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]

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.

You don't need to address that either, we are just taking about possibility.

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

Because the amount in question is not a number.

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.

I can accept all that, but the point was, the no-center concept is still a simpler concept to the yes-center concept, because the no-center concept proposes one less concept than the yes-center concept.

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

Centered points of view detected, but no center detected.

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

Okay, then why do you think infinite regression require such a thing as traversing infinity?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #949]


Tanager,

Thank you for your continued engagement in this discussion. I appreciate your perspectives and the points you have raised. However, upon further consideration, I believe that we may have reached an impasse in our exchange.

While I understand and respect your adherence to your beliefs and the validity you find in the cosmological argument, I must emphasize two specific points that have contributed to my decision to withdraw from further discussion.

Firstly, I have pointed out that certain Christian influences have bestowed their own version of validity upon the cosmological argument. This observation takes into account the historical influence that has shaped the argument. I believe it is important to acknowledge the context and origins of the argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Secondly, considering that the OP has been placed in a debate setting, it is not reasonable to dismiss alternative arguments simply because they do not reach the same conclusion as the original cosmological argument put forth in the OP. It is crucial to critically evaluate and explore different perspectives to foster a robust exchange of ideas.

Given these circumstances, and recognizing the differing foundational understanding and interpretations that shape our viewpoints, I believe it is best to conclude our discussion at this point.

I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to engage with you, and I hope that we can continue to approach these topics with mutual respect and open-mindedness in future discussions.

Thank you once again, and I wish you all the best.

[The Tanager]

You don't need to address that either, we are just taking about possibility.

Yes. Infinite mathematicians aren’t talking about if actual infinites are possible, they assume it is possible and see what would follow mathematically.

Because the amount in question is not a number.

Then why can actual infinites be added together? Multiplied? I thought you were saying actual infinity was a number and that amount and number were basically synonyms. Math is the study of numbers.

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.

I can accept all that, but the point was, the no-center concept is still a simpler concept to the yes-center concept, because the no-center concept proposes one less concept than the yes-center concept.

It’s not one less concept. Both are one concept that purports to be a true statement of reality.

Centered points of view detected, but no center detected.

Agreed. Not “zero center positively detected” or “one center positively detected” but “multiple centers positively detected”. The no-center and yes-center are undetected concepts (1 each) meant to explain the “multiple centers detected”.

Okay, then why do you think infinite regression require such a thing as traversing infinity?

An infinite regression of past events in A-theory time (or causes), would be an actual infinite collection of events. So, in order to reach the present (temporal event or cause), one would have to traverse that actual infinite collection of events.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #952]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts as well, William. I respect you and how you challenge my thoughts as well as seeking to challenge your own. I respect your decision to not further this discussion, but I will challenge the reasons you offered since you brought them up. I’m not expecting a response. If nothing else it will give other readers something to consider.

I believe your first reason is the genetic fallacy. An argument’s merit depends on the actual premises and form, not the context within which has been formed. I never argued any premise was true because of Christianity being true.

I believe your second reason is mistaken. I did not dismiss alternative arguments because they reached a different conclusion. I did critically evaluate and explore your alternative, holding up the argument in the OP as a critique of your conclusion. That is what has been misunderstood. I kept bringing some things back to the argument of the OP because I think it refutes some of your claims; I wasn’t ignoring or dismissing your alternative theory.

Again, I always thank you for sharing your thoughts, critiquing my views, and being willing to hear out my critiques.

[Bust Nak]

Yes. Infinite mathematicians aren’t talking about if actual infinites are possible, they assume it is possible and see what would follow mathematically.

That's not where they stop though, they go on to conclude what follows mathematically are fine and adopt the concept for continual use.

Then why can actual infinites be added together? Multiplied? I thought you were saying actual infinity was a number and that amount and number were basically synonyms. Math is the study of numbers.

They can be added and multiplied together because it makes sense conceptually. Amount and numbers are not synonyms. Infinity is not a number.

It’s not one less concept. Both are one concept that purports to be a true statement of reality.

How is zero of something, not one less than one of that same something?!

Agreed. Not “zero center positively detected” or “one center positively detected” but “multiple centers positively detected”.

No, you cannot have multiple centers.

An infinite regression of past events in A-theory time (or causes), would be an actual infinite collection of events. So, in order to reach the present (temporal event or cause), one would have to traverse that actual infinite collection of events.

But early you said traverse infinity means the same thing as reaching infinity. Traversing an actual infinite collection of events to reach the present (temporal event or cause) does not involve reaching infinity. Sounds like there is some sort of conflate happening here.

[The Tanager]

That's not where they stop though, they go on to conclude what follows mathematically are fine and adopt the concept for continual use.

Concluding that what follows mathematically is fine and continuing to use it is not going further; they are still just using this concept for its usefulness in the various problems they are applying it to with no proof for it being possible in reality to have an actual infinite amount of something.

Those that truly go further are not mathematicians but philosophers of mathematicians and, if they want to be considered seriously, they should produce a proof that it’s more than just a useful concept, but could actually exist in reality, if that is their claim.

They can be added and multiplied together because it makes sense conceptually. Amount and numbers are not synonyms. Infinity is not a number.

You have said that infinity is the amount or number of something, but we can adjust to this. Why does adding and multiplying make sense conceptually with an actual infinite but not subtraction?

How is zero of something, not one less than one of that same something?!

Your claim is it is not one less concept, not one less in number of a thing.

No, you cannot have multiple centers.

But that is what is detected, multiple center point vantages. It’s not that one theory is saying a center is detected and the other theory is saying that no center has been detected, making the claim of a detection of one center an additional point that is not supported by anything (and therefore an additional assumption making it less simple).

