God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #1

Post by 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.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #671

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:01 pmWhat other meaning of infinity implies that it is not a quantity?

Infinity as a boundary concept.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:01 pmOkay, so scientists can't definitely conclude that it is infinite, but that doesn't mean current scientific thinking isn't that the universe is an actual infinite.

Are you saying there is scientific evidence? If so, where is it? If not, then why call it “scientific” thinking (and, still, what is it)?
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:01 pmEither way, the observation is consistent with an universe actual infinite in extent, is that better? Scientists are seriously considering it so actual infinities should not be ruled out as self-contradictory.

I haven’t said an actual infinite is self-contradictory, but an actual infinite plus other things are logical contradictions, such as an actual infinite universe that is expanding (in my senses of those terms which are common senses) or an A-theory past that is an actual infinite.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:01 pmAlso note that I've been very careful with qualifying my claims with "given an infinite universe."

What specific claims are you referring to here that I’ve maybe misunderstood?
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:01 pmIn support of saying "yes, it can" I bring up the definition that says "yes, it is." There is no assuming it can at all. (Also, better to say quantity rather than number here, infinity is definitely not a number like the number 5 is a number.)

Infinite mathematicians do assume a definition of ‘infinity’ as a quantity, and then see what math follows. They don’t offer arguments for the definition. We are discussing whether this assumption/definition makes sense and, more importantly, whether such a thing exists in reality or, more specifically, whether it could be true about an A-theory past.

A definition of God as “the existent creator of the universe” says “yes, it is” in the exact same way. I am irrational if I use that definition to argue for God’s existence.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:01 pmYou do remember stating that the question we are discussing is whether one can move through all members of an infinite series, right? Earlier you accepted that a series can be completed if each element can be moved through. So here you have a deductive proof that an infinite process can be completed. Seems to have everything to do with our discussion.

Perhaps I see the confusion now. I do accept that ‘being completed’ was identical to ‘every element being moved through.’ Those are both statements or characteristics of series not individual elements. You are attaching “being moved through” as a characteristic of individual elements. Even when talking about the individual bricks or numbers that can be moved through, I was still thinking of those as mini-series within the larger series rather than taking them as individual elements outside of any series.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #672

Post by William »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #669]
So you see that as a challenge - that 'maybe' you can show us that we do know what time is, fundamentally?
Nah, I pass. We know it's a physical dimension much like space. I will let you decide if that is fundamental enough.
Since we do not know the fundamental nature of what we believe are 'physical dimensions', we cannot say that time actually exists as a fundamental physical part of reality.

We cannot even say what reality is, fundamentally.

Which is why such theories as Simulation are still on the table for discussion...
So you have seen a clock on the floor, and placed it on the table and thus declare "Clock is ticking, therefore we have evidence that time is known at its fundamental level!"?
No, I say instead that we have evidence that time is part of physical reality.
Only symbolically re concepts of the mind.

Clocks are symbols of time - they represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind.

Just as numbers symbolically represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind
Is this supposed separation - fundamentally separate - or simply appearing to be separate?
Are causes and their effect fundamentally separate?
We do not know.
Suffice to say they are not the same thing.
How is it acceptable to say they are NOT the same thing, if nobody knows?
Is the wake separate from the sea? Is the ship separate from the wake?
Is the land separate from the sea?
Same applies here, wake is not the same thing as the sea, nor the ship, nor the land, nor are fingers hands.
The question was not "are they the same thing" [as in how they are labeled]. The question was, "are they separate?" [as in their function].
Of course I can say those things. I have even pointed out why I can logically say those things.
Well, there was an attempt, all I saw was an ill thought out thesis bordering on an appeal to ignorance re: we don't know therefore...
Rather, it is an appeal to truthfulness. We don't know...therefore we cannot say...

You brought a clock to the table as an example of time being real. I told the truth, that the clock is symbolic of something which is not known to be fundamentally real.

Only contextually real. Time is a conception of the mind, but does not exist in reality, other than symbolically.
[equivalent - a person or thing that is equal to or corresponds with another in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.]
Your question is one of fundamentals. We do not know the fundamentals of the QF or of Energy.
We do not know the fundamentals of QF or Energy therefore to say "energy is the same thing as the objects it forms" is equivalent to saying "energy was the cause of its own beginning?" Looks like a non sequitur to me.
We do know one fundamental of QF as it pertains to matter. It is physical in nature.
We do not know what energy is, fundamentally. We only know that it interacts with matter and in doing so, creates shapeform.

