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.

[William]

Tanager: I think energy and spirit are distinct things.

William: Can you give reason for why you think this? Is it similar to the one given by onewithhim?
[Replying to The Tanager in post #700]

You brought this issue to the discussion by claiming they were one.

Currently that is a statement of opinion rather than the supported fact that you are sounding it off as, Tanager.
Point being, that the thread topic lends itself to bringing in the subject of GOD - and I am merely attempting to get a bead on what it signifies re theism.

As GM and I discussed this morning;

GM: [368]
"Sometimes it just looks like rain"
[Changes mind when truth is presented]
Less understood and less acknowledged

William: The "Power-Station Concept"
viewtopic.php?p=1084079#p1084079

GM: From the link;

Spirit is not God. It emanates FROM God, like power emanates from an electrical facility. The power is not the electrical facility.

GM: What Is Found Here?

William: The analogy makes GOD a Machine...

GM: Cycle Chance, "That is Correct"

William: If it were, that makes the physical universe created from the Energy, 'the machine' because that is the only machinery we see.
This in turn makes the "Creates Itself Fallacy" questionable...which is why GOD is conveniently placed outside of the universe.
Even so - this make GOD a machine creating a machine...
Then we have the atheist foot in the door asking "what created the GOD machine?" and reminding us of the "absurdity of infinite regression" [while infinite progression remains strangely valid]
"Talk to The Hand." {SOURCE}

Clearly I am seeking answers, not spouting unsupported claims.

My belief here stems from my current assessment of the scientific, philosophical, theological, etc. data that is pertinent, that I've come across. I see no reason, in any of these areas, to think they are the same thing.

And that is why I ask you why you think the way you do about Energy and Matter and GOD.

But I'm open to changing my mind.

I myself have established no position on the subject so there is no 'open to changing my mind' as I have no mind-set on which to change.
This has not always been the case, so please do not think I am somehow 'blowing my own trumpet'.
What I have noticed is that when Christians become convinced that their beliefs have been proven wrong, they become atheists.
In the same manner, when atheists become convinced that their lack of beliefs have been proven wrong, they become Christians.
When I became convinced that my Christian beliefs were proven wrong, I became "lost" as to what I should choose - re the options - once I worked out what the available options were, which I could choose from.

I tried a few in the hope of finding out what my position was, but none worked out adequately.

Thus, I created my own current position "Natural-Neutral" as a means of sorting it out to the degree I could continue interacting with atheists and theists on the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

The fact that we have a visual representation in the Mandelbrot Set - not only of infinite regression but also of infinite progression - shows us that it is possible.
Therefore the thread title "Infinite Regression is Impossible" is shown to be incorrect.

And, as I’ve already said, this is not laying the reasoning out; it’s simply asserting that this visual representation shows infinite regression is possible. You need to lay out the logical reasoning, which will require things like premises leading to a conclusion, to “lay the reasoning out”.

By theist or atheist positions these rules might apply. I have yet to be shown why they are pertinent to my position.

The question "Do we exist within a creation?" cannot be held as a premise.

Theism answers the question "Yes" and therefore can build upon that along the lines of;

1: We exist within a creation, therefore;
2: ...

Atheism answers the question "No" and therefore can build upon that along the lines of;

We do not exist within a creation, therefore;
2: ...

There is no such requirement to make premises from my own position.
What I can do is question both atheist and theist 'laid out reasoning' and feed that back to them adding rational re my current assessment of the scientific, philosophical, theological, etc. data , that I've come across.

I have no pre-determined ideas on "what is pertinent" re said data.

[brunumb]

The question "Do we exist within a creation?" cannot be held as a premise.

Theism answers the question "Yes" and therefore can build upon that along the lines of;

1: We exist within a creation, therefore;
2: ...

Atheism answers the question "No" and therefore can build upon that along the lines of;

We do not exist within a creation, therefore;
2: ...

Theists who believe that creation involves the act of a deity may answer yes to the question. But atheists do not have to answer no. Their response to the question may be along the lines of "I am not convinced by the claim that we exist in a creation and until you provide compelling evidence for it I am not accepting it". The atheist does not have to follow up with any 'therefore' and build any sort of case for their position as you seem to imply. One can simply reject the claim and move on.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #702]

My commentary is on the positional responses to the question "Do we exist within a creation?" rather than what individuals giving allegiance to said positions may or may not do as a matter of personal choice.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #701]

Our latest interaction in this thread began around you disagreeing with creatio ex nihilo and stating how creatio ex nihilo was illogical. I said I’d hear you out on that and your view that GOD transformed part of GOD's self into the material universe again. If “do we exist within a creation?” is that same question, then you have made claims. If "do we exist within a creation?" is a different question you've moved onto, then it's not what I've been addressing.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #704]

My position is the same, although I have changed from referring to it as "Natural-Neutral" because The Generated Message process has provided me with a better descriptive re the position;

GM: There is no such thing as random really.

