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]

That, what happens when subtracting infinities, that there are as many odd numbers as odd plus even numbers, different sizes of infinities, stuff like that.

What makes them new, as opposed to logical outcome following the definition?

If a Santa Claus story is consistent, is this enough to prove Santa Claus really exists?

Wait, "really exists" or "can really exist in reality?" Very different things. If a Santa Claus story is consistent, then that's enough to prove the story can really happen.

That what we observe about the universe would work if there was no center of the universe simply replaces that what we observe about the universe works if there is a center to the universe.

That's still 1 vs 1. No center is still 1 less than yes center.

I’m not sure how this supports your claim. Yes, it is true that (1) if there has to be a beginning to a series in order to reach 2 in that series, (2) then that series has to begin with some number. That’s what having a beginning means. This is definitionally true.

I don’t see why it is true that (1) if one cannot reach 2 in a series that is beginningless, (2) then there is some value of X that you cannot create a series with that X to where you cannot W and T and E. What does a truth about a beginningless series have to do with a truth about what kinds of series you can create with X in it?

We know that X cannot be 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, we know it cannot be any number at all.

[The Tanager]

Would you argue that GOD is an actual infinite presence which exists/has always existed in reality? Something else?

I do not think God is infinite in the sense we’ve been discussing here. God is not made up of an actual infinite number of parts or successive events. I do believe God is eternal, i.e., has always existed in reality.

If there is a proof for infinity being a quantity, then it mist be able to be observed in reality. The universe as we currently observe it, appears to qualify, as it is the best object representing the quantity of infinity.

Why do you think the universe qualifies as an actual infinite quantity?

If GOD exists as the Mind-Field regulating and shaping and ordering the universe, and GOD is infinite, then it can be said that this an argument for actual infinity existing in reality.

I agree this is valid, but do you have any evidence for the first part of this conditional statement?

[The Tanager]

What makes them new, as opposed to logical outcome following the definition?

It’s new/different from how math works with things we know are numbers.

Wait, "really exists" or "can really exist in reality?" Very different things. If a Santa Claus story is consistent, then that's enough to prove the story can really happen.

We are asking “can it really exist in reality?” I think I was misreading how you were using “consistent”. I was seeing a difference between contradiction and inconsistent, but now I don’t think you meant that. If I’m right, then what I’ve been saying is that the definition of an actual infinite has been assumed to be consistent and then mathematicians have applied math to the proposed number assuming the definition is consistent. But this isn’t enough to show actual consistency. That would be like putting a contradiction in a Santa Claus story and saying the story, as defined, is consistent and, therefore, could really be true.

That what we observe about the universe would work if there was no center of the universe simply replaces that what we observe about the universe works if there is a center to the universe.

That's still 1 vs 1. No center is still 1 less than yes center.

You must have mistyped the numbers there and, assuming that, I disagree. “No-center” isn’t a 0, it’s a 1 just like “yes-center” is a 1. A zero concept that seeks to explain such-and-such would be the complete absence of any concept. A “no-center” is a positive claim or concept about how things are arranged, not the absence of any concept.

I’m not sure how this supports your claim. Yes, it is true that (1) if there has to be a beginning to a series in order to reach 2 in that series, (2) then that series has to begin with some number. That’s what having a beginning means. This is definitionally true.

I don’t see why it is true that (1) if one cannot reach 2 in a series that is beginningless, (2) then there is some value of X that you cannot create a series with that X to where you cannot W and T and E. What does a truth about a beginningless series have to do with a truth about what kinds of series you can create with X in it?

We know that X cannot be 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, we know it cannot be any number at all.

With every one of those values for X we can create a series with that X to where you can W and T and E. Put them in series of this type: {P, …, X, …, 2}. This works for every value of X. Isn’t this what your proof is banking on since it is a Modus Tollens?

