from the physics of the universe?

No scientist can answer that question, but theologians can

[JoeyKnothead]

I gave reasons why a supernatural cause is necessary. Please address those points.

For every instance you require a "supernatural cause", we note that in nature, it's nature doing it all the causing.

Your argument is based on the unconfirmed and unconfirmable.

And again, if you have only two options; A (God) and B (Mother Nature)...

I propose a third option...

Beats me.

To negate A is to grant B...and/or to negate B is to grant A.

Only when we restrict ourselves to the dichotomy you present.

Could be earthworms were so desirous of having em some earth to worm in, they all got together and, after much discussion and thought, decided to create em an entire universe, right down to a specific galaxy, with it a specific solar system in it, which had it a not quite round planet in amongst, and on that planet, don't it beat all, there they did place em such copious amounts of earthen material, they set to calling it Heaven, and get all fussed up when the humans thereupon call it "Earth".

Now, I challenge anyone to put the lie to my magical mystery tour of supernatural claims based on how come it is, earthworms're such good fish bait.

This is called the law of excluded middle. No middle ground.

What you got is a dichotomous dichotomy of dichotomous dichotomies.

The worms alone prove your argument errant.

In this case, B is successfully ruled out (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), therefore, option A is the only game left in town.

We risk exposing our inability to understand an opposing argument when we "rule it out", especially when we economize intellectual energy by dichotomizing the question / answer.

You ain't ruled nothing out, but have only declared it so.

The syllogism can go a little something like this..

1. Either God did it, or Mother Nature did it.

Or it was them sneaky slimy earthworms. Remember, all relevant and accepted data and literature pertaining to it's pertinence indicates it's the earthworms we oughta thank for the universe existing.

2. Mother nature did not do it.

Mother Nature, or Father God. Do you have time to discuss our lord and savior, Earthworm Jim?

3. Therefore, God did it.

I'm so proud to see ya speak of Jim in such a reverential tone.

Plain and simple. Simple and plain.

When we consider an argument such as "plain and simple", or "simple and plain", we risk the observer realizing we can't conceive of anything thing that ain't it "plain and simple", or "simple and plain".

...snip...

The argument is completely independent of science, and the argument does not care what scientist or cosmological model of the universe you appeal to.

Not only is your argument independent of science, it can't even be considered by the scientific method. In other words, it's as conjecturous as something that's it really conjectory.

It locks the argument into the "plain and simple" dichotomy you need it to, so ya can shoehorn a god into the gap of human knowledge exposed by the origins question.

A question I've soundly and irrefutably answered by showing it was the earthworms responsible for em.

...snip...

This is not special pleading when I have evidence for the existence of "God".

You have, at best, arguments to the postulation thereof.

...snip...

This is a loaded question. It is not logical to ask what caused the uncaused cause.

It's loaded up and laden down with your inability to explain it.

We observe the universe. That alone should suffice for this "uncaused cause" business, but the theist must, absolutely must, siddle his god into any argument regarding universal or human origins.

Yes, but not in time. That is the point that you are missing.

Why tie the universe to constraints of time?

...snip...

God was not always in a state of change, and therefore, did not endure through past eternity.

As above, why tie the universe to such a non/constraint?

...snip...

See, that is the problem with most of those scientist guys...as great as they are in the field of science, they are terrible when it comes to philosophy (logic).

We can only now conclude you've got ya at least a Ph.D. in science. Bonus points if it's from Prager U.

The obvious question would be..

If the conditions that caused the Big Bang to explode (expand, or whatever) had existed for eternity, then why would it begin to expand only a finite time ago?? Why not sooner? Why not later?

"If" is bound to speculation. Hypotheticals're not reliable determinants of truth.

Makes no sense whatsoever. Do you not understand how that question is completely independent from the physics of the universe?

Maybe if you could understand arguments beyond the "plain and simple", you wouldn't fail to be able to make sense of some certain arguments.

No scientist can answer that question, but theologians can

When "God did it" is the answer to every question, the preacher'll look like a genius.

[benchwarmer]

2. Mother nature did not do it.

Mother Nature, or Father God. Do you have time to discuss our lord and savior, Earthworm Jim?

Ah, dear Joey. Clearly Earthworm Jim was the tempter spoken of in long lost lore. It was actually the Five Angry Pixies (may their anger smolder) who created all. It is clear to see who hangs on the hook to tempt lovely trout to dinner. Earthworm Jim and all his progeny were sentenced to begin life in a heavenly state of earth eating and die as lunch for the beasts of water and air. Can I interest you in a tract that explains the Five Angry Pixies plan for your life? Hopefully you are not related to dear Jim.

Isn't it convenient when apologists frame their argument with only their desired answer preloaded into the premises?

[We_Are_VENOM]

For every instance you require a "supernatural cause", we note that in nature, it's nature doing it all the causing.

You do understand the difference between a primary cause, and a secondary cause...don't you?

Your argument is based on the unconfirmed and unconfirmable.

It is confirmed to me.

I propose a third option...

Beats me.

You may not know whether O.J committed the crime, but that doesn't change the fact that either he committed the crime, or he didn't.

Only when we restrict ourselves to the dichotomy you present.

Could be earthworms were so desirous of having em some earth to worm in, they all got together and, after much discussion and thought, decided to create em an entire universe, right down to a specific galaxy, with it a specific solar system in it, which had it a not quite round planet in amongst, and on that planet, don't it beat all, there they did place em such copious amounts of earthen material, they set to calling it Heaven, and get all fussed up when the humans thereupon call it "Earth".

Now, I challenge anyone to put the lie to my magical mystery tour of supernatural claims based on how come it is, earthworms're such good fish bait.

What you got is a dichotomous dichotomy of dichotomous dichotomies.

The worms alone prove your argument errant.

So, this is what its come to, people...

We risk exposing our inability to understand an opposing argument when we "rule it out", especially when we economize intellectual energy by dichotomizing the question / answer.

You ain't ruled nothing out, but have only declared it so.

We will have to agree/disagree there.

Or it was them sneaky slimy earthworms. Remember, all relevant and accepted data and literature pertaining to it's pertinence indicates it's the earthworms we oughta thank for the universe existing.

As I scroll the rest of the post, I continue to see more nonsense about earthworms, so I can't take it seriously.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Isn't it convenient when apologists frame their argument with only their desired answer preloaded into the premises?

Yet, "Mother Nature" was clearly included in the premises, when that isn't my desired answer.

Lets keep the party going with more falsehoods, shall we?