William: Things just appear that way due to our position within things and our ignorance about most things.


GM: Now Getting Somewhere
Callum's Eighth Point

William: Callum's Eighth Point appears to indicate that he is saying that if The Tanager does not want Callum to access my thoughts through Callum reading The Book of Musing On The Mother II, then "That's Okay".

I wouldn't argue with that reasoning as it is within the rules of The Role-Play.
I have provided Callum with enough devices for him to help himself and learn through. I cannot decide for him whether he uses those or is happy not to, if The Tanager does not want him to.

GM: Brother Wolf Sister Moon

William: = 289, as with;
"The Suppression Matrix"
"This is how The Mind works..."
"Within that which is unseen..."


GM: Though the Serpent rules the Shadow
Liminal [relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process. occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold.]


William: Like "Natural-Neutral" re theism and atheism...not "Agnostic" because that is a known subset of atheism...

GM: The Spirit of The Earth
Essentially, we are Gaia in Human Form...
{SOURCE}

The Liminal position.


Re the question "Do we exist within a creation?" the question "Do Gods exist?" is secondary and needn't be tackled until the first question is answered.
Therefore, Theism, and subsequently Atheism and Agnosticism are positions created, based on the cart before horse fallacy...which is to say, the arguments created re the secondary question being asked ahead of the primary question not yet answered, are fallacious.

The statements;
"God Must Exist" and "Infinite Regression is Impossible" are false on two counts.

1: It has not been established that we exist within a creation, therefore the premise "God must exist" is faulty.

2: Infinite Regression AND Infinite Progression have been shown to be possible re the Mandelbrot Set.

Following through with the idea that we exist within a creation, the thought-experiments regarding the notion that we do, involve having to know something of the nature of the creation, which brings in Energy and Matter, which are known to exist.

Therein, anything we can possible know about a Creator, has to be established through the study of the creation. Therein, there is no thing within the creation which shows us that something can be created from nothing.
Anything new which can be created, is logically done so using the material available in order to do so.

Anyone arguing that "GOD" is so powerful that GOD can literally create something new out of something which doesn't exist, is basing their argument upon a faulty premise, because the creation itself doesn't support the premise that GOD is anything of the sort.

This means that Theism - in placing the horse before the cart - is based upon a premise which hasn't been established.

Faulty;
1: We exist within a creation, [not established] therefore
2: "GOD" exists, therefore
3: GOD is all powerful and can create something new using no material whatsoever.

Better;
1: We may exist within a creation. [Not established] therefore
2: GOD may exist, therefore;
3: GOD being all powerful and able to create something new using no material whatsoever is non- logic based assumption and not aligned with our current knowledge of the Universe we are questioning as being a possible creation.

[The Tanager]

This means that Theism - in placing the horse before the cart - is based upon a premise which hasn't been established.

Faulty;
1: We exist within a creation, [not established] therefore
2: "GOD" exists, therefore
3: GOD is all powerful and can create something new using no material whatsoever.

I'm not sure who made this argument in this thread or outside of this thread. I haven't.

[William]

Anyone arguing that "GOD" is so powerful that GOD can literally create something new out of something which doesn't exist, is basing their argument upon a faulty premise, because the creation itself doesn't support the premise that GOD is anything of the sort.

This means that Theism - in placing the horse before the cart - is based upon a premise which hasn't been established.

Faulty;
1: We exist within a creation, [not established] therefore
2: "GOD" exists, therefore
3: GOD is all powerful and can create something new using no material whatsoever.

I'm not sure who made this argument in this thread or outside of this thread. I haven't.

It was you who wrote the following.

Tanager: 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.
__________________________________________

Point being, since the first premise has not been established, any which follow on from that, are faulty.

[Bust Nak]

That’s not what I said. Pay close attention to the words after the bolded part. The speed limit as a limit is not a speed but a concept that says “go no faster than”. “Go no faster than” is not a speed but a statement about speeds.

"Go no faster than" is about speed, the limit is still a speed. That's what made me go "wow."

Of course. The article doesn’t claim ‘boundary less,’ though; it says all we know from this data is that the universe goes beyond what we can see.

That's fine. Scientists on the whole are still betting on infinite universe though.

I’m not following you here. Perhaps an example would help?...

Yes, sticking to that example.

P1. Man is the only rational animal.
P2. No woman is a man.
C. Therefore, no woman is a rational animal.
P3. There is at least one woman that is a rational animal.