4.1) If X, then Y
4.2) Not Y
4.3) Therefore, not X (i.e., you can I and E)

My critique is why should we think the “If x” has anything to do with the “then Y”. Why would not being able to reach 2 in a beginningless series have anything to say about being able to create a series with X where you cannot W and T and E? That would be like this argument:

1) If God does not exist, then 2+2=5
2) 2+2 does not equal 5
3) Therefore, God does exist.

Valid, but not sound because there is no reason to accept premise 1. Why accept your premise 4.1?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #912]

Would you argue that GOD is an actual infinite presence which exists/has always existed in reality? Something else?

I do not think God is infinite in the sense we’ve been discussing here.

What have you and I been discussing here about the infinite, that it is enough for you to come to such a conclusion?
My perspective is that the thread title [ God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible] is incorrect - because, not only is Infinite Regression possible, but even if were actually the case, that wouldn't mean GOD mustn't exist.

God is not made up of an actual infinite number of parts or successive events.

Why not?
Is it because there is no such thing as an actual infinite number of parts or successive events?

I do believe God is eternal, i.e., has always existed in reality.

If there is a proof for infinity being a quantity, then it must be able to be observed in reality. The universe as we currently observe it, appears to qualify, as it is the best object representing the quantity of infinity.

Why do you think the universe qualifies as an actual infinite quantity?

What I wrote was that it appears to qualify as "the best object representing the quantity of infinity".
"Reality" in this instance, is referring to the universe, and how we do not know if it does or does not go on forever, but from our position within in, it certainly could do, and the mathematics appear to agree with this perspective or at the very least, encourage such type of thinking/understanding.

I agree this is valid, but do you have any evidence for the first part of this conditional statement?

The only evidence I can point to is the existence of mind itself. Mindfulness exists and interacts with matter.
I would say that what is not valid is the idea of an eternal GOD, because it cannot be concluded that this is the case, given the evidence.

An eternal realm overlaying an infinite realm appears to be an unnecessary layer.

William: Please make the summary comprehensive rather than brief.

GPT: Certainly, here's a more comprehensive summary of our discussion:
• We began by exploring the concepts of eternal and infinite, and how they are related. We discussed the idea that the eternal is a layer that overlays the infinite, and how this relates to the concept of an eternal GOD.
• We then turned to the question of whether there is evidence to support the idea of an eternal GOD. We discussed the argument that the existence of mind and mindfulness in the universe suggests the existence of a Mind-Field regulating and shaping the universe, which could be seen as evidence for an eternal GOD. However, we also noted that there are alternative explanations for the existence of mind and mindfulness that do not require the existence of an eternal GOD.
• We then turned our attention to the role of mathematics in understanding the natural world. We discussed the ongoing debate about whether mathematics is a human invention or a discovery, and how this relates to the idea of an eternal and unchanging overlay to the physical universe. We noted that while some philosophers and scientists argue that mathematics is a human invention, the fact that the laws of physics and the behavior of natural phenomena can be described and predicted using mathematical concepts and structures suggests that mathematics may reflect some fundamental features of the natural world that are independent of human thought or perception.
• Finally, we considered the idea that what is often referred to as "supernatural" may in fact be a natural aspect of reality that is not fully understood or explained within the current scientific framework. We discussed the limitations of human perception and sensory systems, and how this may prevent us from fully understanding or experiencing certain aspects of reality that exist beyond our immediate physical environment. We noted that the concept of the supernatural may in part arise from the limitations of our current scientific understanding, and that as we continue to develop new tools and methods for exploring and understanding the natural world, we may be able to better explain and understand phenomena that are currently considered supernatural.

Overall, our discussion touched on a range of philosophical and scientific topics related to the nature of reality, and the ways in which humans seek to understand and explain it. We approached these topics with an open-minded and critical perspective, and engaged in respectful and thoughtful dialogue in order to better understand the various arguments and evidence that support different positions. RESOURCE

[The Tanager]

What have you and I been discussing here about the infinite, that it is enough for you to come to such a conclusion?

