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.

[The Tanager]

PS I didn't get a notification that you've replied to my post, you seemed to have a misplaced quote that confused to notification system.

Not sure why but no worries.

Google list quantity as a synonym to value. What is a value to you?

Oxford Languages defines ‘value,’ in its mathematical sense, as the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number. Infinity is not a specific (fixed or variable) amount, but an idea about limiting amounts.

But I did though. I can write 3 because I have written 4, and I can write 4 because I have written 5 and so on. You asked me for any number instead of all, so I just pick a selection of numbers to show you here.

Here you are simply assuming the concept makes sense and then picking a selection out of that. That proves nothing. I’m asking you to prove it can be done. Give me everything you have written in order to be able to write the number 3. You can’t do it because you can never write down any number. Even if you’ve been eternally trying to do so. (...5, 4, 3) doesn’t work, either, because it’s just assuming the concept can be done, not showing it can. You have not written and cannot write any number whatsoever following this rule.

[Bust Nak]

Oxford Languages defines ‘value,’ in its mathematical sense, as the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number. Infinity is not a specific (fixed or variable) amount, but an idea about limiting amounts.

Not seeing how an idea about limiting amounts is incompatible with "the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number."

Here you are simply assuming the concept makes sense and then picking a selection out of that. That proves nothing. I’m asking you to prove it can be done. Give me everything you have written in order to be able to write the number 3.

It's impossible to literally list an infinite amount of integers in a forum post, it's not a reasonable request. A partial list of what I have written have been provided. I am not just assuming that the concept makes sense. It does make sense. It makes perfect sense to me. There is no logical law that state sequences must have a beginning, nor does it lead to any logical contradictions.

You can’t do it because you can never write down any number. Even if you’ve been eternally trying to do so. (...5, 4, 3) doesn’t work, either, because it’s just assuming the concept can be done, not showing it can. You have not written and cannot write any number whatsoever following this rule.

Why not though. Last time I asked you, you just challenged me to try writing any number down, assuming I am eternally writing without starting. Why would the rule, "one must write the n-1 before writing n" imply no number can be written?

[The Tanager]

Not seeing how an idea about limiting amounts is incompatible with "the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number."

I’m not saying the concepts aren’t compatible, I’m saying they are distinct concepts. I think the number 5 can be a limit. You are making an extra claim that the limit of infinite can be a number. Prove that claim.

Why not though. Last time I asked you, you just challenged me to try writing any number down, assuming I am eternally writing without starting. Why would the rule, "one must write the n-1 before writing n" imply no number can be written?

Try to write down the number 3. You can’t, however, write that until you’ve written the number 4. Okay, then first write the number 4 down. You can’t, however, write that until you’ve written the number 5. Okay, then first write the number 5 down. You can’t however, write that until you’ve written the number 6. Okay, then first write the number 6 down. You can’t, however...this will go on forever (since the numbers stretch on forever) and you will never actually write any number down.

It's impossible to literally list an infinite amount of integers in a forum post, it's not a reasonable request. A partial list of what I have written have been provided. I am not just assuming that the concept makes sense. It does make sense. It makes perfect sense to me. There is no logical law that state sequences must have a beginning, nor does it lead to any logical contradictions.

You have not actually written anything, if you’ve followed the rule, so you can’t have provided a partial list of what you’ve written.

[Bust Nak]

I’m not saying the concepts aren’t compatible, I’m saying they are distinct concepts. I think the number 5 can be a limit.

Then why not both an idea and a value, if they are compatible. You've already went as far as to say infinity is a quantity.

You are making an extra claim that the limit of infinite can be a number.

Am I? I don't remember saying that. I remember using phrases such as "an infinite number of stars;" I remember saying it's a quantity; I remember saying quantity as a synonym to value; I remember saying infinity is not like the number 5..

Try to write down the number 3. You can’t, however, write that until you’ve written the number 4. Okay, then first write the number 4 down. You can’t, however, write that until you’ve written the number 5. Okay, then first write the number 5 down. You can’t however, write that until you’ve written the number 6. Okay, then first write the number 6 down. You can’t, however... this will go on forever (since the numbers stretch on forever) and

So far so good...

you will never actually write any number down.

Why not? How does the above imply this?

You have not actually written anything...

I think I have, given the premise that I am eternal and have always been writing.

