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!!

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 #681

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:18 pm 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.
Then make do with saying time exists as a 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
Same question as before, how would you know that, if you don't know what time is fundamentally?
We do not know.
Well, perhaps you should stop asking questions until you figure out what even you are trying to ask.
How is it acceptable to say they are NOT the same thing, if nobody knows?
It wouldn't be, if nobody knows. But we do know.
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].
But you can't even tell me what counts as separate and does not. You asked my why separate, they are different is a good reason to separate.
Rather, it is an appeal to truthfulness. We don't know...therefore we cannot say...
That didn't stop you from saying time is only a concept of the mind, didn't stop you from saying it does not exist in reality other than symbolically.
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].
You are still no closer in explaining how saying "energy is the same thing as the objects it forms" is equivalent to saying "energy was the cause of its own beginning."
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.
What's so magical thinking about that when we can already make practical
We understand that the process can be eternal and thus never began and never ended.
Never end? Sounds like time will tick on forever to me.
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.
Can happen without consciousness or acknowledge? Sounds like time is not just a concept to me.
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.
Occam's razor.
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...
Why would The shapeform the allows consciousness to conceptualize time mean time is not fundamental to the interaction between energy and matter?
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.
What are you trying to say? If the universe is self aware? Then what? Why is knowing what time was even a thing here?
Can you also agree with the above statement [italic]?
Nop, I cannot, sounds like non-sequitur to me.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #682

Post by William »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #681]
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.
Then make do with saying time exists as a part of physical reality.
Not only is it not a "part of reality" but your clock reads different from mine. Is this to say we do not share the same reality?

Of course not.

If a construct of the mind is not fundamental to reality, then we ought not pretend that it is.

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
Same question as before, how would you know that, if you don't know what time is fundamentally?
Time is not a fundamental property of reality. It is a symbolic representation of a construct of the mind.
Are causes and their effect fundamentally separate?
We do not know.
Well, perhaps you should stop asking questions until you figure out what even you are trying to ask.
You asked the question. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

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 #683

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 2:14 pm Not only is it not a "part of reality" but your clock reads different from mine. Is this to say we do not share the same reality?

Of course not.
Why would your clock reading differently mean time is not part of reality?
If a construct of the mind is not fundamental to reality, then we ought not pretend that it is.
That's moot because we are not talking about constructs of the mind, but part of physical reality.
Time is not a fundamental property of reality. It is a symbolic representation of a construct of the mind.
How would you know that, if you don't know what time is fundamentally?
You asked the question. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
I do take my own advice, I only ask questions when I know what I was asking.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #684

Post by William »

William: If a construct of the mind is not fundamental to reality, then we ought not pretend that it is.


[Replying to Bust Nak in post #683]

Quotes about the non-fundamental thing we call 'time'.
Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics. To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real.
According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock.
Time seems to follow a universal, ticktock rhythm. But it doesn't. In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein determined that time is relative—in other words, the rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference.
What causes time?
By our definition time is the presence of motion and forces and is caused by the expansion of space also the amount of motion and forces in form of potential and kinetic energy imparted by expanding space is constant so when a mass is accelerated as the linear velocity of the mass increases the circular orbital motion ...
[Fundamental = forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.]

What necessary role would time have played, since it is a biproduct of the core ingredients Energy and Matter.

It is all very well taking something which is secondary and attempting to elevate it to a more prominent position re the original beginning of this universe - but to do so means one has to turn a blind eye...[or provide the evidence to support the theory.]
Time is not a fundamental property of reality. It is a symbolic representation of a construct of the mind.
How would you know that, if you don't know what time is fundamentally?
I know that time is not a fundamental aspect of Energy + Matter, as I know that time is fundamental to the human mind as a means of the mind getting its bearings - secondary in nature, not fundamentally to nature.

I do not know whether Energy and Matter are two separate things which interact and create shapeform, or whether they are aspects of the same thing, interacting with itself and creating shapeform.
I also do not know if Consciousness is fundamental to that process, but I do know that human consciousness is not.