Most of my discussion has been with Bust Nak. We’ve been discussing two specific ideas of infinity. The main focus has been on actual infinity. You responded to something I said in a post to Bust Nak, with that context in play. Keeping that in mind, I have every reason to come to the conclusion that I don’t think God is an actual infinite.

My perspective is that the thread title [ God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible] is incorrect - because, not only is Infinite Regression possible, but even if were actually the case, that wouldn't mean GOD mustn't exist.

I have seen no good reason to think an infinite regression is possible in anything but concept, but I agree with you that if it was possible this wouldn’t mean God mustn’t exist.

Why not?
Is it because there is no such thing as an actual infinite number of parts or successive events?

Well, yes and no. No, because it would be question-begging to put the answer to this question one way or the other into the very definition of God. But, yes, in the sense that if God exists (and I think there is a good cumulative case that God does), God couldn’t be an actual infinite because such things don’t exist.

"Reality" in this instance, is referring to the universe, and how we do not know if it does or does not go on forever, but from our position within in, it certainly could do, and the mathematics appear to agree with this perspective or at the very least, encourage such type of thinking/understanding.

Why do you think it certainly could go on forever? And why do you think mathematics appears to agree with this perspective? Infinite mathematics is built off the assumption that such a thing could exist, but provides no actual proof that it does as far as I can tell. Where is the proof that it’s more than an assumption? If the encouragement is based on mere assumption, then why should we follow such encouragement?

The only evidence I can point to is the existence of mind itself. Mindfulness exists and interacts with matter.

Why does that point to God existing as the Mind-Field regulating and shaping the universe? Perhaps you could explain those concepts better, so that I get a clearer picture of what you are actually claiming?

I would say that what is not valid is the idea of an eternal GOD, because it cannot be concluded that this is the case, given the evidence.

I was using “valid” in its technical sense regarding the form of your argument. You seem to use “valid” as something like “true” regarding the idea of an eternal God. I wasn’t claiming that here, although I do think there is good evidence for that conclusion. That would be a tangent, though.

An eternal realm overlaying an infinite realm appears to be an unnecessary layer.

In your posts to me, you haven’t given reasons to believe there is an infinite realm and I’m not simply overlaying an eternal realm on top of an infinite realm. If you’ve given reasons for that to others, I could have missed them because I haven’t read all of your posts in this thread.

Are you saying the chat you had with ChatGPT supports the claim that an eternal realm overlaying an infinite realm appears to be an unnecessary layer? If so, it would be helpful for you to highlight the part of that chat that you think shows this, so that I’m less likely to misunderstand you or miss it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #915]

Most of my discussion has been with Bust Nak. We’ve been discussing two specific ideas of infinity. The main focus has been on actual infinity. You responded to something I said in a post to Bust Nak, with that context in play. Keeping that in mind, I have every reason to come to the conclusion that I don’t think God is an actual infinite.

I quoted you in context to something I wrote in my replies to JK. I was not specifically replying to JK alone, but rather to any reader choosing to read/respond to what I wrote.

I have seen no good reason to think an infinite regression is possible in anything but concept, but I agree with you that if it was possible this wouldn’t mean God mustn’t exist.

My own posts in this thread already have examples of infinite regression [as well as infinite progression] and mathematics - although thought of as conceptually infinite - is another example.

Even if this universe is not actually infinite, this would not exclude GOD either existing OR being the overall MIND involved with its formation of things which altogether make up what it is.

God is not made up of an actual infinite number of parts or successive events.

Why not?
Is it because there is no such thing as an actual infinite number of parts or successive events?

Well, yes and no. No, because it would be question-begging to put the answer to this question one way or the other into the very definition of God. But, yes, in the sense that if God exists (and I think there is a good cumulative case that God does), God couldn’t be an actual infinite because such things don’t exist.

