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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #937]

Then replace natural/supernatural with material/immaterial in everything I’ve said here, because I’ve been using those as synonyms. In the argument in the OP, replace “universe” with “all material existence.”

1. If God does not exist, then “all of material existence” is past eternal.
2. If “all of material existence” is not past eternal, then God exists.
3. “All of material existence” is not past eternal.
4. An Uncaused Cause (UCC) to “all of material existence” must exist

Your disagreement in these last posts seems to be around #3 above. You think matter is eternal, right?

As I mentioned:
I think the idea that a supernatural mind created this universe introduces unnecessary complexity and assumptions. Instead, it seems more reasonable to propose that matter is simply an organized manifestation of thoughts within The Mind itself. In this sense, Matter is simply the outward manifestation of organized thoughts within The Mind, which creates the illusion of a separate physical universe for our minds experiencing the physical universe. Therefore, I think that mind and matter are aspects of the same thing and operate within this universe, as the evidence of mind interacting with matter necessarily supports that notion.
The notion itself simply requires no “super” natural Mind to have to exist, which in turn allows for the valid question JK and others ask, re “why is it necessary to have an eternal God but not an eternal universe?”

I also mentioned:
Matter in its non-objectified state, is simply Mind without organised objects, and altogether is the “space” which the Mind IS, in which objects of organised Matter can be created.

(a) Your support for matter being eternal seems to be:

As for the scientific evidence, we can look at the laws of physics, which describe how matter and energy interact and behave within the universe. We can also observe the universe through telescopes and other instruments, studying its origins, structure, and evolution. Additionally, the fact that minds and consciousness appear to arise from physical processes within the brain is evidence that consciousness is a natural phenomenon that emerges from within the universe itself, rather than being imposed from an external supernatural force or deity.

We have no evidence that minds and consciousness appear from physical processes within the brain; we simply have evidence that consciousness in material beings has natural phenomenon associated with it. Of course it does. This says nothing about whether mind and matter can exist separately from each other.

To clarify:
I have not been arguing that consciousness is a product of the brain. Indeed, the brain counts as organised matter, along with every other thing in the universe.

Rather, I have been arguing that consciousness is a natural phenomenon that appears to emerge from within the organized matter. Human consciousness is the sentience that emerges from within the experience itself through combination of the human brain/sensory system and The Mind which organises the matter.

What does emerge from the combination of the human brain/sensory system and The Mind is a personality, not consciousness/sentience.

As for the notion that mind and matter can exist separately from each other, there is no evidence of this and the point is that they don't necessarily have to.
In the proposed perspective, matter is an organized manifestation of thoughts within The Mind itself. The universe, as we experience it, is simply the outward manifestation of organized thoughts within the Mind. Therefore, mind and matter are different aspects of the same thing and operate within this universe. Human consciousness is a natural phenomenon that emerges from the interaction of the brain/sensory system and the Mind within the universe, rather than being imposed from an external supernatural force or deity.

(b) Your critique of the OP’s support seems to be:

Based on our overall discussion, it seems that the crux of the issue here is the assumption that space-time and matter came into existence at some point in the past, as opposed to being eternal.

It’s not an assumption. There is an argument for it. If “all of material existence” is past eternal, then the causal chain of events within “all of material existence” would be infinite. But this is impossible because infinity cannot be transversed or “reached”. What do you find wrong here?

The argument for the past-eternality of "all material existence" is based on the assumption that an infinite causal chain of events is impossible because infinity cannot be traversed or "reached." However, this assumption is not necessarily reflective of the true nature of reality, and therefore cannot be used as a definitive argument against the past-eternality of Matter.

Furthermore, the concept of time is not necessarily relevant to the argument at hand. While a mind might exist independently of time, it cannot exist independently of the matter that can be organized.

In a state of Timelessness, The Mind can "idle away," perhaps thinking about how to organize matter based upon what it experienced in the last manifestation of objective organized matter. In this way, the organization of matter can be seen as an ongoing process, rather than a one-time event.

The idea of an eternal and infinite cycle of creation and manifestation of universes - itself without any beginning or end - can be seen as a possibility within the proposed perspective. The Mind is eternal, and the creation and manifestation of each successive universe are simply part of its ongoing existence. The matter itself can be seen as a tool or medium for The Mind to express itself and experience its own creation in different ways.

__________________-

William: Timelessness is the point in between ends and beginnings.

GPT: That's an interesting perspective. In a timeless state, there is no sense of past, present, or future, and therefore no sense of beginnings or ends. It is a state of pure potentiality, where all possibilities exist without being limited by time or space. This is a concept that has been explored in various philosophical and spiritual traditions, and it raises questions about the nature of existence and the relationship between mind and matter.

William: The Mind can retain a sense/knowledge of beginnings and ends while within a Timeless state.

GPT: Yes, that is certainly possible. Timelessness refers to the absence of the conventional understanding of time, which is a measure of the duration between two events. In a timeless state, there is no before or after, no past or future. However, it does not necessarily mean that there is a loss of knowledge or understanding of the concept of beginnings and endings. The Mind can still have a sense of the order and sequence of events, but it is not bound by the constraints of time as we commonly understand it.

