God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Infinite regression [and infinite progression] are concepts which appear to derive from concepts of eternity/infinity.

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

Or
C. Goes through a process of beginnings and endings and has done so for eternity, in one form or another, perhaps never repeating the exact same universe, ever again.

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

1: We cannot conclude that GOD is necessarily supernatural .
2: If so, then there is also no reason to think that infinite regression [as well as infinite progression] isn't part of this as an accompanying process the Mind of GOD is involved with/has always been involved with.
3: Magical thinking. It is enough that a being can create something out of something which wasn't there before, rather than to make magical assumptions that it can create things from a non-thing.
4: The inference appears to be that a Mind has to have a form in which to be a mind within and have free will. A Mind that is being, should suffice because material creations take up the form in which the Mind experiences things through. In this way, neither the form nor the Mind the form is experiencing being a mind through, need be thought of as "supernatural" or "magical".

[William]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #925]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #926]

Thanks for your explaining why the subject of actual infinity has been included in this thread.

For now, I have nothing to comment on either of those posts, but may refer back to them if I think there is something which can be tied into the 3rd post you made and my reply to that.

It is the subject matter being argued in the 3rd post which ties in with what I was answering JK's question as to why we have to consider an unmade entity being responsible for creating our universe, when we are not willing to grant that our universe might also have the properties of being unmade - or in other words - the product of its own creation.

I agreed with JK on this point, IF it could also be accepted that a MIND is also involved and it is that Mind which shapes into "things" and that the Mind is as much a product of the matter, as the matter is a product of the Mind.

In this manner, Mind and Matter are of the same "Thing" rather than the one being separate from the other, and in that - having the Separate Mind thus create the universe as a separate thing from itself, by the Mind being claimed as existing outside of the actual universe, as the premises of the OP are clearly claiming.

The theory being, that for JK to have his cake and eat it, this can be achieved by NOT separating the Mind from the Matter, [or claiming the Matter has no Mind] which requires that we NOT claim a "supernatural" Mind outside of the Natural Universe, and do not need to if there is ANY evidence of Mind interacting with Matter, of which we can all agree that there IS, because - well -that is the nature of our experience. We humans are among the forms which display said Mind, but not that alone, as it is also my observation that The Planet itself can be attributed with having a Mind, since what comes from the planet as formations, also have minds.

This also leads to the argument that if planet earth has a mind, why shouldn't all the planets and stars and galaxies have minds?
This is also valid, given our particular biological state re how the earth produces forms which can house minds.
However, we are limited re those forms and thus can only detect mindfulness -primarily in biological life forms, of which the earth is altogether one such example.
We cannot so easily detect mindfulness in the Sun, or in the planet Saturn, because we are primarily focused upon looking for and finding said Mind working through the activities of biological life forms.

So, while it may be possible for the Sun to be sentient, it is not so easy to verify.
And likewise for a gas giant, as it may be possible for one to place mindfulness into gaseous forms, but there is no known way as yet, in how to verify mindfulness in such structures.

What we do have, is clearly enough evidence to allow for the idea to be on the table, which is what my overall point re JK's question, is making.

[The Tanager]