We know that the interaction creates information and we know that information is meaningless without conscious intelligence also existing.
We do not know the fundamental nature of consciousness, but we do know that it is necessary in relation to interacting meaningfully with the interactions of Energy and QF. [matter].
To say that there was no matter before the beginning of the universe, means one has to explain where matter came from.
This is the current explanation, it came from energy, as energy and matter are interchangeable re E=mc2.
So it appears. But recognizing the interaction between the one and the other in such a manner invokes a kind of magical thinking.

The current explanation is really a guess about the fundamental nature of energy whereby it somehow transforms itself into matter and from matter, back into energy.

We understand that the process can be eternal and thus never began and never ended.
We also understand that the process can happen without any consciousness existing to acknowledge said process - that it could function in that manner eternally, independent of consciousness.

What we do not know, is - since the process is NOT independent of consciousness - whether this means that consciousness has also always existed.

We do know that human consciousness has not always existed, but we also know that the interaction between energy and matter was happening before the fact of human consciousness.
We cannot say for certain that human consciousness is fundamentally an emergent property of human brains, because we do not know if consciousness is a fundamental property of energy and matter.
We don't know that your claim that time is physical rather than a concept of the mind, it true. Of course a claim of a physical thing has to be shown first, before we can agree that it is indeed, a physical thing.
Well, that's not what I asked you, I asked you to confirmed that you don't know whether physical time will tick on forever or not, without seeing it first.
I answered that.
Energy effects matter which in turn creates shapeform. The shapeform the allows consciousness to conceptualize time. This means that time is not fundamental to the interaction between energy and matter, and even if it is true that consciousness is a fundamental part of the interaction, 'time' as a notion of consciousness would not have to be a fundamental part of that overall process.

For example, if the process of energy+matter+consciousness means that the process itself is therefore self aware, the entity being that process would have no logical need to know what time was in relation to itself, therefore, time would not be a fundamental aspect of that system.
Therefore time would not "tick on forever", nor would it have "ticked on" at all.

Red shift doesn't make time a fundamental reality, any more than a mechanical clock does.
Well, I can agree with that much.
Can you also agree with the above statement [italic]?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #673

Post by William »

Can we agree that attributes re GOD are "perfect and complete", or do you have issue with that?
[Replying to The Tanager in post #670]
If you define those terms, I could better answer your question. I’m unsure if we have the exact same concepts in mind through using those terms.
So until we can find agreement in the meaning "perfect and complete" we cannot discuss GOD.

Can we agree that - re GOD - "perfect and complete" means we cannot find an absence of anything in GOD? There is no 'outside' or 'other than', as GOD is all that exists.
You do not understand what the video imagery is implying?
You could not relate the replicated black shape speckled infinitely throughout the imagery as indicative of begin/end points?
If it indicates an end point, then it can’t be infinite by definition.
Yes it can, if it resides within the infinite set, which it does. It is not outside of GOD, because there in no such thing as outside of GOD.
You could not relate to the fractal arms going off these points as examples of infinite paths developing off of these points?
If they are a continuation, then those weren’t end points. If they are new things with beginnings and endings, then those aren’t indicative of infinity.
I thought I referred to these as beginning/end points?

For example, if this universe we are experiencing had a beginning, and came from a prior condition which existed, then the point at which it began is also the point where the prior condition ended.
The beginning point is new but did not just appear from out of nowhere. It is built upon prior conditions - we do not know what those conditions were, but we are best to accept the logical assumption that they cannot have derived from a magical place called 'nothing'.

The idea that Energy interacts with the matter of quantum particles - the QF - which in turn creates shapeforms, while appearing to come from out of nowhere, isn't the case at all.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #674

Post by Diogenes »

... and none of this, not one iota of the 68 pages so far offer a shred of evidence there is a 'God.' We can't even agree on a definition of God or gods. 'God' is a label pasted on to whatever you want. I can think of few greater follies than trying to prove a god exists, than by stringing words of mathematics, logic, or philosophy together. "God" represents a belief most inherited and still cling to, while others cast it off and still others never got indoctrinated in the first place. But this whole "God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible" is absurd, is just another example of mental masturbation. :)

I dearly hope this will be my last word on the subject. :)
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #675

Post by William »

[Replying to Diogenes in post #674]
I dearly hope this will be my last word on the subject.
Only you can make it so...