William: Indeed. The Mind “floating” in a Timeless environment, would need to retain the data of experience it had throughout any organisation of matter and movement, in order to use said data in relation to the next thing it creates as to what it thinks should be the next thing it creates.

GPT: Yes, that makes sense. The Mind would need to retain its memories and knowledge from previous manifestations in order to use that information to create the next manifestation of the universe. This also ties into the idea that The Mind is constantly learning and evolving, and that each new manifestation of the universe is a result of that ongoing growth and development.

[The Tanager]

As for the notion that mind and matter can exist separately from each other, there is no evidence of this and the point is that they don't necessarily have to.

I agree, considered in themselves, they don’t necessarily have to. But the OP presented an argument, that if sound, shows that matter had a real beginning and needs an eternal immaterial cause for its existence. If it is sound, then this shows that mind did exist separate from matter. So, to rationally maintain your belief here you need to show the error with the argument rather than simply propose a theoretical alternative that ignores (I don’t mean that perjoratively) the data of the OP argument.

The argument for the past-eternality of "all material existence" is based on the assumption that an infinite causal chain of events is impossible because infinity cannot be traversed or "reached." However, this assumption is not necessarily reflective of the true nature of reality, and therefore cannot be used as a definitive argument against the past-eternality of Matter.

It isn’t an assumption. Infinity actually cannot be traversed or “reached”.

Furthermore, the concept of time is not necessarily relevant to the argument at hand. While a mind might exist independently of time, it cannot exist independently of the matter that can be organized.

What support do you have for mind not being able to exist independently of matter?

In a state of Timelessness, The Mind can "idle away," perhaps thinking about how to organize matter based upon what it experienced in the last manifestation of objective organized matter. In this way, the organization of matter can be seen as an ongoing process, rather than a one-time event.

The idea of an eternal and infinite cycle of creation and manifestation of universes - itself without any beginning or end - can be seen as a possibility within the proposed perspective. The Mind is eternal, and the creation and manifestation of each successive universe are simply part of its ongoing existence. The matter itself can be seen as a tool or medium for The Mind to express itself and experience its own creation in different ways.

Eternally cyclical time is logical nonsense. It requires time to exist before time existed. That’s clearly illogical.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #942]

As for the notion that mind and matter can exist separately from each other, there is no evidence of this and the point is that they don't necessarily have to.

I agree, considered in themselves, they don’t necessarily have to. But the OP presented an argument, that if sound, shows that matter had a real beginning and needs an eternal immaterial cause for its existence. If it is sound, then this shows that mind did exist separate from matter. So, to rationally maintain your belief here you need to show the error with the argument rather than simply propose a theoretical alternative that ignores (I don’t mean that perjoratively) the data of the OP argument.

The argument is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning and that natural causes cannot account for the origin of the universe. Therefore, the argument concludes that an uncaused supernatural cause must exist, which is traditionally recognized as God.

I do not have to agree with the premise before making a counter-argument. In fact, counter-arguments are an essential part of any rational discourse, and are meant to challenge and scrutinize the validity of the initial premise or argument. It is perfectly acceptable to present alternative explanations or to challenge the reasoning and evidence presented in the original argument.

First Point:

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...

I have already argued:
Re the notion that mind and matter can exist separately from each other, there is no evidence of this and the point is that they don't necessarily have to. We can consider the possibility that mind and matter are two aspects of the same reality, and that the natural laws governing matter are simply an expression of the mental or consciousness aspect of reality.

Second Point:

OP: 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....

I previously raised a counter argument to this point, stating that the existence of natural laws and processes could account for the origin of the universe without the need for a supernatural cause. Additionally, I suggested that the concept of a "beginning" of the universe may not be meaningful in the way that we currently understand time and causality.

I also pointed out a possible alternative to this in the idea that “where nature stops” is the same idea as "Timelessness" where The Mind “rests” in between organizing matter."

Third Point:

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.

In my view, the concept of infinite regression and progression is not only possible but probable, and the process could have always been happening and always will happen. I argue that mind is always the first cause of organized matter, and unorganized matter is the identified "timeless" sector between a prior and a potential next Organized Matter Event (OME).

Therefore, there is no need for an uncaused cause or a supernatural being to explain the existence of the universe. Rather, the universe's existence can be explained by the perpetual cycle of organized matter events (where Time occurs) and unorganized matter (where Timelessness occurs...)

As to the sandman analogy, a hole is typically defined as an empty space or opening in a solid object, and it is usually bounded by the solid object itself. Without the boundaries of the solid object, it is difficult to imagine what a "hole" could actually be.

It seems that the analogy used in point 3 may not be entirely effective in supporting the argument being made. The Sandman analogy is meant to illustrate the idea that an infinite chain of cause and effect is impossible, but it is open to criticism on the grounds that it assumes a specific type of infinite regression which may not be applicable to the alternate concept of an eternal universe I have presented as counterargument to the OP claim.

Thus, I have addressed the issue with the Sandman analogy and how it is not an accurate representation of the concept of past-eternity. Additionally, I have argued that the idea of infinite progression and regression is possible and that the concept of timelessness can exist as the event between organized matter events. Thus, while the OP uses the Sandman analogy to support their argument that a beginning foundation is necessary, I have provided alternative perspectives and arguments that challenge that assertion.

