God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

First off, by "universe", I mean all physical reality govern by natural law. This would include universes that we know/don’t know about.

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is past eternal.

Justification: We know that the universe exist, and if there is no transcendent supernatural cause, then either

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

I think we can safely remove posit A from the equation (unless there is someone who thinks it is a plausible explanation).

Let’s focus on posit B.

Based on posit B, we need not provide any naturalistic explanation as to the cause of our universe, considering the fact that the term “universe” applies (as mentioned earlier) to all physical reality, which means that any naturalistic explanation one provides is already accounted for as “eternal”.

And if God does not exist, then physical reality (the universe) is all there is, and thus must be eternal.

2. If the universe is not past eternal, then God exists.

Justification: If the universe (all physical reality) is NOT eternal, then it had a beginning.

Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary.

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

So, where nature stops, supernatural begins.

3. The universe is not past eternal.

Justification: If the universe is past eternal, then the causal chain of events (cause and effect) within the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because infinity cannot be traversed or “reached”.

If the past is eternal, that would mean that there are an infinite amount of “days” which lead to today. But in order for us to have “arrived” to today, an infinite amount of days would have to be traversed (one by one), which is impossible, because infinite cannot be “reached”.

Consider thought analogy..

Sandman analogy: Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole. By “bottomless”, of course if one was to fall into the hole, he would fall forever and ever and ever.

Now, imagine the man is surrounded by an infinite amount of sand, which is at his disposal.

Imagine if the man has been shoveling sand into this hole for an infinite amount of time (he never began shoveling, or he never stopped shoveling, he has been shoveling forever).

Imagine if the man’s plan was to shovel sand into the hole until he successfully filled the sand from the bottom, all the way to the top of the hole.

How long will it take him to accomplish this? Will he ever accomplish this task? No. Why? Because the sand is bottomless, so no matter how fast he shoveled, or how long he shoveled, the sand will never reach the top.

So lets put it all together…

The sand falling: Represents time travel, and the trajectory of the sand falling south of the top represents time traveling into the past, which is synonymous with past eternity.

The man shoveling: Represents the “present”, as the man is presently shoveling without halt. This is synonymous with our present causal reality. We are presently in a state of constant change, without halt.

Conclusion: If the sand cannot reach the bottom of the hole (because of no boundary/foundation) and it can’t be filled from the bottom-up to the present (man), then how, if there is no past boundary to precedent days, how could we have possibly reached the present day…if there is/was no beginning foundation (day).

However, lets say a gazillion miles down the hole, there is a foundation…then the hole will be filled in a finite amount of time, and it will be filled from the bottom-up.

But ONLY if there is a foundation.

Likewise, we can only reach today if and ONLY IF there is a beginning point of reference, a foundation in the distant past.

4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist: As explained, infinite regression is impossible, so an uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

This UCC cannot logically be a product of any precedent cause or conditions, thus, it exists necessarily (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC cannot logically depend on any external entity for it’s existence (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC is the foundation for any/everything which began to exist, which included by not limited to all physical reality…but mainly, the universe an everything in it.

This UCC would also have to have free will, which explains why the universe began at X point instead of Y point...and the reason is; it began at that point because that is when the UCC decided it should begin...and only a being with free will can decide to do anything.

This UCC would have to have the power to create from nothing (as there was no preexisting physical matter to create from, before it was created).

So, based on the truth value of the argument, what can we conclude of the UCC?

1. It is a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being
2. A being of whom has existed for eternity and can never cease existing
3. A being with the greatest power imaginable (being able to create from nothing)
4. A being with free will, thus, a being with a mind

This being in question is what theists have traditionally recognized as God. God exists.

In closing, I predict the whole "well, based on your argument, God cannot be infinite".

My response to that for now is; first admit the validity of the presented argument, and THEN we will discuss why the objection raised doesn't apply to God.

[Bust Nak]

My argument is that these concepts are incompatible. So, how would these concepts being incompatible make that argument invalid?

That much is fine. The problem is when you take that step further and conclude there is a contradiction. To use the the "man" analogy again, there is no problem with an argument that says "man" as in male and "man" as in humanity is incompatible. The problem is when you conclude that there is a contradiction because women are also rational animals.

As I said, you can phrase things in such a way to both get ‘one-to-one correspondence’ and not get it.

But you can get a one-to-one correspondence, because you can shift things along. This is not an example of not getting one-to-one correspondence. Changing the phrasing does not change the fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence.

Phrasing things to avoid a possible contradiction isn’t rational support for there not being a contradiction.