I mention consciousness because I know that without consciousness, time would not even be recognized as a secondary [non-fundamental] aspect of this reality. Any reality has to be experienced before it can be known what is and what is not - fundamental - about it.



The confusion obviously has to do with thinking that the passing of time [which is believed to be fundamental to the position of the human mind experiencing this universe]therefore, has to be fundamental to the universe itself.

Since we know that the human mind is a secondary rather than a fundamental aspect of this reality, and we know that time is a construct of the human mind, we can understand therein, that time is not fundamental to the universes existence.

Therefore, we know that when someone say's "time will tick on forever because the universe will go on forever", they are superimposing a non-fundamental onto a fundamental. Whether proclaimers recognize this is what is occurring, or not, such a saying is not strictly true, but simply type of romantic/symbolic representation clinging onto the wake of the fundamental...wanting to be part of it forever.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #685

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:50 pmI thought you agreed that there is no outside of GOD.

I said there was nothing outside of GOD and then this GOD created a distinct thing that was, in the very act of creation, outside of GOD.
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:50 pmHow can it be logically possible for GOD to create anything outside of GODs self?

Where is the logical contradiction? We can’t have a square circle because of what “square” and “circle” mean. How does “create” logical contradict “something outside of GOD”?
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:50 pmFurthermore, 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.

How does that prove an infinite regression isn’t logically impossible? Your video begins and then progresses forever.
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:50 pmBut we know that it was built from something that already existed. GOD.

No, you claim that. You haven’t supported it as being true.
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:50 pmNo. 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.

So by “Theists” do you mean “some Theists”? If so, sure, I agree some theists believe that. Were you just saying that those Theists who believe that would reinterpret creatio ex nihilo to be the opposite?

Are you saying the default Theism says that and anyone that goes further doesn’t base it on any knowledge?

Something else?
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:50 pmIt 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.

Well, if true, that’s a big difference. Can you show energy to be intelligent?
William wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:50 pmClearly, 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.

I don’t see how those being the same is the natural or neutral position. Why do you think that?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #686

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:23 amHow does that meaning of infinity implies that it is not a quantity?

It tells us that a quantifiable thing (which is itself not infinity) just keeps getting bigger. Similar to how a speed limit (a boundary concept) isn’t an actual speed. I know what you are thinking, but hold on. The speed limit, as a limit, tells us that one cannot go above a certain speed/quantity/number, it's a concept of "go no further than" that is applied to a quantity, but isn't a quantity itself. Infinity, as a boundary, tells us an object's quantity keeps getting bigger forever, but isn't any of those quantities itself, even if "infinity" is also a number.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:23 amI 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’m not sure I fare any better. I tried a quick search in that paper (I think I had the correct one) for “infinite” but it didn’t show up. Thus, I’m left with the NASA article you linked to, which by both its reasoning and its own admission, we can only conclude “that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.”
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:23 amOkay, 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.

Assuming the universe’s size is an actual infinite, there is still a logical contradiction with that universe expanding, unless one equivocates on ‘expand,’ which then is changing the issue being discussed. I don’t see how this helps your case.

Neither does it help with an A-theory past being an actual infinite in the way we are discussing. Even assuming it’s size is an actual infinite number/quantity, this “actual infinite” is different than the “actual infinite” we are discussing (thus, another equivocation), which is the idea that there is no end to the number of events to “pass through”.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:23 amYou would have a point had I slipped "logically coherent" and "existent" into the definition of infinity.

You are saying the fact that mathematicians have come up with this hypothetical definition which assumes infinity is a quantity is reason to believe infinity as a quantity is a real thing, right?
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:23 amGranted "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.

“Every element” not just “element” is the focus. If one element in the series was not moved through, then we would rightly say “every element was not moved through,” even though many individual elements were moved through.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:23 amAlso "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.

I think you are referring to premise (16), right?