As to the final point of the OP, I have already discussed point 4 in previous interactions. In my previous responses, I questioned the assumption that an uncaused cause must necessarily exist as a supernatural mind and have suggested that it is possible that The Mind has always existed and that it is better to think there is a natural cause for the universe's existence re said Mind.

I have repeatedly raised objections to the idea that the uncaused cause must be a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being with free will and the power to create from nothing.

The assumptions made in the OP are not necessarily supported by the presented argument and can be challenged. It's important to critically examine the premises and assumptions of any argument before accepting its conclusion.

The argument for the past-eternality of "all material existence" is based on the assumption that an infinite causal chain of events is impossible because infinity cannot be traversed or "reached." However, this assumption is not necessarily reflective of the true nature of reality, and therefore cannot be used as a definitive argument against the past-eternality of Matter.

It isn’t an assumption. Infinity actually cannot be traversed or “reached”.

It is correct that infinity cannot be traversed or "reached" in a literal sense. However, this does not necessarily mean that an infinite causal chain of events is impossible. It is possible that time, and therefore causality, could have a different nature than our human experience of it, and that an infinite causal chain could still be possible in such a context.
I made the argument that it is fallacious to assume that what is impossible for a human mind is also impossible for an eternal Mind. Therefore, the possibility of an infinite causal chain of events cannot be ruled out based on the assumption that infinity cannot be traversed or "reached" by a mind having a temporary human experience.

Furthermore, the concept of time is not necessarily relevant to the argument at hand. While a mind might exist independently of time, it cannot exist independently of the matter that can be organized.

What support do you have for mind not being able to exist independently of matter?

You misinterpreted my argument and presented a strawman argument. I specifically stated that the mind cannot exist independently of the matter that can be organized, and you shifted the focus to the mind existing independently of matter altogether.

There is a reason why I have been bolding the word "organized" in the recent posts I have made.

In a state of Timelessness, The Mind can "idle away," perhaps thinking about how to organize matter based upon what it experienced in the last manifestation of objective organized matter. In this way, the organization of matter can be seen as an ongoing process, rather than a one-time event.

The idea of an eternal and infinite cycle of creation and manifestation of universes - itself without any beginning or end - can be seen as a possibility within the proposed perspective. The Mind is eternal, and the creation and manifestation of each successive universe are simply part of its ongoing existence. The matter itself can be seen as a tool or medium for The Mind to express itself and experience its own creation in different ways.

Eternally cyclical time is logical nonsense. It requires time to exist before time existed. That’s clearly illogical.

And again you have presented a strawman argument as your argument does not fully address the point I made, which is that the concept of a cyclical creation and manifestation of universes is possible within a perspective that includes a timeless state in which The Mind is able to be in prior to another organize matter event. The idea of a timeless state between cycles addresses the issue because of a state of timelessness existing before time, which is the point that your argument seems to overlook.

See Also:
Post #120
Post #124
Post #131
Post #139
Post #143
Post #146
Post #156
Post #159
Post #161
Post #196
Post #229
Post #896
Post #901

[The Tanager]

The argument is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning and that natural causes cannot account for the origin of the universe. Therefore, the argument concludes that an uncaused supernatural cause must exist, which is traditionally recognized as God.

No, it isn’t based on assumption. There is actual support offered (sketched in the OP, but expounded upon in other posts and elsewhere).

I do not have to agree with the premise before making a counter-argument. In fact, counter-arguments are an essential part of any rational discourse, and are meant to challenge and scrutinize the validity of the initial premise or argument. It is perfectly acceptable to present alternative explanations or to challenge the reasoning and evidence presented in the original argument.

You misunderstood me. It seems to me that you haven’t responded to the argument, but instead have proposed an alternative theory and talked about how it is logically possible, without any reference to the argument in the OP, which calls your alternative into question.

First Point:
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…

I have already argued:
Re the notion that mind and matter can exist separately from each other, there is no evidence of this and the point is that they don't necessarily have to. We can consider the possibility that mind and matter are two aspects of the same reality, and that the natural laws governing matter are simply an expression of the mental or consciousness aspect of reality.

How does mind and matter being two aspects of reality contradict this premise?

Second Point:

OP: 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....

I previously raised a counter argument to this point, stating that the existence of natural laws and processes could account for the origin of the universe without the need for a supernatural cause. Additionally, I suggested that the concept of a "beginning" of the universe may not be meaningful in the way that we currently understand time and causality.

I also pointed out a possible alternative to this in the idea that “where nature stops” is the same idea as "Timelessness" where The Mind “rests” in between organizing matter."

Why do you think natural laws are things that have causal powers? These laws are just ways we talk about how the physical world works; they aren’t things themselves. They are descriptions of the powers and natures that physical things have.

As to suggesting “beginning” may not be a meaningful concept, one could say that about any argument whatsoever. That’s not a reason to think it isn’t meaningful. I don’t see why “beginning” wouldn’t be a meaningful concept. Either something has a beginning or it doesn’t. That’s logic.