Okay, but that's kinda moot. The rational support for there not being a contradiction is that a) scientific observation is consistent with an expanding and infinite universe, and scientists don't think there is any contradiction with such a scenario; and b) mathematicians have came up with a way to make sense of infinity re: set theory.

No, they sometimes do and sometimes don’t. The fact that every brick is red does tell us that the brick wall is red. The fact that every brick is 8 inches long certainly does not tell us that the brick wall is 8 inches long.

Even the latter tells you something about the brick wall. It tells us the wall is at least 8 inches in one of its dimension.

Yes, but then you’ve assumed that “each and every element of that series, as members of that series, being counted through” is synonymous with “being able to count from 0 to each and every element of that series” and it’s not.

This is assumption is stated in "14) an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be counted to from 0, is an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be moved through (premise)." Sounds like you disagree with this premise, why? What does "counting through the integer X as a member of {0, ...}" even mean, if being able to count from 0 to X doesn't qualify?

[The Tanager]

That much is fine. The problem is when you take that step further and conclude there is a contradiction. To use the the "man" analogy again, there is no problem with an argument that says "man" as in male and "man" as in humanity is incompatible. The problem is when you conclude that there is a contradiction because women are also rational animals.

How am I doing that?

But you can get a one-to-one correspondence, because you can shift things along. This is not an example of not getting one-to-one correspondence. Changing the phrasing does not change the fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence.

Whether it has one-to-one correspondence or not is finagled. These finite sets have one-to-one correspondence no matter which members correspond between sets: {0, 1, 2} and {A, B, C}.

That is not true for these sets: {0, 1, 2, …} and {1, 2, 3, …}. For instance, you can make all the 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, etc. correspond to each other and the first set will have one member that has no corresponding number. Thus, these sets seem to have one-to-one correspondence and seem to not. Changing the phrasing does change whether one-to-one correspondence is a fact.

Okay, but that's kinda moot. The rational support for there not being a contradiction is that a) scientific observation is consistent with an expanding and infinite universe, and scientists don't think there is any contradiction with such a scenario; and b) mathematicians have came up with a way to make sense of infinity re: set theory.

What is your support for (a)? The scientific observations you shared do not point to an infinite universe, but simply a very large finite universe. [As to whether scientists think there is a contradiction or not between an infinite universe expanding, it’s simply not a scientific question. It’s a philosophical question. I think it’s quite clear that infinite and expanding contradict and I’ve presented why. Scientists, as scientists, have nothing to say there, but must put on the philosopher’s hat.]

(b) Mathematicians have come up with a way to get mathematical answers with actual infinity, assuming that such a thing makes sense. Whether it actually makes sense is a philosophical question.

Even the latter tells you something about the brick wall. It tells us the wall is at least 8 inches in one of its dimension.

Yes, that’s it. And, in the same way, your proof tells us that the infinite series contains individual members that can be counted to from 0. That’s it. The problem is that we are asking if the infinite series can be completed.

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

Yes, but then you’ve assumed that “each and every element of that series, as members of that series, being counted through” is synonymous with “being able to count from 0 to each and every element of that series” and it’s not.

This is assumption is stated in "14) an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be counted to from 0, is an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be moved through (premise)." Sounds like you disagree with this premise, why? What does "counting through the integer X as a member of {0, ...}" even mean, if being able to count from 0 to X doesn't qualify?

I think there is a difference between saying (a) you can count/move through an integer or a member and (b) that you can move through an entire series. So, either (14) and (16) both talk about one of these (a or b) or you haven’t shown how you validly move from a claim about (a) to a claim about (b). It may look like you have when you use the same term/phrase for both (a) and (b), but this is an equivocation on par with using “man” to refer to the two different concepts of ‘humanity’ and ‘male’ in order to conclude that women are irrational.

[Bust Nak]

How am I doing that?

By saying there is a contradiction with an expanding universe and an infinite universe.

Whether it has one-to-one correspondence or not is finagled. These finite sets have one-to-one correspondence no matter which members correspond between sets: {0, 1, 2} and {A, B, C}.

That is not true for these sets: {0, 1, 2, …} and {1, 2, 3, …}. For instance, you can make all the 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, etc. correspond to each other and the first set will have one member that has no corresponding number.

So there isn't a corresponding if you throw in an arbitrary rule. The answer is to discard the rule. If I say I can bench press 100lb, telling me, "not if the weight is loaded all on one end" isn't exactly a counter-argument, is it?

What is your support for (a)?

Scientific observation re: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and red-shift.