14) an integer that can be counted to from 0, is an integer that can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} (from 15)

If so, then we are back to your argument possibly being guilty of the fallacy of composition. Premises 14 and 15 talk about parts of a whole, while premise 16 simply applies that truth to the whole without any justification for making that move beyond the parts have that characteristic.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #687

Post by William »

William: I thought you agreed that there is no outside of GOD.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #685]
I said there was nothing outside of GOD and then this GOD created a distinct thing that was, in the very act of creation, outside of GOD.
How can it be logically possible for GOD to create anything outside of GODs self?
Where is the logical contradiction? We can’t have a square circle because of what “square” and “circle” mean. How does “create” logical contradict “something outside of GOD”?
Something "outside of GOD" contradicts "no outside of GOD."

Creating something new does not contradict "no outside of GOD."

Creating something new "outside of GOD", does.
How does that prove an infinite regression isn’t logically impossible? Your video begins and then progresses forever.
If one does a little study on the Set one will discover that the infinite progression can be shown to run opposite [as infinite regression] which signifies that the point where the video begins is the same as the begin/end points which turn up throughout the eternally unfolding.
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.
No, you claim that. You haven’t supported it as being true.
My statement has to do with our overall conversation here. Do you want to end this conversation because 'the existence of a creator' hasn't been supported or carry on re the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

When I wrote "we know that it was built from something that already existed" I was referring to Energy and QF [matter] and if these things fundamentally represent GOD [re theistic ideas about existing within a creation] then they may as well be be accepted by theists, in that attitude.
So by “Theists” do you mean “some Theists”?
Of course. Not all theists agree on everything pertaining to existing within a creation. They agree that they exist within a creation.
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.
Well, if true, that’s a big difference. Can you show energy to be intelligent?
Nope.

What we can do is agree that the interaction between Energy and QF results in identifiable intelligent outcomes and take that as an indication that we may indeed be existing within a creation and therefore Energy and Matter may be intelligent, because they do not exist outside of GOD.
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.
I don’t see how those being the same is the natural or neutral position. Why do you think that?
Energy and QF refers to the nature of the universe, thus the "Natural" part.

Re the question "Do we exist within a creation?", one remains neutral until such a time as nature reveals for certain, either way, thus the "Neutral" part

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 #688

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:49 pm It tells us that a quantifiable thing (which is itself not infinity) just keeps getting bigger. Similar to how a speed limit (a boundary concept) isn’t an actual speed. I know what you are thinking, but hold on. The speed limit, as a limit, tells us that one cannot go above a certain speed/quantity/number, it's a concept of "go no further than" that is applied to a quantity, but isn't a quantity itself. Infinity, as a boundary, tells us an object's quantity keeps getting bigger forever, but isn't any of those quantities itself, even if "infinity" is also a number.
60mph isn't a speed? Wow.
I’m not sure I fare any better. I tried a quick search in that paper (I think I had the correct one) for “infinite” but it didn’t show up. Thus, I’m left with the NASA article you linked to, which by both its reasoning and its own admission, we can only conclude “that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.”
But you do see how flat and boundary less implies infinite, right?
Assuming the universe’s size is an actual infinite, there is still a logical contradiction with that universe expanding, unless one equivocates on ‘expand,’ which then is changing the issue being discussed.
So "equivocate" on "expand," what's the problem? It's not a fallacy to change meaning of words as long as the altered meaning is conflated with the previous meaning.
Even assuming it’s size is an actual infinite number/quantity, this “actual infinite” is different than the “actual infinite” we are discussing (thus, another equivocation), which is the idea that there is no end to the number of events to “pass through”.
How is it different? No end to space to pass through, and no end to events to pass through, sounds like the same concept to me.
You are saying the fact that mathematicians have come up with this hypothetical definition which assumes infinity is a quantity is reason to believe infinity as a quantity is a real thing, right?
No, I offered it as a reason to believe it is a coherent concept, both internally and externally consistent with everything we know, that it can be a real thing. While I am here, I am still rejecting your proposition that mathematicians assumes infinity is a quantity. Mathematicians came up with a hypothetical concept and labelled it infinity, no assumption involved.
“Every element” not just “element” is the focus. If one element in the series was not moved through, then we would rightly say “every element was not moved through,” even though many individual elements were moved through.
Right, so what's exactly the problem here? I've proven that "every element," not just "element," can be moved through, so why did you think that I am attaching "moved through" as a characteristic of individual elements when I say "every element," but when you say "every element" you are talking about characteristics of series not individual elements?
I think you are referring to premise (16), right?