What you are describing as intermittent bouts of timelessness would still result in matter either being eternal or have an ultimate beginning, even if it somehow could become timeless between temporal periods, which you’d have work to do to show that’s even logically coherent.

Third Point:
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.

In my view, the concept of infinite regression and progression is not only possible but probable, and the process could have always been happening and always will happen. I argue that mind is always the first cause of organized matter, and unorganized matter is the identified "timeless" sector between a prior and a potential next Organized Matter Event (OME).

Therefore, there is no need for an uncaused cause or a supernatural being to explain the existence of the universe. Rather, the universe's existence can be explained by the perpetual cycle of organized matter events (where Time occurs) and unorganized matter (where Timelessness occurs...)

Why is the concept of infinite regression even possible, much less probable? Do you think you can count to infinity?

As to the sandman analogy, a hole is typically defined as an empty space or opening in a solid object, and it is usually bounded by the solid object itself. Without the boundaries of the solid object, it is difficult to imagine what a "hole" could actually be.

It seems that the analogy used in point 3 may not be entirely effective in supporting the argument being made. The Sandman analogy is meant to illustrate the idea that an infinite chain of cause and effect is impossible, but it is open to criticism on the grounds that it assumes a specific type of infinite regression which may not be applicable to the alternate concept of an eternal universe I have presented as counterargument to the OP claim.

Thus, I have addressed the issue with the Sandman analogy and how it is not an accurate representation of the concept of past-eternity. Additionally, I have argued that the idea of infinite progression and regression is possible and that the concept of timelessness can exist as the event between organized matter events. Thus, while the OP uses the Sandman analogy to support their argument that a beginning foundation is necessary, I have provided alternative perspectives and arguments that challenge that assertion.

What are the different types of infinite regression? Are you saying these pockets of timelessness within time constitute a coherent infinite regression as one type of infinite regression distinct from what the argument supposes? If so, how? The whole of what you are describing would put these pockets of timelessness as moments within the timeline that have events before and after it…making these “timelessness” pockets actually temporal moments.

As to the final point of the OP, I have already discussed point 4 in previous interactions. In my previous responses, I questioned the assumption that an uncaused cause must necessarily exist as a supernatural mind and have suggested that it is possible that The Mind has always existed and that it is better to think there is a natural cause for the universe's existence re said Mind.

I didn’t see your response to the actual support offered (as it’s not an assumption at all). Supernatural is a synonym for immaterial since it was already argued that matter had to have had a beginning. Logically there cannot be a material/natural cause for matter/nature; it must either be eternal or caused by something immaterial/non-natural (or its synonym, supernatural).

I have repeatedly raised objections to the idea that the uncaused cause must be a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being with free will and the power to create from nothing.

The assumptions made in the OP are not necessarily supported by the presented argument and can be challenged. It's important to critically examine the premises and assumptions of any argument before accepting its conclusion.

I honestly haven’t seen you address much of the support given; I’m just hearing your conclusions. As I said, I didn’t read all of your posts on this, but decided to enter into this part of the discussion recently. If you could point to the posts or (what I think would be easier) summarize your points again, that would be helpful.

It is correct that infinity cannot be traversed or "reached" in a literal sense. However, this does not necessarily mean that an infinite causal chain of events is impossible. It is possible that time, and therefore causality, could have a different nature than our human experience of it, and that an infinite causal chain could still be possible in such a context.
I made the argument that it is fallacious to assume that what is impossible for a human mind is also impossible for an eternal Mind. Therefore, the possibility of an infinite causal chain of events cannot be ruled out based on the assumption that infinity cannot be traversed or "reached" by a mind having a temporary human experience.

This sounds like “anything is possible” which if this was a rational response would mean that absolutely no argument for anything would be reliable because one could always claim, “but maybe it’s possible that we have everything wrong about X”. That’s not rational to me.

You misinterpreted my argument and presented a strawman argument. I specifically stated that the mind cannot exist independently of the matter that can be organized, and you shifted the focus to the mind existing independently of matter altogether.

There is a reason why I have been bolding the word "organized" in the recent posts I have made.

No, I just didn’t carry over the “organized” adjective because I thought it would be known from the context of your posts. What support do you have for mind not being able to exist independently of the matter that can be organized?

[Bust Nak]

Following the rules gives us both that infinity is like a number in some ways and it’s not like a number in other ways. Therefore, we can’t draw the line simply by following the rules of mathematics.

Just follow the rules and treat infinity as mathematicians treat it. They too would go "well...." when asked if infinity is a number.

Yes, and I’m pointing out contradictions with actual infinity being an amount. But in this case you are saying, no we can just brush that contradiction aside and say it’s not like an amount in that way. So why not with square circles?

I am not saying we can just brush that contradiction aside, you cannot; instead I am saying there are no contradictions.

Why is it a simpler explanation for the phenomena? Why does no-center have less assumptions than yes-center. No-center has the assumption that there is no center point; it’s not just an absence of assumptions. Yes-center has the assumption that there is a center point; it, too, isn’t an absence of assumptions. Each has one assumption. One assumption isn’t simpler than one assumption.

Because zero of something is less than non-zero of something.

So, then, do you tentatively change your view to the belief that one cannot reach the present from an eternal past (assuming the A-theory of time) or are you holding this belief on faith alone?