You: Aha, there is a contradiction! One or more of those premises must be false.
Me: No there isn't, that the "man" in P1 does not mean the same thing as "man" in P2. C is just a false conclusion.
You: If "man" doesn't mean the same thing in the premises then you are equivocate on "man."
Me: So "equivocate" on "man," what's the problem? It's not a fallacy to change meaning of the word "man" as long as it is understood the meaning of "man" in P2 is not the same as the meaning of "man" in P1.

The difference I’m talking about is between how one answers the question “how many events are there”:

(a) There is no end to the number of events to pass through (infinity as a boundary concept)
(b) There is an actual infinite quantity of events to pass through (infinity as a quantity/number concept)

So you were not saying there is a analogical difference between time and space? I still see the parity like this: "How much space is there? a) There is no end to space to pass through. b) there is an actual infinite amount of space to pass through."

Either way, a) isn't an actual infinity at all. By going as far as to say "assuming it’s size is an actual infinite number/quantity" you have made explicit that you are talking about b).

I have said I see no reason to think it is a quantity, not that the concept of it being a quantity is internally incoherent.

Way back when, you said "given an [actually] infinite universe" might be incoherent statement and that I was begging the question by stating that an actual infinity is clearly an coherent concept. Clear or not aside, do you think it is coherent?

I have also said that, assuming there could be actual infinite quantities in existence (such as an actual infinite B-theory past), this definition is externally inconsistent with an A-theory past, to where an actual infinite A-theory past is akin to saying a square circle.

If actual infinite quantities is internally coherent, then we don't need to assume, we know there could be actual infinite quantities in existence, there might not be any, but there could be.

What is the difference for you between calling it hypothetical and saying an assumption was involved?

The first is defined as such, the latter is a guess.

I was working off of “how is it not also about individual elements?”

You’ve only proven that you can take out individual elements of a series, put them in a different series, and then move through those series.

Yes, I have proven that you can move through those series, in particular, one that is an infinite series. Is that not exactly what I was task with doing? How is this about individual elements, when here you seemed to have accepted that my proof is about moving through series?

What is your justification for premise 17 being true?

My justification is that a series is literally a collection of all its members. Move through all elements is the exact same thing as moving through the series.

I haven’t agreed to it or seen any reason to think it is true.

I asked you if you accept that a series can be completed if each and every single last one of its element can be counted through, and you said yes. That sounded like agreeing to premise 17 "if a series' members all can be moved through then you can complete that series."

I’ve agreed to this:

17’) if [a series’ members] all can be moved through, then [a series’ members] can be completed

What's the difference between "a series’ members can be completed" and "a series can be completed?" What does completing a series mean, if not moving through all the members?

[The Tanager]

Anyone arguing that "GOD" is so powerful that GOD can literally create something new out of something which doesn't exist, is basing their argument upon a faulty premise, because the creation itself doesn't support the premise that GOD is anything of the sort.

This means that Theism - in placing the horse before the cart - is based upon a premise which hasn't been established.

Faulty;
1: We exist within a creation, [not established] therefore
2: "GOD" exists, therefore
3: GOD is all powerful and can create something new using no material whatsoever.

I'm not sure who made this argument in this thread or outside of this thread. I haven't.

It was you who wrote the following.

Tanager: 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.
__________________________________________

Point being, since the first premise has not been established, any which follow on from that, are faulty.

And you think my statement is the same thing as the argument you presented above? What I shared wasn’t even an argument, it was an explanation of what creatio ex nihilo states because your explanation of what it means was incorrect. I never made an argument for creatio ex nihilo but have simply been responding to your claims about it being illogical.

[The Tanager]

"Go no faster than" is about speed, the limit is still a speed. That's what made me go "wow."

No, the limit is a statement about speeds. It’s “go no faster than X” where X is the speed and “go no faster than” is a statement about that speed. The speed limit, as a limit, is not a speed.

That's fine. Scientists on the whole are still betting on infinite universe though.

Okay, but I like my bets to follow evidence.

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.

I’m not following you here. Perhaps an example would help?

P1. Man is the only rational animal.
P2. No woman is a man
C. Therefore, no woman is a rational animal.

Can you conflate the two meanings of “man” here [i.e., a human being and a male] to make this argument sound? Or do you have an example of what you mean?

Yes, sticking to that example.

P1. Man is the only rational animal.
P2. No woman is a man.
C. Therefore, no woman is a rational animal.
P3. There is at least one woman that is a rational animal.

You: Aha, there is a contradiction! One or more of those premises must be false.
Me: No there isn't, that the "man" in P1 does not mean the same thing as "man" in P2. C is just a false conclusion.
You: If "man" doesn't mean the same thing in the premises then you are equivocate on "man."
Me: So "equivocate" on "man," what's the problem? It's not a fallacy to change meaning of the word "man" as long as it is understood the meaning of "man" in P2 is not the same as the meaning of "man" in P1.