14) an integer that can be counted to from 0, is an integer that can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} (from 15)

If so, then we are back to your argument possibly being guilty of the fallacy of composition. Premises 14 and 15 talk about parts of a whole, while premise 16 simply applies that truth to the whole without any justification for making that move beyond the parts have that characteristic.
We've been through this, 16) does not say the whole series has the property can be moved through, it's equivalent to "the series' members all can be moved through." It's not my problem that it is identical to "being completed." Here, add these extra steps if it helps (with an alteration to 16 to remove any confusion as to what "moved through" is being applied to what entities.)

16) the series' members all can be moved through (from 15)
17) if a series' members all can be moved through then you can complete that series (premise)
18) you can complete {0, ...} (from 16 and 17)

There, 17 is the justification for applying "can be completed" to the whole series.

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 #689

Post by Bust Nak »

William wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 2:26 pm Quotes about the non-fundamental thing we call 'time'...

[Fundamental = forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.]

What necessary role would time have played, since it is a biproduct of the core ingredients Energy and Matter.

It is all very well taking something which is secondary and attempting to elevate it to a more prominent position re the original beginning of this universe - but to do so means one has to turn a blind eye...[or provide the evidence to support the theory.]
Not what I asked you. You are going on about "fundamental" when I asked you about being part of physical reality.
I know that time is not a fundamental aspect of Energy + Matter, as I know that time is fundamental to the human mind as a means of the mind getting its bearings - secondary in nature, not fundamentally to nature.

I do not know whether Energy and Matter are two separate things which interact and create shapeform, or whether they are aspects of the same thing, interacting with itself and creating shapeform.
I also do not know if Consciousness is fundamental to that process, but I do know that human consciousness is not.

I mention consciousness because I know that without consciousness, time would not even be recognized as a secondary [non-fundamental] aspect of this reality. Any reality has to be experienced before it can be known what is and what is not - fundamental - about it.
And that's why I kept pointing out that we should be talking about time itself, as just another dimension in spacetime, and not our perception or experience of time.
The confusion obviously has to do with thinking that the passing of time [which is believed to be fundamental to the position of the human mind experiencing this universe]therefore, has to be fundamental to the universe itself.
No, the confusion has to do with you equating a construct of the human mind with time itself, which has nothing to do our perception.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #690

Post by William »

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #689]
Not what I asked you. You are going on about "fundamental" when I asked you about being part of physical reality.
My statements re time is that time is not a fundamental part of reality. If you are asking me questions which veer away from those statements, I have no particular interest in going down those paths and arguing with you about them.
If you want to believe that time will tick on forever, that is your prerogative. All I can do is point out that if time is not a fundamental aspect of reality, and reality will exist forever, then this does not mean that time will also exist forever.
I know that time is not a fundamental aspect of Energy + Matter, as I know that time is fundamental to the human mind as a means of the mind getting its bearings - secondary in nature, not fundamentally to nature.

I do not know whether Energy and Matter are two separate things which interact and create shapeform, or whether they are aspects of the same thing, interacting with itself and creating shapeform.
I also do not know if Consciousness is fundamental to that process, but I do know that human consciousness is not.

I mention consciousness because I know that without consciousness, time would not even be recognized as a secondary [non-fundamental] aspect of this reality. Any reality has to be experienced before it can be known what is and what is not - fundamental - about it.
And that's why I kept pointing out that we should be talking about time itself, as just another dimension in spacetime, and not our perception or experience of time.
You did introduce the 'clock' as part of your argument, remember?
The clock represents "our perception or experience of time"

The confusion obviously has to do with thinking that the passing of time [which is believed to be fundamental to the position of the human mind experiencing this universe] therefore, has to be fundamental to the universe itself.

Post Reply