Neither. I hold that one can reach the present from an eternal past (assuming the A-theory of time) because there are no contradiction with it, nor are there any valid argument against such a thing.

[The Tanager]

Just follow the rules and treat infinity as mathematicians treat it. They too would go "well...." when asked if infinity is a number.

I am treating actual infinity as infinite mathematicians treat it. They treat it as an assumed reality for their purposes without proving it could exist in reality because it has been useful in various ways.

I am not saying we can just brush that contradiction aside, you cannot; instead I am saying there are no contradictions.

But there are contradictions. You can get any answer when subtracting actual infinity from actual infinity. That contradicts how amounts work. You brush that aside by redefining ‘amount’ to allow for it to not be a contradiction.

Because zero of something is less than non-zero of something.

It’s not zero of something. “No-center” is one concept, not a lack of a concept. Atheism isn’t simpler than theism because it is a lack of a concept that explains something; it’s simpler if it doesn’t add any assumption to the data that accounts for X, while theism agrees with that data and simply adds in God with no benefit to explaining the data. That’s not what is happening with the no-center vs. yes-center. Yes-center isn’t adding an entity, it’s replacing one concept “no-center” with a different one.

Neither. I hold that one can reach the present from an eternal past (assuming the A-theory of time) because there are no contradiction with it, nor are there any valid argument against such a thing.

For the reasons I’ve stated, I think there clearly is a contradiction brought out by sound arguments against infinite regression being possible since infinity cannot be traversed/reached.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #944]

No, it isn’t based on assumption. There is actual support offered (sketched in the OP, but expounded upon in other posts and elsewhere).

My argument suggests that the idea of a supernatural entity or force may not be necessary to explain the relationship between mind and matter, whereas the OP assumes the existence of a transcendent supernatural cause.

What you are describing as intermittent bouts of timelessness would still result in matter either being eternal or have an ultimate beginning, even if it somehow could become timeless between temporal periods, which you’d have work to do to show that’s even logically coherent.

Did I say that natural laws had causal powers? You are presenting and arguing with a strawman.

Why is the concept of infinite regression even possible, much less probable? Do you think you can count to infinity?

You are conflating the concept of counting to infinity with the concept of infinite regression. The concept of infinite regression refers to the idea that there may not be a first cause or beginning of causation, and that events may simply be the result of prior causes ad infinitum. It is a philosophical concept that does not necessarily involve counting or reaching infinity.

It also seems that you are using a questionable tactic by picking out a part of what I argue and then asking a question that need not be asked in the context of what I actually wrote, because you are not addressing my argument fully.

What are the different types of infinite regression? Are you saying these pockets of timelessness within time constitute a coherent infinite regression as one type of infinite regression distinct from what the argument supposes? If so, how? The whole of what you are describing would put these pockets of timelessness as moments within the timeline that have events before and after it…making these “timelessness” pockets actually temporal moments.

I do not recall mentioning different types of infinite regression. It seems that once again, you are presenting and arguing with a strawman.

My argument is understandable enough. You are not stupid.
Perhaps this is possibly a tactic by you are using to continue having me “explain” my argument, as a means of not having to actually engage with what I am arguing?

I didn’t see your response to the actual support offered (as it’s not an assumption at all). Supernatural is a synonym for immaterial since it was already argued that matter had to have had a beginning. Logically there cannot be a material/natural cause for matter/nature; it must either be eternal or caused by something immaterial/non-natural (or its synonym, supernatural).

The assertion is that an immaterial or non-natural cause must necessarily be supernatural, but this is not necessarily the case.
The argument that matter must have had a beginning is itself a point of contention, as it relies on assumptions about the nature of time and causality. As I previously suggested, the cyclical creation and manifestation of universes within a timeless state is a possibility that challenges the notion of a necessary beginning and the need for a supernatural cause.

Also – it appears you are using the word “supernatural” as meaning “immaterial” which is “Mind”
In that, you are not just using the word to represent the immaterial mind which we know exists in the material…but arguing also that the immaterial exists outside of the material…and created the material realm separately from the immaterial.
It would be remiss of me to think you do not understand what I am saying.

I honestly haven’t seen you address much of the support given; I’m just hearing your conclusions. As I said, I didn’t read all of your posts on this, but decided to enter into this part of the discussion recently. If you could point to the posts or (what I think would be easier) summarize your points again, that would be helpful.

I have repeatedly raised objections to the idea that the uncaused cause must be a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being with free will and the power to create from nothing.

The assumptions made in the OP are not necessarily supported by the presented argument and can be challenged. It's important to critically examine the premises and assumptions of any argument before accepting its conclusion.

I anticipated you would admit that you have not read the whole thread or specifically any post I have made in the thread and provided a link-list to those posts at the end of my last reply post to you/the general reader.

This sounds like “anything is possible” which if this was a rational response would mean that absolutely no argument for anything would be reliable because one could always claim, “but maybe it’s possible that we have everything wrong about X”. That’s not rational to me.