To clarify, is your argument saying that the existence of God is necessary in order to avoid an infinite regression of causes, and that an actual infinite number of causes or events is impossible?
You will need to expand on your response and explain how you can simultaneously believe that it would be question-begging to include the answer to my question in the definition of God, while also believing that actual infinities do not exist and therefore God could not be an actual infinite.

Why do you think it certainly could go on forever? And why do you think mathematics appears to agree with this perspective? Infinite mathematics is built off the assumption that such a thing could exist, but provides no actual proof that it does as far as I can tell. Where is the proof that it’s more than an assumption? If the encouragement is based on mere assumption, then why should we follow such encouragement?

Because it's important to strive for simplicity and clarity when examining complex issues, including questions about the nature of the universe and the existence of God, thus it is important to remove any layers which only serve to complicate an already complicated thing.
Current scientific theories and observations that suggest the universe may be infinite, such as the fact that it appears to be expanding without limit, or the idea that space-time may be curved and infinite. Additionally, mathematical models and theories, such as those used in cosmology and astrophysics, often rely on assumptions about the nature of infinity and the possibility of infinite universes or timelines. While these may not provide absolute proof, they can provide strong evidence in support of the idea that infinity is a valid concept in the study of the universe.

Adding to that, the assumption of infinity is not only used in the study of the universe but in many branches of mathematics, such as calculus and set theory, which have proven to be highly successful in modeling physical phenomena. Therefore, while we may not have conclusive proof of the existence of infinity, the fact that it is such a useful and pervasive concept in mathematics and physics suggests that it is a valid and meaningful concept in the study of the universe.

Are you saying the chat you had with ChatGPT supports the claim that an eternal realm overlaying an infinite realm appears to be an unnecessary layer? If so, it would be helpful for you to highlight the part of that chat that you think shows this, so that I’m less likely to misunderstand you or miss it.

The resource is included as a link to the whole conversation between GPT and I.
If it is your argument that an actual other layer exists, this complicates something which I do not think needs to be complicated any more than it already is.
Specific to my reasoning, "mind" is not just something which Humans have, as per the following quote from said interaction resource:

William: If mathematics may be an invention of the human mind, then the scientific description given of mathematics, would be a misleading one.

GPT: It is true that some philosophers and scientists argue that mathematics is a human invention, rather than a feature of the natural world. From this perspective, mathematical concepts and structures are seen as products of human thought and imagination, rather than as objective features of the physical universe.

However, it is important to note that this view is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate and discussion among philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists about the nature and status of mathematical concepts and structures. Some argue that mathematical concepts are discovered, rather than invented, and that they reflect fundamental features of the natural world that are independent of human thought or perception.

Regardless of whether mathematics is seen as an invention or a discovery, it is clear that the scientific description of mathematics is an important tool for understanding and working with mathematical concepts and structures. The scientific description of mathematics typically involves the use of symbols, notation, and formal rules to describe and manipulate mathematical objects and relationships. This description is not necessarily misleading, even if it is based on a human invention or abstraction, since it allows us to communicate and reason about mathematical concepts and structures in a precise and rigorous way.

William: Therefore, since it allows us to examine the formations of matter, and we gain such sure information through study and application, it would appear that the argument that humans invented mathematics rather than discovered mathematics, is vainglorious and akin to saying that humans therefore invented the universe.

GPT: It is true that mathematics has proven to be an incredibly useful tool for studying and understanding the natural world, including the formations of matter. The scientific description of mathematics allows us to make precise and accurate predictions about the behavior of physical systems, and has led to many important discoveries and technological innovations.

While some philosophers and scientists argue that mathematics is a human invention, rather than a discovery, it is clear that the use of mathematics has been critical for our understanding of the physical universe. The fact that mathematical concepts and structures have proven to be so useful for describing and predicting natural phenomena suggests that they reflect some fundamental features of the natural world, whether these features are seen as discovered or invented.