The scientific observations you shared do not point to an infinite universe, but simply a very large finite universe.

No, that is not correct. Very large, yes. Finite, no.

As to whether scientists think there is a contradiction or not between an infinite universe expanding, it’s simply not a scientific question. It’s a philosophical question. I think it’s quite clear that infinite and expanding contradict and I’ve presented why. Scientists, as scientists, have nothing to say there, but must put on the philosopher’s hat.

So let them put on their philosopher’s hat, they can reconcile their empirical data without trouble.

Mathematicians have come up with a way to get mathematical answers with actual infinity, assuming that such a thing makes sense.

That they have a mathematical answers with actual infinity shows that it makes sense.

Yes, that’s it. And, in the same way, your proof tells us that the infinite series contains individual members that can be counted to from 0. That’s it. The problem is that we are asking if the infinite series can be completed.

Hence me trying to pin you down for the past month on what being completed even mean, if contains only members that can be counted to from 0 doesn't count.

I think there is a difference between saying (a) you can count/move through an integer or a member and (b) that you can move through an entire series.

Of course there is a difference, that much I can agree with.

So, either (14) and (16) both talk about one of these (a or b)

(14) is about (a), 16 is about (b).

you haven’t shown how you validly move from a claim about (a) to a claim about (b).

That's what step 15 is for. If you can move through all members then you can move through an entire series. You agreed with that before, saying they were synonymous, and when I dug more into what you were actually agreeing to, you said "count/move through" had to be qualified with something like "as members of {0, ...}" so that's what I did, that's how I validly move from (a) to (b).

[The Tanager]

By saying there is a contradiction with an expanding universe and an infinite universe.

Yes, my claim is that there is a contradiction between (a) universe being infinite in size and (b) universe expanding in that size…if the term “size” means something like a thing’s overall magnitude and “infinite” means being unbounded and “expand” means getting bigger in size. All of those are valid, normal definitions of those terms. Something that is actually unbounded (as opposed to potentially unbounded) can’t get bigger in size.

You’ve brought in that if two things are in one-to-one correspondence, then they are the same size. Okay, so they have the same overall magnitude. If infinite (and you are proposing these things are), then those magnitudes are actually unbounded. Okay, then they can’t get bigger in size, a.k.a, they can’t be expanding.

The problem is that you want to say that something can be unchanged in magnitude and yet be getting bigger. You’ve got yourself into this contradiction because you aren’t being consistent in talking about the size.

If the universe is “actually infinite” and expanding, then there are different sizes of “actual infinites”. Some are bigger than others. But, then, the smaller sizes have a boundary they don’t cross.

So there isn't a corresponding if you throw in an arbitrary rule. The answer is to discard the rule. If I say I can bench press 100lb, telling me, "not if the weight is loaded all on one end" isn't exactly a counter-argument, is it?

That wouldn’t be a counter argument, but a claim about a different situation. I’m not doing that. And I’m not throwing in an arbitrary rule. Any way one matches up the one-to-one correspondence is arbitrary. Why do it your way over my way?

Scientific observation re: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and red-shift.

How do these show that the universe is infinite?

That they have a mathematical answers with actual infinity shows that it makes sense.

No, it doesn’t. The answers actually don’t make sense and lead to having to come up with different sizes of infinites to try to make sense of it, going against the difference between being finite and infinite in the first place.

That's what step 15 is for. If you can move through all members then you can move through an entire series. You agreed with that before, saying they were synonymous, and when I dug more into what you were actually agreeing to, you said "count/move through" had to be qualified with something like "as members of {0, ...}" so that's what I did, that's how I validly move from (a) to (b).

No, the confusion is that you have used the same term for two different concepts, shifting the term used with each attempt at my clarification to where you still use one term to speak about two different concepts. There is still a difference between (a) a number being countable or moved-through-able and (b) a whole series being countable or moved-through-able.

You are saying step 14 is about a number being countable as a number.
You are saying step 16 is about a whole series being countable as a series.

You proposed that step 15 bridges the gap and that it follows from 13 and 14. But if 13 and 14 are both about a number being countable as a number, then it’s only on one side of the gap, not a bridge. Step 15 needs to provide new information justifying bridging the gap.

[christian001]

It is illogical to ask the question "Who created God?" https://answering-atheism.com/if-the-un ... planation/

[Tcg]

It is illogical to ask the question "Who created God?" https://answering-atheism.com/if-the-un ... planation/

It's perfectly logical unless one is relying on special pleading to avoid the question.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

It is illogical to ask the question "Who created God?" https://answering-atheism.com/if-the-un ... planation/

It's perfectly logical unless one is relying on special pleading to avoid the question.