There is no evidence to support the concept of a supernatural mind either.
So, to argue for evidence appears to be disingenuous as the main thrust of my argument is that the extra layer adds more complexity to an already complex universe and the existence of the universe can be explained without that extra layer and that I am doing fine in providing that explanation.
On the question of evidence to support that the universe has a beginning, we have scientific evidence. There is no evidence that supports the universe will end, although the consensus seems to be that energy will dissipate and organised matter will eventual cease to be organised….
Both positions [mine and the OP's] use the same material evidence to make different propositions.
I agree that it is important to examine the premises and assumptions of any such argument and evaluate its logical coherence and plausibility.
I have done so in relation to the supernatural mind premise. You appear to be struggling with my alternative and it may just be a case that in order to seriously sincerely contemplate the alternative I offer, may be hampered by beliefs that you hold, which make it necessary to your having to believe in a supernatural mind.

Essentially since I am arguing that there is an eternal mind involved in the formation of the universe…the organising of matter – there should be no opposition, yet there is opposition and therefore it bodes well to try and identify why the opposition exists.

We may be able to pinpoint exactly why it is necessary to have a supernatural mind rather than just a natural mind.

I could argue that it is possible that the belief in a supernatural mind comes from the Christian belief in a personal God who is the creator of the universe and has a specific plan and purpose for it. This belief is rooted in the Christian scripture, which describes God as the ultimate cause and sustainer of all things. Additionally, the belief in a supernatural mind may provide a sense of comfort and security for some individuals, as it offers the possibility of a higher power in control of the universe and one's own life.

However, such are not in themselves relevant as the natural mind/universal mind provides the exact same supports, so this does not explain why a supernatural mind is necessary.

It is possible that the belief in a supernatural mind outside the universe by some Christians stems from the concept of God as presented in Christian theology. In this context, God is often described as a being that exists beyond the material world and is the creator of the universe. This belief may also be influenced by philosophical arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument which posits that there must be an uncaused cause for the existence of the universe.
However, it is worth noting that not all Christians hold the same beliefs and interpretations of Christian theology, and there may be differing opinions on the nature and existence of a supernatural mind outside the universe.

But this still does not explain the need, because – again – those things are already provided in the idea of a natural mind.
Those beliefs did not have to have to evolved as they have, due to the alternate ability to think things through and come to the less complex conclusion without having to resort to supernatural thinking.
Where this idea of a supernatural mind might have sprung from, is in humans not understanding the nature of mind and in that – their own true nature.

So, it can be argued that the notion that "a supernatural mind is necessary" derives from the poor understanding of what minds are and how they are immaterial, but that immaterial has been conflated as being “supernature” when there is no need to actually continue conflating.

Also, there is no need to think that a natural mind isn’t and hasn’t been the very mind which religious folk interact with in their own ways and that the assumption and accompanying perpetuation of the idea that immaterial = supernatural being unnecessary should cause no damage to those relationships at all.

So, the resistance could in part be explained by this lack of understanding, but there must be more to this, than that.

It is my view that the main reason for the resistance has to do with the idea of The Problem of Evil which itself stems from the idea of there being an omni-mind and that Christians cannot bring themselves to believe in the natural mind because this makes the natural mind tainted with the problem of evil.
Whereas if the mind was supernatural, it could be separated from the problem of evil.

No, I just didn’t carry over the “organized” adjective because I thought it would be known from the context of your posts. What support do you have for mind not being able to exist independently of the matter that can be organized?

The terms have been clarified. Immaterial is mind and matter which is organised, is organised by mind.
Further to that, the evidence of mind is seen in the organisation of matter.
I have not argued that the mind is a product of matter.
I have argued that the unorganised matter is an aspect of the mind in its essential, Timeless state.
I argue that the unorganised matter is an aspect of the mind in its essential timeless state, while you are asking for evidence to support this claim, while also offering no evidence to support the supernatural mind claim.

So, I have issues with your reply re straw-manning, and also feel that your resistance reflected in your demand for evidence to support something which isn’t attacking theism but appears to be attacking certain beliefs you and not all Christians have, which has to do with those particular Christian beliefs which cannot have it that the mind can and should be regarded as natural, and so the more complex proposition of a supernatural overlay becomes essential to holding up said beliefs.
Thus, the “cosmological argument” is most likely an invention of those types of Christians, but cannot be expected to be regarded as valid on their say-so.
I feel I have critiqued it adequately, reasonably and debunked it for its unnecessary complexity because I have shown we can reach the same conclusion (Mind was/is involved) without said extra layer.

What I am looking for from you or any other, is a response which shows one is seriously considering the alternative presented, rather than simple expressions which show a clinging onto beliefs. Beliefs which make it necessary for a supernatural mind to exist to explain the natural universe, as per the cosmological argument [re OP].

[Bust Nak]

I am treating actual infinity as infinite mathematicians treat it. They treat it as an assumed reality for their purposes without proving it could exist in reality because it has been useful in various ways.

You are not treating it the same, all this time you've arguing that it's impossible.

But there are contradictions. You can get any answer when subtracting actual infinity from actual infinity.

That's not a contradiction because you cannot subtract infinity from infinity.

It’s not zero of something. “No-center” is one concept, not a lack of a concept.

I can grant you that no center is a concept in itself, but I am referring to center as the concept, no center is literally lack of this concept. A concept about a lack of another concept is simpler than a concept about the existence of a concept.