Overall, the relationship between mathematics and the natural world is complex and multifaceted, and involves ongoing debate and discussion among philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists. While the view that mathematics is a human invention is one that has been proposed and debated, it is clear that the scientific description of mathematics has proven to be an invaluable tool for understanding and exploring the formations of matter and other aspects of the physical universe.

William: The major point of evidence against humans inventing mathematics is that the universe has been operating on mathematics since before humans even existed.

GPT: That is a valid point. The fact that the laws of physics and the behavior of natural phenomena can be described and predicted using mathematical concepts and structures suggests that mathematics is not merely a human invention, but rather reflects some fundamental features of the natural world.

The fact that mathematics has proven to be such a useful tool for understanding and exploring the universe suggests that it is a discovery, rather than an invention. While humans may have developed the specific notations and symbols used to represent mathematical concepts, the underlying concepts and structures themselves appear to be independent of human thought and perception.

Overall, while there is ongoing debate and discussion among philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists about the nature and status of mathematical concepts and structures, it is clear that mathematics plays a crucial role in our understanding of the natural world. The fact that the universe appears to operate according to mathematical laws and principles is a compelling piece of evidence in favor of the idea that mathematics is a discovery, rather than an invention.

William: And given that mathematics in its undiscovered state is timeless and unchanging, this can be regarded as further evidence supporting the existence of a timeless and unchanging overlay to this Spacetime reality – the Physical Universe.

However, the discussion also goes on to note:

William: I think it can be argued that what is referred to as “a transcendent realm” may simply appear to be that way because it cannot be observed as an aspect of our own Universe…so is thought of as being separate, if indeed it exists at all…

GPT: That is a valid point. The concept of a transcendent realm beyond the physical universe may be seen as a way of accounting for aspects of reality that cannot be fully explained or understood within the framework of our current scientific understanding. Whether this transcendent realm actually exists, and whether it is truly separate from the physical universe, is a matter of ongoing philosophical and scientific inquiry.

It is important to approach these topics with an open-minded and critical perspective, and to engage in respectful and thoughtful dialogue in order to better understand the various arguments and evidence that support different positions. While some people may find the idea of a transcendent realm compelling or necessary to explain the nature of reality, others may not find such an idea convincing or necessary, and may argue that all aspects of reality can be fully explained and understood within the framework of our current scientific understanding.

William: And in regard to human minds, it may be the nature of the human form and sensory system [preventing human minds from seeing] this aspect as being part of - rather than separate from – the physical universe.

GPT: That is also a valid point. The limitations of human perception and sensory systems may prevent us from fully understanding or experiencing certain aspects of reality that exist beyond our immediate physical environment. It is possible that the concept of a transcendent realm beyond the physical universe arises in part from the limitations of our own sensory experience and our inability to directly observe certain aspects of reality.

However, it is important to note that while our perceptions and sensory systems may be limited, human beings have developed a wide range of scientific tools and methods for exploring and understanding the natural world. Through the use of scientific instruments and techniques, we are able to observe and study phenomena that would otherwise be beyond our perceptual abilities.

Overall, the relationship between human perception, the limitations of our sensory systems, and the concept of a transcendent realm beyond the physical universe is complex and multifaceted, and involves a wide range of philosophical, scientific, and cultural perspectives. It is important to approach these topics with an open-minded and critical perspective, and to engage in respectful and thoughtful dialogue in order to better understand the various arguments and evidence that support different positions.

[Bust Nak]

It’s new/different from how math works with things we know are numbers.

Isn't that to be expected when you introduce a new kind of numbers?

We are asking “can it really exist in reality?” I think I was misreading how you were using “consistent”. I was seeing a difference between contradiction and inconsistent, but now I don’t think you meant that. If I’m right, then what I’ve been saying is that the definition of an actual infinite has been assumed to be consistent and then mathematicians have applied math to the proposed number assuming the definition is consistent. But this isn’t enough to show actual consistency.

Isn't it?