How is this conflating the altered meaning with the previous meaning? To conflate means to combine two or more (in this case concepts) into one. In your explanation you are keeping these concepts of ‘man’ distinct.

And by doing so, we can reach no conclusion at all:

P1. Human is the only rational animal
P2. No woman is a male.
C. Nothing

By equivocating, we have now changed the argument and the one we’ve changed it to doesn’t result in any logical conclusion. So, how is this helpful?

Bring it back to the argument you just wanted to equivocate on:

(1) If something is expanding, then it will grow in size (i.e., move beyond its current boundary).
(2) The universe is expanding.
(3) Therefore, the universe will grow in size (i.e., move beyond its current boundary).
(4) If something is infinite, then it has no current boundary.
(5) The universe has a current boundary
(6) Therefore, the universe is not infinite.

Even if you misspoke with “conflate,” how is this equivocation helpful to our discussion?

So you were not saying there is a analogical difference between time and space?

I haven’t been talking about an analogy between time and space here.

I still see the parity like this: "How much space is there? a) There is no end to space to pass through. b) there is an actual infinite amount of space to pass through."

Either way, a) isn't an actual infinity at all. By going as far as to say "assuming it’s size is an actual infinite number/quantity" you have made explicit that you are talking about b).

Earlier, you seemed to claim that a question like “how many events are there” required an answer of the nature of (b)...that is, giving a quantity or number. I’m saying that answering: “there are infinite events” is giving the answer of (a), using ‘infinity’ as a boundary concept rather than a quantity/number (i.e., a potential infinity, not an actual infinity).

Now, when we analyze an infinite A-theory past, yes, we are assuming the number of past events would be giving an answer of type (b). What we can’t do (lest we beg the question under discussion) is assume an answer of type (b) is possible, in this specific case. My point is that you need to show (b) is a type of answer that makes sense (on A-theory). If (b) doesn’t make sense, then an actual infinite A-theory past doesn’t make sense.

A B-theory past would have an actual infinite quantity of events, but one isn’t “passing through” these events, so an actual infinite B-theory past making sense doesn’t automatically mean an actual infinite A-theory past makes sense.

Way back when, you said "given an [actually] infinite universe" might be incoherent statement and that I was begging the question by stating that an actual infinity is clearly an coherent concept. Clear or not aside, do you think it is coherent?

An actual infinity is a coherent concept. An actual infinity of past A-theory events is what is under question, one that adds the element of “passing through” in sequential fashion to the concept under analysis. Those elements have the possibility of changing whether something is coherent or not.

If actual infinite quantities is internally coherent, then we don't need to assume, we know there could be actual infinite quantities in existence, there might not be any, but there could be.

There can be actual infinite quantities in existence, but as elements are added, we may have to rule out certain types of actual infinite quantities from existence. I think this is what is done when talking about an actual infinite A-theory past.

Yes, I have proven that you can move through those series, in particular, one that is an infinite series. Is that not exactly what I was task with doing? How is this about individual elements, when here you seemed to have accepted that my proof is about moving through series?

You did not prove that you can move through an infinite series. You took numbers out of an infinite series, put them in their own finite series and proved that one could move through those finite series. Then your last premise is always a jump, without proof, from these truths of finite series to making a claim about an infinite series.

My justification is that a series is literally a collection of all its members. Move through all elements is the exact same thing as moving through the series.

Your proof shows “move through all elements in their own finite series” and then take those finite series, add them up, and get an infinite series. Thus, you move from a characteristic of each finite brick that makes up the brick wall and claim that the brick wall must have that same characteristic. Without any analysis as to why it doesn’t fall prey to a fallacy of composition.

I asked you if you accept that a series can be completed if each and every single last one of its element can be counted through, and you said yes. That sounded like agreeing to premise 17 "if a series' members all can be moved through then you can complete that series."

Yes, I accepted that a series being completed was equivalent to each and every single element of that series is counted through. Those are synonymous phrasings. That says nothing about whether all the elements in that infinite series can be counted through. Your proof, again, takes these elements out of the infinite series, puts them in a different finite series and then shows that those finite series have all elements being moved through. That says nothing about the infinite series you were tasked with showing had all of its elements moved through, in itself.

Again, “moving through all elements” is tied to the series as a whole, not taking elements out of it to create different series. This is what I was trying to point to when I wrote:

I’ve agreed to this:

17’) if [a series’ members] all can be moved through, then [a series’ members] can be completed

What's the difference between "a series’ members can be completed" and "a series can be completed?" What does completing a series mean, if not moving through all the members?

The series’ members are treated as a whole. You have broken that infinite whole into finite pieces, proved something about those finite pieces, and then made a claim about the infinite whole. You have moved from claims about parts to claims about a whole. Not all truths about parts translate to being truths about the whole.