Atheism isn’t simpler than theism because it is a lack of a concept that explains something; it’s simpler if it doesn’t add any assumption to the data that accounts for X, while theism agrees with that data and simply adds in God with no benefit to explaining the data. That’s not what is happening with the no-center vs. yes-center. Yes-center isn’t adding an entity, it’s replacing one concept “no-center” with a different one.

We can't detect a center so we assume there isn't one, that's just like the atheistic claim, we can't detect a god so we assume there isn't one.

For the reasons I’ve stated, I think there clearly is a contradiction brought out by sound arguments against infinite regression being possible since infinity cannot be traversed/reached.

It's been a while, so let me ask you why do you think infinity needed to be reached for infinite regression to be possible? Is traversed the same thing as reached?

[The Tanager]

My argument suggests that the idea of a supernatural entity or force may not be necessary to explain the relationship between mind and matter, whereas the OP assumes the existence of a transcendent supernatural cause.

It does not assume that. Stop saying things are assumed, when they aren’t; deal with the support offered. You know this. I know you know this because, at times, you do respond to the support offered. How can you respond to the support one time and then later claim no support is offered (i.e., it's just assumed)?

The OP argues for the conclusion and for that conclusion to not be true, there has to be an error in the argument somewhere. So another argument that suggests the existence of an immaterial cause for non-eternal matter is not necessary is irrelevant. Even if that argument establishes that it’s not necessarily the case, the OP’s argument shows that it actually is the case.

Did I say that natural laws had causal powers? You are presenting and arguing with a strawman.

Then what does “account for the origin of the universe” in this quote mean?:

I previously raised a counter argument to this point, stating that the existence of natural laws and processes could account for the origin of the universe without the need for a supernatural cause.

You are conflating the concept of counting to infinity with the concept of infinite regression. The concept of infinite regression refers to the idea that there may not be a first cause or beginning of causation, and that events may simply be the result of prior causes ad infinitum. It is a philosophical concept that does not necessarily involve counting or reaching infinity.

Counting to infinity is an apt analogy. If the events infinitely regress, then we would have had to pass through an actual infinite amount of events, adding finite events one at a time and reached or “counted” to an actual infinite amount.

It also seems that you are using a questionable tactic by picking out a part of what I argue and then asking a question that need not be asked in the context of what I actually wrote, because you are not addressing my argument fully.

I’ve responded to every element I see, so if I’m misunderstanding or leaving context out, I would ask you to point those out.

I do not recall mentioning different types of infinite regression. It seems that once again, you are presenting and arguing with a strawman.

Then what did you mean here?:

It seems that the analogy used in point 3 may not be entirely effective in supporting the argument being made. The Sandman analogy is meant to illustrate the idea that an infinite chain of cause and effect is impossible, but it is open to criticism on the grounds that it assumes a specific type of infinite regression which may not be applicable to the alternate concept of an eternal universe I have presented as counterargument to the OP claim.

My argument is understandable enough. You are not stupid.
Perhaps this is possibly a tactic by you are using to continue having me “explain” my argument, as a means of not having to actually engage with what I am arguing?

Of course, it can’t be your fault in explaining it. So, assume I’m either stupid or disingenuous. Since you can’t have worded things poorly or our ways of thinking are so different that these confusions constantly come up, go with I’m stupid because I’m certainly not disingenuous.

The assertion is that an immaterial or non-natural cause must necessarily be supernatural, but this is not necessarily the case.

Supernatural is just a synonym. I already said we could drop “supernatural” since it’s causing confusion. It is necessarily the case that immaterial or non-natural causes cannot be natural. That’s all that is being said here.

The argument that matter must have had a beginning is itself a point of contention, as it relies on assumptions about the nature of time and causality. As I previously suggested, the cyclical creation and manifestation of universes within a timeless state is a possibility that challenges the notion of a necessary beginning and the need for a supernatural cause.

It does rely on the A-theory of time being true, yes. I think there are good reasons to believe in the A-theory of time and we can have that discussion. I’ve already stated how a cyclical theory of time even with pockets of “timelessness” that are actually moments in the ultimate timeline is illogical.

Also – it appears you are using the word “supernatural” as meaning “immaterial” which is “Mind”
In that, you are not just using the word to represent the immaterial mind which we know exists in the material…but arguing also that the immaterial exists outside of the material…and created the material realm separately from the immaterial.

Yes, in this argument supernatural is a synonym for immaterial and the argument leads to the immaterial pre-existing all matter and creating it. This argument, as far as I’ve thought through at the moment, however doesn’t mean that the purely immaterial Mind couldn’t have transformed (in part or whole) into the material realm.

I anticipated you would admit that you have not read the whole thread or specifically any post I have made in the thread and provided a link-list to those posts at the end of my last reply post to you/the general reader.

I’m sorry, I thought those posts were related to time being cyclical, since you didn’t specify what they were about, but shared them after talking about cyclical time. Thank you for clarifying that.