[The Tanager]

Then why not both an idea and a value, if they are compatible. You've already went as far as to say infinity is a quantity.

You have the burden to back up your additional positive claim that it is a value. As to saying infinity is a quantity, I have said I don’t have a problem calling it a quantity but not in the way you’ve seemed to view it as a quantity.

I think I have, given the premise that I am eternal and have always been writing.

As eternal, you’ve always been trying to start writing, but because of the rule, you have never actually written anything. The absurdity is that you are still trying to do so, as though just a little bit more time will make all the difference.

[Bust Nak]

You have the burden to back up your additional positive claim that it is a value.

What additional positive claim though? I said infinity was a quantity, this whole talk of value came up because I asked you why you think I was using quantity differently from how you use quantity.

As to saying infinity is a quantity, I have said I don’t have a problem calling it a quantity but not in the way you’ve seemed to view it as a quantity.

Right, and I don't understand why you think it's different. And the last time I asked you, you said I treat infinity as a value but you don't. What do you mean by that, bearing in mind that dictionaries list value as a synonym to quantity? What additional positive do you think I have made?

As eternal, you’ve always been trying to start writing, but because of the rule, you have never actually written anything.

Why would I be trying to start at all? Why not I've already been writing as eternal doesn't have a beginning?

[The Tanager]

What additional positive claim though? I said infinity was a quantity, this whole talk of value came up because I asked you why you think I was using quantity differently from how you use quantity.

Yes, and the Oxford Languages dictionary marked quantity and value as synonyms. You clarified that you do view infinity as a value, just in a different kind of way than finite numbers. I don’t see any reason to believe that additional positive claim of yours.

Why would I be trying to start at all? Why not I've already been writing as eternal doesn't have a beginning?

If the semantics of “start” is tripping you up, then we can leave that word out. As eternal, you have been trying to write a single number for your whole existence but have never written down a single number because of the rule.

Again, all you are doing here is acting as though what you say can happen can happen. You aren’t proving it. You are telling me you can make a square circle without showing me a square circle.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, and the Oxford Languages dictionary marked quantity and value as synonyms. You clarified that you do view infinity as a value, just in a different kind of way than finite numbers. I don’t see any reason to believe that additional positive claim of yours.

What exactly do you think my additional positive claim is? I don't think I've claimed anything that you haven't explicitly affirmed. I said infinity is a quantity, you've affirmed as such; I said quantity is listed as a synonym to value, you've affirmed that right here; I said infinity is not like the number 5, you've affirmed that they are indeed different.

If the semantics of “start” is tripping you up, then we can leave that word out. As eternal, you have been trying to write a single number for your whole existence but have never written down a single number because of the rule.

It's not semantics, it's the very concept itself: why I have been trying to write a single number for my whole existence without writing anything down, and not I have been trying and succeeding for my whole existence in writing numbers down? What's so difficult about the rule that makes it impossible to follow?

Again, all you are doing here is acting as though what you say can happen can happen. You aren’t proving it. You are telling me you can make a square circle without showing me a square circle.

You said it was impossible. It's a square circle? Prove it. I am just here asking you to explaining why this and not that. I even had a go at showing how it is possibly even though it wasn't really my job back in post #388. This whole conversation has been following the same pattern, with you saying it is this and me asking you why this and not that. It's still not my job to prove that the that is possible, it's yours to prove that it's impossible.

[Purple Knight]

If “nature” had a beginning, one cannot logically use nature to explain the origin of nature, and to do so is fallacious.

I went back and looked at this thread a bit in order to respond to it. My idea of infinite regression is that one could always ask (and there would be an answer, whether or not we can actually obtain it), "Well, what happened before that?"

If infinite regression is true, one could never write that history book because there are an infinity of things that happened before. There is infinite information, unless, before a certain point, everything was still and nothing happened, or unless the universe goes in loops.

It seems fantastical which is why I tentatively agree infinite regression is probably impossible. I don't think it proves God because if we use God to solve infinite regression, we've just passed the buck on the problem and we now have to ask what God did before he made the universe, and then what he did before that, and before that. It's a head-scratcher either way.

[Bust Nak]

If infinite regression is true, one could never write that history book because there are an infinity of things that happened before. There is infinite information...

If you are allowing the possibility of infinite regression, why are you not also allowing the possibility of infinite history books with infinite information?