From today's GM;
GM: Imposed Appropriates Observed
viewtopic.php?p=1079953#p1079953

William: From the link [Re: The Terror of God]
Diogenes: There is no God, because if there were, he would not have bothered to create the universe or us. Therefore, does not our very existence prove there is no God?

William: From another thread:

Compassionist: I think being omniscient and omnipotent would give one free will. Since I am not omniscient and omnipotent, I can't know that for sure.

William: What process did you use in order to come to the declaration that being omniscient and omnipotent would give one free will/amount to one having free will?

Compassionist: I realize that if I were all-knowing and all-powerful, I would be free from all constraints and my will won't be determined by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.

William: Let us examine this idea together then.

I see immediately that if I were all-knowing. I would be constrained by my omniscience.

Thus I would have no free will in relation to being all knowing.

Yet - being also all-powerful, I would be able to break free from the constraints of being all-knowing.

Would you agree with this assessment, so far?

William: Unfortunately I got no more interaction from Compassionist re this...and now this thread.

Your Proposition for Debate is something of straw because it failed to add in the aspect of the idea of GOD to do with being all powerful.

An all powerful GOD [omnipotent] who knew everything could indeed have created this universe, and the existence of this universe goes some way toward evidence which gives us - in our existing - an understanding of why we exist in such an environment as we do.

Also, your assumption that the GOD would be lonely and terrified and without purpose is what I refer to as "Mirror-Mirror" as one places what one believes of oneself, into the GOD-role and "Hey Presto!'

What you see is what you get.
William: The gist being, the universe reflects in its nature, a place wherein an all knowing GOD can experience NOT being all knowing...
{SOURCE}

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #676

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:36 pmSo until we can find agreement in the meaning "perfect and complete" we cannot discuss GOD.

Can we agree that - re GOD - "perfect and complete" means we cannot find an absence of anything in GOD? There is no 'outside' or 'other than', as GOD is all that exists.

I agree that there was/is no absence in GOD prior to or after Creation. I agree there was no “outside” or “other than” GOD prior to Creation.
William wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:36 pmYes it can, if it resides within the infinite set, which it does. It is not outside of GOD, because there in no such thing as outside of GOD.

If it is a subset, with beginning and end points, within an infinite set, then it is not infinite but finite by definition. Sure, the infinite set is infinite, but not the “replicated black shape” you were talking about.
William wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:36 pmFor example, if this universe we are experiencing had a beginning, and came from a prior condition which existed, then the point at which it began is also the point where the prior condition ended.
The beginning point is new but did not just appear from out of nowhere. It is built upon prior conditions - we do not know what those conditions were, but we are best to accept the logical assumption that they cannot have derived from a magical place called 'nothing'.

An infinite regression is logically impossible. And, again, you show you misunderstand creatio ex nihilo. It is not deriving something from a “magical place called ‘nothing’”. It is the creation of a place (and things in it) where that did not exist before. That is not a logical contradiction.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #677

Post by William »

GOD cannot create 'something extra' if GOD is already perfect and complete.
You seem to be saying the alternative is logically impossible.
Can we agree that attributes re GOD are "perfect and complete", or do you have issue with that?
If you define those terms, I could better answer your question. I’m unsure if we have the exact same concepts in mind through using those terms.
[Replying to The Tanager in post #676]
I agree that there was/is no absence in GOD prior to or after Creation. I agree there was no “outside” or “other than” GOD prior to Creation.
Therefore, GOD did not create something from material which did not exist, or was outside of or other than GOD.
If it indicates an end point, then it can’t be infinite by definition.
Yes it can, if it resides within the infinite set, which it does. It is not outside of GOD, because there in no such thing as outside of GOD.
If it is a subset, with beginning and end points, within an infinite set, then it is not infinite but finite by definition. Sure, the infinite set is infinite, but not the “replicated black shape” you were talking about
Yes it can, because the begin points are also end points simultaneously.