Tcg

The current time is 2022, and this still hasta be told.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, my claim is that there is a contradiction between (a) universe being infinite in size and (b) universe expanding in that size…if the term “size” means something like a thing’s overall magnitude and “infinite” means being unbounded and “expand” means getting bigger in size. All of those are valid, normal definitions of those terms. Something that is actually unbounded (as opposed to potentially unbounded) can’t get bigger in size.

You’ve brought in that if two things are in one-to-one correspondence, then they are the same size. Okay, so they have the same overall magnitude. If infinite (and you are proposing these things are), then those magnitudes are actually unbounded. Okay, then they can’t get bigger in size, a.k.a, they can’t be expanding.

The problem is that you want to say that something can be unchanged in magnitude and yet be getting bigger. You’ve got yourself into this contradiction because you aren’t being consistent in talking about the size.

Again, that's not a contradiction. You just need to drop your ideas about what these words mean. Space between two points getting bigger also means the whole thing is expanding.

If the universe is “actually infinite” and expanding, then there are different sizes of “actual infinites”. Some are bigger than others. But, then, the smaller sizes have a boundary they don’t cross.

Of course there are different sizes of actual infinites.

That wouldn’t be a counter argument, but a claim about a different situation. I’m not doing that. And I’m not throwing in an arbitrary rule. Any way one matches up the one-to-one correspondence is arbitrary. Why do it your way over my way?

Because when the question is whether you can or cannot do something, a single arbitrary way where this something is possible, is enough to justify the claim that you can indeed do this something.

How do these show that the universe is infinite?

That is not enough to show that the universe is infinite. It is however consistent with an infinite universe.

No, it doesn’t. The answers actually don’t make sense and lead to having to come up with different sizes of infinites to try to make sense of it, going against the difference between being finite and infinite in the first place.

What part of different sizes of infinites go against the difference between being finite and infinite?

No, the confusion is that you have used the same term for two different concepts, shifting the term used with each attempt at my clarification to where you still use one term to speak about two different concepts. There is still a difference between (a) a number being countable or moved-through-able and (b) a whole series being countable or moved-through-able.

That's why I added all those "as part of {0, ...}" qualifiers to distinguish between the two. Is it still confusing to you?

You are saying step 14 is about a number being countable as a number.
You are saying step 16 is about a whole series being countable as a series.

You proposed that step 15 bridges the gap and that it follows from 13 and 14. But if 13 and 14 are both about a number being countable as a number, then it’s only on one side of the gap, not a bridge. Step 15 needs to provide new information justifying bridging the gap.

There are 3 statements:

a) about a number being countable as a number.
b) about a series a whole series being countable as a series.
c) about a series containing only certain numbers.

Step 15 takes me from a) to c).

Since b) and c) are synonymous, you agreed with that before, so no new information is needed.

Alternatively, you can call the fact that they are synonymous new information, I will add that as an extra step if it helps:

14) an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be counted to from 0, is an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that as part of {0, ...} can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} as part of {0, ...} (from 15)
17) if you can move through all members of {0, ...} as part of {0, ...} then you can move through {0, ...} as a series (premise)
18) you can move through {0, ...} as a series. (from 16 and 17)

Did that help?

[The Tanager]

Again, that's not a contradiction. You just need to drop your ideas about what these words mean.

So, a married bachelor isn’t really a contradiction because we can just drop our ideas of what it means to be married and a bachelor?

Space between two points getting bigger also means the whole thing is expanding.

How is this different?

Of course there are different sizes of actual infinites.

What part of different sizes of infinites go against the difference between being finite and infinite?

How can unbounded things have different (magnitude) boundaries to their size?

Because when the question is whether you can or cannot do something, a single arbitrary way where this something is possible, is enough to justify the claim that you can indeed do this something.

The question is whether this thing is actually in one-to-one correspondence. One arbitrary way gets you the answer “yes” and another arbitrary way gets you the answer “no” to the same question. Contradictory answers to one question isn’t enough to justify a claim.

That is not enough to show that the universe is infinite. It is however consistent with an infinite universe.

Sure, but you need more than consistency, especially since consistency with a possibly irrational concept wouldn’t be that helpful.

There are 3 statements:

a) about a number being countable as a number.
b) about a series a whole series being countable as a series.
c) about a series containing only certain numbers.

Step 15 takes me from a) to c).

Since b) and c) are synonymous, you agreed with that before, so no new information is needed.