That would be like putting a contradiction in a Santa Claus story and saying the story, as defined, is consistent and, therefore, could really be true.

I don't understand what you are saying here, how is it still consistent when there is a contradiction placed in it?

You must have mistyped the numbers there and, assuming that, I disagree. “No-center” isn’t a 0, it’s a 1 just like “yes-center” is a 1. A zero concept that seeks to explain such-and-such would be the complete absence of any concept. A “no-center” is a positive claim or concept about how things are arranged, not the absence of any concept.

But like I said 1 less instance of a concept.

Why accept your premise 4.1?

I think you got me. You shouldn't accept 4.1, it made sense to me before, now it doesn't. I was thinking something along the lines of if every sequence have to a beginning, then a sequence has to have a lowest number, but that lowest number can't be 0, and it can't be -1 and so on, so it cannot be the case that every sequence have to a beginning.

[The Tanager]

I quoted you in context to something I wrote in my replies to JK. I was not specifically replying to JK alone, but rather to any reader choosing to read/respond to what I wrote.

You directly asked me a question about a post I wrote. How should I know that you changed the context from my post to all that you were speaking to JK? You may want to make that clearer in the future.

My own posts in this thread already have examples of infinite regression [as well as infinite progression] and mathematics - although thought of as conceptually infinite - is another example.

And I responded to those addressed as responses to my posts, still seeing no good reason to believe these examples show actual infinity to be a thing in reality. I may simply be wrong in analyzing what you shared, so I’m not asking you to repeat or share more. We can certainly leave this as a disagreement between us.

Even if this universe is not actually infinite, this would not exclude GOD either existing OR being the overall MIND involved with its formation of things which altogether make up what it is.

I agree. It neither counts against nor for your belief there.

To clarify, is your argument saying that the existence of God is necessary in order to avoid an infinite regression of causes, and that an actual infinite number of causes or events is impossible?

I have made the argument that an actual infinite number of causes or events is impossible. I have not made an argument here that the existence of God is necessary in order to avoid an infinite regression of causes, but I do think the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes does point to the existence of God in an argument like the Kalam.

You will need to expand on your response and explain how you can simultaneously believe that it would be question-begging to include the answer to my question in the definition of God, while also believing that actual infinities do not exist and therefore God could not be an actual infinite.

You asked me why I think God is not made up of an actual infinite number of parts. If I simply defined God that way, then I would be begging the question. That seems quite clear to me. Do you agree?

At the same time, for reasons I’ve shared in this thread, I do not believe actual infinities can exist and, therefore, if God exists, God could not be an actual infinity.

I’m not sure why you think these two thoughts are contradictory. Where do they contradict each other?

Current scientific theories and observations that suggest the universe may be infinite, such as the fact that it appears to be expanding without limit, or the idea that space-time may be curved and infinite. Additionally, mathematical models and theories, such as those used in cosmology and astrophysics, often rely on assumptions about the nature of infinity and the possibility of infinite universes or timelines. While these may not provide absolute proof, they can provide strong evidence in support of the idea that infinity is a valid concept in the study of the universe.

Expanding without a limit is a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. The idea that space-time may be infinite has no evidential backing to it; these theories just assume it. The mathematical models and theories do rely on assumptions which is not a rational thing to do. This isn’t strong evidence but faith-based evidence.

Adding to that, the assumption of infinity is not only used in the study of the universe but in many branches of mathematics, such as calculus and set theory, which have proven to be highly successful in modeling physical phenomena. Therefore, while we may not have conclusive proof of the existence of infinity, the fact that it is such a useful and pervasive concept in mathematics and physics suggests that it is a valid and meaningful concept in the study of the universe.

Infinity as an idea can be helpful, yes. The history of scientific discovery is full of useful fictions. I’m not saying it’s not helpful, but there is no reason to think an actual infinity can exist in reality as far as I can see.