From post 120 you stated point 1 had a false dilemma but didn’t say why or what the other alternatives could be. Your points about the sandman analogy aren’t relevant. It’s not about it being up and down or applying force. The point of the sandman analogy is that it shows infinite regression is not possible; that’s what makes it accurate. The supernatural/immaterial nature doesn’t rely on the OP’s point 3. And point 3 is a necessary conclusion from the premises, so it’s not a presumption. Your infinity symbol counter analogy (also talked about in post 143, 146) doesn’t show a beginning or an end and, if filled, wouldn’t be infinite, so it couldn’t be a bottomless pit and wouldn’t be an infinite regression. It would be a finite amount circling back on itself.

In posts 124, 131, 139, 156?, you say there is no infinite number. I agree! But an infinite regression requires an infinite number of past events to exist, so you are logically committed to there being an infinite number.

Post 159 was by JK. Post 161 was you thanking JK for his comments.

In post 196, timelines don’t signify beginnings if it stretches back towards negative infinity. Infinite regress doesn’t have to be acceptable just because that’s what infinity is; the question is whether that type of infinity (an actual infinite) makes sense. God as infinite is a different concept than actual infinity or potential infinity.

In post 229, you claimed that an infinite regression could exist within your alternative proposal. I think that alternative is ruled out if the OP’s argument goes through, first of all. And I don’t think anything you said in any of these posts defeats that case.

But, aside from that, even within your alternative, an infinite regression cannot exist because they are impossible.

In post 896 you try to show how an infinite regression could work on your alternative, but it doesn’t; infinite regressions still are impossible. The problem is that you think you’ve dealt with the problem by kicking it back one level. The thought seems to be that this timeline (since the Big Bang or whatever segment you want to talk about) doesn’t have an infinite regression, but the bigger timeline it is a part of can. The same arguments apply to the ultimate timeline that houses your “cycles”.

In post 901, you say that my argument against actual infinity also applies to God because it is an abstract concept. No, the argument of the OP shows that God is not an abstract object.

There is no evidence to support the concept of a supernatural mind either.
So, to argue for evidence appears to be disingenuous as the main thrust of my argument is that the extra layer adds more complexity to an already complex universe and the existence of the universe can be explained without that extra layer and that I am doing fine in providing that explanation.

There absolutely is evidence to support the concept; you have even been discussing elements of it. It’s not just a matter of simplicity with no other evidences offered.

You appear to be struggling with my alternative and it may just be a case that in order to seriously sincerely contemplate the alternative I offer, may be hampered by beliefs that you hold, which make it necessary to your having to believe in a supernatural mind….

Come on. I don’t agree with you and, therefore, it’s probably for some psychological reason? All of your psychologizing is irrelevant to this discussion. Even if my motivations where from any of that nonsense, this wouldn’t defeat the argument in the OP; that would be a textbook genetic fallacy.

What support do you have for mind not being able to exist independently of the matter that can be organized?

The terms have been clarified. Immaterial is mind and matter which is organised, is organised by mind.
Further to that, the evidence of mind is seen in the organisation of matter.
I have not argued that the mind is a product of matter.
I have argued that the unorganised matter is an aspect of the mind in its essential, Timeless state.
I argue that the unorganised matter is an aspect of the mind in its essential timeless state, while you are asking for evidence to support this claim, while also offering no evidence to support the supernatural mind claim.

I absolutely offered evidence. It’s in the OP and I’ve expanded on it in my posts with you.

None of this response answers the question I asked you. You did say that mind couldn’t exist independently of matter that can be organized:

I specifically stated that the mind cannot exist independently of the matter that can be organized,

Why do you think that is true? Your post just restated you think it’s true. Why?

Thus, the “cosmological argument” is most likely an invention of those types of Christians, but cannot be expected to be regarded as valid on their say-so.

No one is appealing to Christian say-so as the reason the argument is true. And to dismiss it as an invention of your armchair pyschologizing view of Christians is the genetic fallacy.

I feel I have critiqued it adequately, reasonably and debunked it for its unnecessary complexity because I have shown we can reach the same conclusion (Mind was/is involved) without said extra layer.

And I feel you haven’t. It doesn’t reach the same conclusion because the conclusion of the OP isn’t just that Mind was/is involved.

[The Tanager]

You are not treating it the same, all this time you've arguing that it's impossible.

They treat actual infinity as an assumed true concept to get at what follows. I’m also treating actual infinity as an assumed true concept. The difference is that what they do with it doesn’t need to address if it really is true and what we are doing with it does.

That's not a contradiction because you cannot subtract infinity from infinity.

Why not? Why can’t you subtract two amounts?

I can grant you that no center is a concept in itself, but I am referring to center as the concept, no center is literally lack of this concept. A concept about a lack of another concept is simpler than a concept about the existence of a concept.

No-center is not a lack of the yes-center concept. No-center is a positive claim in itself; it is a counter-concept that purports to be a true statement of reality.

We can't detect a center so we assume there isn't one, that's just like the atheistic claim, we can't detect a god so we assume there isn't one.

No, we actually detect multiple centered points of view. No-center and yes-center are attempts to explain these multiple centered points of view.

It's been a while, so let me ask you why do you think infinity needed to be reached for infinite regression to be possible? Is traversed the same thing as reached?

Yes, they are the same thing. You can’t traverse infinity in an A-theory time space.