I didn’t agree that b) and c) were synonymous. That a series contains certain numbers that are countable as a number is not the same thing as saying that whole series is countable as a series.

14) an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be counted to from 0, is an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be moved through (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that as part of {0, ...} can be moved through (from 13 and 14)
16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} as part of {0, ...} (from 15)
17) if you can move through all members of {0, ...} as part of {0, ...} then you can move through {0, ...} as a series (premise)
18) you can move through {0, ...} as a series. (from 16 and 17)

Did that help?

Remembering we have two distinct concepts:
A number being countable/moved-through-able as a number
A series being entirely countable/moved-through-able as a series

It seems the bridge is now being attempted at 17). And you still aren’t backing that up; you’ve just added other premises about a). I’m putting in superscript A’s and B’s with countable/moved-through-able.

14) says a number being countableA is synonymous with a number being moved-through-ableA.

15) says the series contains only countableA/moved-through-ableA numbers.

16) rephrases 15)

17) is an unsupported premise that connects countableA/moved-through-ableA countableB/moved-through-ableB. What is your support for making this move? It hasn’t come in any previous premise. You are aware of this because you are justifying it as a premise instead of coming from other steps. So, justify the premise. I’ve never agreed to it being true.

[Bust Nak]

So, a married bachelor isn’t really a contradiction because we can just drop our ideas of what it means to be married and a bachelor?

Well, if there is a good reason to drop said ideas, then yes. And before you ask, good reasons to drop your ideas were given: scientists and mathematicians have better ideas than yours.

How is this different?

It's different because space can be expanding without the whole thing getting bigger.

How can unbounded things have different (magnitude) boundaries to their size?

Think integers vs decimal numbers. There are infinitely many decimal numbers between each pair of consecutive integers. I don't see anything here that would go against the difference between being finite and infinite.

The question is whether this thing is actually in one-to-one correspondence. One arbitrary way gets you the answer “yes” and another arbitrary way gets you the answer “no” to the same question.

Two sets are the same size if there is a one-to-one correspondence, so the question is, is there a one-to-one correspondence? "Yes" is the only correct answer.

Sure, but you need more than consistency, especially since consistency with a possibly irrational concept wouldn’t be that helpful.

I am sticking to my original answer: that scientists are seriously considering it, is enough to justify that it is a rational concept.

I didn’t agree that b) and c) were synonymous. That a series contains certain numbers that are countable as a number is not the same thing as saying that whole series is countable as a series.

You are missing the all important "only" qualifier here. A series contains certain numbers that are countable as a number is not the same thing as saying that whole series is countable as a series, because it might also contain numbers that are not countable as a number. But a series that only contains numbers that are countable as a number is the same thing as saying that whole series is countable as a series.

Just as a wall containing red bricks doesn't mean the wall is red, there might be blue bricks mixed in; but a wall containing only red bricks, is a red wall.

Remembering we have two distinct concepts... I’m putting in superscript A’s and B’s with countable/moved-through-able.

Yes, just as a brick is red is distinct from the wall is red. I fully accept that. There really isn't any need for you to reiterate this. I will update my proof to make it absolutely clear which concept I am referring to:

14) an integer that as part of {0, ...} can be counted to from 0, is an integer that is countableA/moved-through-ableA (premise)
15) {0, ...} contains only members that are countableA/moved-through-ableA (from 13 and 14)
16) all members of {0, ...} are countableA/moved-through-ableA (from 15)
17) if all members of {0, ...} are countableA/moved-through-ableA then {0, ...} is countableB/moved-through-ableB (premise)
18) {0, ...} is countableB/moved-through-ableB. (from 16 and 17)

It seems the bridge is now being attempted at 17). And you still aren’t backing that up...

17) is an unsupported premise that connects countableA/moved-through-ableA countableB/moved-through-ableB. What is your support for making this move? It hasn’t come in any previous premise. You are aware of this because you are justifying it as a premise instead of coming from other steps. So, justify the premise...

It's synonymous. Just as a wall that contains only red bricks, means the whole thing is a red wall, even though a brick is red is a distinct idea from the wall is red. I kept asking you, what does moving through a series even mean, if not being moving through each and every single one of its members? Because that's what it means to me.

I’ve never agreed to it being true.

Then you have to tell me what you meant when you said "a series being completed is a synonymous phrase to a series having each and every element of that series, as members of that series, being counted through" if not "a series is countableB/moved-through-ableB is a synonymous phrase to all members of a series are countableA/moved-through-ableA."