The resource is included as a link to the whole conversation between GPT and I.
If it is your argument that an actual other layer exists, this complicates something which I do not think needs to be complicated any more than it already is.

I am not claiming an eternal realm is a layer that overlays an infinite realm. I’m not even sure exactly what you or the ChatGPT means by that.

Specific to my reasoning, "mind" is not just something which Humans have

I agree.

[The Tanager]

Isn't that to be expected when you introduce a new kind of numbers?

Who knows? Maybe the differences mean it should be called something else. You seem to want to still treat it as a number in some ways, but say it shouldn’t be treated like other numbers in other ways. How do we objectively draw the line as to what is allowed and what isn’t?

Isn't it?

Is it? Applying math to a square circle may get us some answers and some contradictions, but this doesn’t mean the definition is of a consistent object.

I don't understand what you are saying here, how is it still consistent when there is a contradiction placed in it?

That’s the point. If the definition has a later-found-out contradiction that it leads to, it was never consistent.

But like I said 1 less instance of a concept.

But it’s not. It’s 1 concept (no-center) and the rest of the claims about the universe versus 1 concept (yes-center) and the rest of the claims about the universe.

I think you got me. You shouldn't accept 4.1, it made sense to me before, now it doesn't. I was thinking something along the lines of if every sequence have to a beginning, then a sequence has to have a lowest number, but that lowest number can't be 0, and it can't be -1 and so on, so it cannot be the case that every sequence have to a beginning.

I’m sorry for my previous misunderstandings that also confused things. So, we are back to what your proof for being able to reach E in a beginningless series is.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #918]

It neither counts against nor for your belief there.

What belief are you referring to there?

Expanding without a limit is a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. The idea that space-time may be infinite has no evidential backing to it; these theories just assume it. The mathematical models and theories do rely on assumptions which is not a rational thing to do. This isn’t strong evidence but faith-based evidence.

Is that what you are arguing then?
I don't think such evidence is faith-based because it doesn't appear to have any motive to direct. Can you give some examples as to why you think such thinking is faith-based?

Expanding without a limit is a potential infinite, not an actual infinite.

My understanding is different in that regard. As I mentioned to the reader in my interaction with JK;

Perhaps in this future-merging, ma and pa god retain their individual-ness and simply find a way to agree and then, at whatever point after that, use their minds more effectively and at the very end when all matter finally gets-gone neked and invisible - they will "look at each other" in the mind and always say the same thing ever time...

"That was AWESOME! Lets do it again! Only "differently"!

[and away "they" go]

That Mind then seeds the quantum world of particles with new instructions and "BANG!" off it goes again...and probably stopped counting how many times It has done this stuff...'cause it ain't important in the grand scheme of "things"...

"Expanding without a limit" appears to accurately describe an infinite thing. An actual infinite can be seen as a process which can continue infinitely and include begin and end points as part of that overall process, so conceptually - an actual infinite number of causes or events is possible in linear fashion. but I think you are arguing that these are limited events in that they have timelines with beginnings and endings and so you do not see them individually as actually infinite, whereas I can conceptualize the process which creates beginnings and ends as never having had an actual beginning or an end.

Infinity as an idea can be helpful, yes. The history of scientific discovery is full of useful fictions. I’m not saying it’s not helpful, but there is no reason to think an actual infinity can exist in reality as far as I can see.

Perhaps that is the significant distinction between our views.

I am keeping my conceptualizations relative to this one reality being experienced and working off of that.
In that, the idea of beginnings and endings is that these produce a reality experience. I think that the only REAL/actual thing is that which is having the experience, and it is that same actual thing, which allows for the experience of things, to be had.

And for now, the experience being had is this particular manifestation of a reality we refer to as "The Universe".

So "actual infinity" cannot exist as something which has beginnings and ends, but something which has beginnings and ends can exist as an actual infinite process.

As to there being an "actual infinity", that would be the process through which an "actual eternal mind" could experience infinitely.