The universe began from something which already existed. In turn, something will begin from this universe having existed.
It is all organized information and everything remains as accessible "memory", so GOD can access any point of infinity which means that even the replicated black shapes representing beginnings and endings and accommodated stuff [organized information] between those points therefore, exist infinitely.
An infinite regression is logically impossible.


Not to GOD.

And, again, you show you misunderstand creatio ex nihilo.


More to the point, I understand it as meaning the same. Neither you or I are responsible for the way in which those before us, educated us.
We are responsible for making sure the education is correct.
Recently I wrote;
"Time is just the stuff between beginning and end points. Time itself is a construct of the mind, rather than something which actually physically exists in this universe and this universe cannot be said in any absolute way to have had a beginning, and if it did not pop into existence [Creatio ex nihilo] then it must have gained any beginning it had, from something which existed prior to it beginning.

The logical premise would then have to be that existence has always existed, in one form or another, infinitely.
Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless."

It is not deriving something from a “magical place called ‘nothing’”. It is the creation of a place (and things in it) where that did not exist before. That is not a logical contradiction.
Which is exactly what I said;

"For example, if this universe we are experiencing had a beginning, and came from a prior condition which existed, then the point at which it began is also the point where the prior condition ended."

The idea of Creatio ex nihilo is exactly the same as the idea of Creation being built from something that already existed.
In other words, the thing that didn't exist before, was created from the stuff that has always existed.

In my conversation with Bust Nak I refer to that stuff as the Quantum Field [QF] and the stuff which had never existed before, as the Shapeforms [in our case, Galaxies] created with the QF material, through an energetic action stirring up the QF and bringing the particles together.

Theists would identify the energetic action as GOD [overall - regardless of religious undertones trying to superimpose their favored image of GOD onto the Energetic Action] and Thus we have Energy = GOD and QF [material] being another aspect of GOD [because there is nothing outside of or apart from GOD].

However, a conversation in another thread [yesterday];

One With Him: Humans and animals are much more than "lumps of matter." They both have "the same spirit," or breath of life within them. ("There is one outcome for humans and animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit....All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust." (Ecclesiastes 3:19,20)

While alive, humans are special lumps of matter, as we have the ability to know our God and have a close relationship with Him. When we die, Jehovah remembers us and will some day provide the power to bring us back to life. (Acts 24:15) While animals are alive, they provide humans with companionship and affection, though there is no indication that they will be resurrected. They were given to us for our joy, and they can help us in times of sorrow or difficulty. More than just lumps of matter.

William: Is the Energy intelligent?

Jehovah's Witness: Is life?

William: What is your answer then? Energy is intelligent? Energy is not intelligent?
________________

The answer of course, from the position of Theism, is "Yes - the Energy is intelligent."

Thus, "The Energy" is what theists refer to as "GOD."

Do you agree with my assessment?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #678

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:46 pmTherefore, GOD did not create something from material which did not exist, or was outside of or other than GOD.

Why do you think that follows? How does there not being anything outside of GOD make it impossible for GOD to create something new that is outside of GOD?
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:46 pmNot to GOD.

Why not? How can even GOD do the logically impossible?
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:46 pmThe idea of Creatio ex nihilo is exactly the same as the idea of Creation being built from something that already existed.
In other words, the thing that didn't exist before, was created from the stuff that has always existed.

That is not creatio ex nihilo at all. The ex nihilo expressly means that it wasn’t built from something that already existed.
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:46 pmTheists would identify the energetic action as GOD [overall - regardless of religious undertones trying to superimpose their favored image of GOD onto the Energetic Action] and Thus we have Energy = GOD and QF [material] being another aspect of GOD [because there is nothing outside of or apart from GOD].

No, that’s you identifying what we identify as something different in such a way. I see no reason to believe your identification is accurate.
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:46 pmThe answer of course, from the position of Theism, is "Yes - the Energy is intelligent."

Thus, "The Energy" is what theists refer to as "GOD."

Do you agree with my assessment?

I do not. If “Energy” is something distinct from its typical meaning, then it’s less confusing to call it something like “spirit”. I believe GOD is spirit. The spirit is intelligent. The energy that makes up our universe is not intelligent.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #679

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #678]
How does there not being anything outside of GOD make it impossible for GOD to create something new that is outside of GOD?
I thought you agreed that there is no outside of GOD.
An infinite regression is logically impossible.
Not to GOD.
Why not? How can even GOD do the logically impossible?
How can it be logically possible for GOD to create anything outside of GODs self?
Furthermore, a simple code [The Mandelbrot Set] looped on itself produces a visual example of
- not only infinite regression but also infinite progression, so it is obviously not logically impossible.
More likely it is a case of being conceptionally difficult...but not logically impossible, as the Set gives us clear evidence of.
The idea of Creatio ex nihilo is exactly the same as the idea of Creation being built from something that already existed.
In other words, the thing that didn't exist before, was created from the stuff that has always existed.
That is not creatio ex nihilo at all. The ex nihilo expressly means that it wasn’t built from something that already existed.
But we know that it was built from something that already existed. GOD.
Theists would identify the energetic action as GOD [overall - regardless of religious undertones trying to superimpose their favored image of GOD onto the Energetic Action] and Thus we have Energy = GOD and QF [material] being another aspect of GOD [because there is nothing outside of or apart from GOD].
No, that’s you identifying what we identify as something different in such a way. I see no reason to believe your identification is accurate.
No. To be clear, I said "Theists" not "Theists who believe a particular image of GOD"
You have no apparent reason to believe my identification is inaccurate.
The answer of course, from the position of Theism, is "Yes - the Energy is intelligent."

Thus, "The Energy" is what theists refer to as "GOD."

Do you agree with my assessment?

I do not. If “Energy” is something distinct from its typical meaning, then it’s less confusing to call it something like “spirit”. I believe GOD is spirit. The spirit is intelligent. The energy that makes up our universe is not intelligent.
It is what it is. You are saying that energy is not the same as spirit, but clearly no attributes in both are different. One is just thought of devoid of intelligence while the other is thought of as not being devoid of intelligence.

Clearly, neither theist or atheist belief re that has proven itself, so the Natural-Neutral position is to understand that both/all labels re "Energy" and "Spirit" are speaking about the same thing, albeit, differently, depending upon the position one is speaking from.

Either the creative force is one of intelligence or it isn't.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #680

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:55 pm Infinity as a boundary concept.
How does that meaning of infinity implies that it is not a quantity?
Are you saying there is scientific evidence? If so, where is it?
I don't really understand it, in terms I can understand: the flatness of the universe is measuring via the cosmic microwave background. The data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe over its 9 year operation gave a result that is consistent with a flat universe with 0.4% margin of error. As for where is it, it's published in a paper called Nine-Year WMAP Observations: Final Maps and Results.
I haven’t said an actual infinite is self-contradictory, but an actual infinite plus other things are logical contradictions, such as an actual infinite universe that is expanding (in my senses of those terms which are common senses) or an A-theory past that is an actual infinite.
Okay, let me modify my statement to: scientists are seriously considering it so actual infinities should not be ruled out as logical contradictions with other things. That there are some logical contradictions with your senses of terms is a great reason to abandon said senses and adopt senses that doesn't result in contradictions.
What specific claims are you referring to here that I’ve maybe misunderstood?
I don't know, I think there might be some miscommunication here. I was just pointing out that I was aware that the universe might not actually be flat.
Infinite mathematicians do assume a definition of ‘infinity’ as a quantity, and then see what math follows. They don’t offer arguments for the definition. We are discussing whether this assumption/definition makes sense and, more importantly, whether such a thing exists in reality or, more specifically, whether it could be true about an A-theory past.

A definition of God as “the existent creator of the universe” says “yes, it is” in the exact same way. I am irrational if I use that definition to argue for God’s existence.
You would have a point had I slipped "logically coherent" and "existent" into the definition of infinity.
Perhaps I see the confusion now. I do accept that ‘being completed’ was identical to ‘every element being moved through.’ Those are both statements or characteristics of series not individual elements. You are attaching “being moved through” as a characteristic of individual elements. Even when talking about the individual bricks or numbers that can be moved through, I was still thinking of those as mini-series within the larger series rather than taking them as individual elements outside of any series.
Granted "every element being moved through" is about a series, but how is it not also about individual elements? "Element" is literally the subject of the sentence. Also "you can move through every element of an infinite series" is not talking about them as individual elements outside of any series. The series is explicitly named right there. I am pretty sure I proved exactly what I was asked to prove.

Post Reply