But early you said traverse infinity means the same thing as reaching infinity. Traversing an actual infinite collection of events to reach the present (temporal event or cause) does not involve reaching infinity. Sounds like there is some sort of conflate happening here.

They are the same thing. Traversing an actual infinite collection of events involves reaching infinity and then reaching the present event or cause.

[Bust Nak]

Concluding that what follows mathematically is fine and continuing to use it is not going further; they are still just using this concept for its usefulness in the various problems they are applying it to with no proof for it being possible in reality to have an actual infinite amount of something.

Those that truly go further are not mathematicians but philosophers of mathematicians and, if they want to be considered seriously, they should produce a proof that it’s more than just a useful concept, but could actually exist in reality, if that is their claim.

That it is consistent is all the proof you need for it to be possible in reality. Consistency is the same thing as possible in reality.

You have said that infinity is the amount or number of something, but we can adjust to this.

Pretty sure I've avoid saying it's a number of something.

Why does adding and multiplying make sense conceptually with an actual infinite but not subtraction?

Because we know making infinite bigger is still infinite, but we don't know what infinity take away infinity even mean.

Your claim is it is not one less concept, not one less in number of a thing.

One less instance of a concept is one less number of that thing the concept is describing.

But that is what is detected, multiple center point vantages.

The point was, that's not the same thing as detecting multiple centers. It’s one theory is saying a there is no center since no center can be detected and the other theory is saying there is a center even though no center can be detected.

They are the same thing. Traversing an actual infinite collection of events involves reaching infinity and then reaching the present event or cause.

If they are the same thing then in order to reach the present (temporal event or cause) in an infinite regression, one would not have to traverse that actual infinite collection of events - you do not have to reach infinity to reach the resent.

[The Tanager]

That it is consistent is all the proof you need for it to be possible in reality. Consistency is the same thing as possible in reality.

Santa Claus is consistent. He’s not possible in this reality because the stories require different things to be true about reality (certain magic exists, etc.).

Pretty sure I've avoid saying it's a number of something.

I was going off post 461, but it could be a misunderstanding of the context within which you made that claim.

Because we know making infinite bigger is still infinite, but we don't know what infinity take away infinity even mean.

How do we know what making infinite bigger even means?

One less instance of a concept is one less number of that thing the concept is describing.

That would mean that “no-center” is a lack of concept but it’s not, it’s an actual concept, a positive concept offered to explain the data of multiple perceived center points.

The point was, that's not the same thing as detecting multiple centers. It’s one theory is saying a there is no center since no center can be detected and the other theory is saying there is a center even though no center can be detected.

No, the detection is that at every point that point appears to be the center with everything expanding away from it.

If they are the same thing then in order to reach the present (temporal event or cause) in an infinite regression, one would not have to traverse that actual infinite collection of events - you do not have to reach infinity to reach the resent.

We seem to be thinking of a different referents for “they are the same thing” perhaps. The past is an actual infinite followed by the present. To reach the present, one must first traverse the eternal past (reaching the end, the infinite of that collection) and then take one more step to reach the present.

[Bust Nak]

Santa Claus is consistent. He’s not possible in this reality because the stories require different things to be true about reality (certain magic exists, etc.).

Magic doesn't exist but that's a very different thing from magic is impossible, magic is possible and that means Santa Claus is also possible. It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on what "possible" even mean. Possible means "actual in any reality," and it need not have anything to do with this reality. What you are describing here, sounds like "plausible" to me.

I was going off post 461, but it could be a misunderstanding of the context within which you made that claim.

Or as in either or.

How do we know what making infinite bigger even means?

Making the biggest thing bigger still leaves it as the biggest thing.

That would mean that “no-center” is a lack of concept but it’s not, it’s an actual concept, a positive concept offered to explain the data of multiple perceived center points.

Why can't a lack of a concept, be an actual positive concept in itself?

No, the detection is that at every point that point appears to be the center with everything expanding away from it.

The detection is that at every point, everything expanding away from it. That's not detecting a center.

We seem to be thinking of a different referents for “they are the same thing” perhaps. The past is an actual infinite followed by the present. To reach the present, one must first traverse the eternal past (reaching the end, the infinite of that collection) and then take one more step to reach the present.

That much is fine, but where in "traverse the eternal past (reaching the end, the infinite of that collection) and then take one more step to reach the present" amounts to reaching infinity?

[The Tanager]

Magic doesn't exist but that's a very different thing from magic is impossible, magic is possible and that means Santa Claus is also possible. It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on what "possible" even mean. Possible means "actual in any reality," and it need not have anything to do with this reality. What you are describing here, sounds like "plausible" to me.

I think some contexts are getting mixed. What I’ve been saying, in relation to the main issue, is that the logical possibility or consistency of infinite mathematics is simply assumed in order to see what happens because what happens is helpful in certain situations when one assumes the consistency. This does not mean such a thing is actually logically possible or consistent. What happens is that any hint of inconsistency is simply defined away to artificially maintain consistency in order to receive the practical benefits infinite math seems to help us with.

Making the biggest thing bigger still leaves it as the biggest thing.

Why is “infinite” equal to “the biggest thing”? How do we know that makes sense? If it does, then it also makes sense to say that taking the full amount of the biggest thing away from itself would leave us with nothing, but with actual infinite mathematics, that’s not what happens.

Why can't a lack of a concept, be an actual positive concept in itself?

By definition. Lack is the state of being without, so lack of a concept would mean being without a concept.

The detection is that at every point, everything expanding away from it. That's not detecting a center.

That’s just another way to describe what is meant by being a center point within a context of expansion (the specific issue being discussed). The center of an expansion necessarily results in everything appearing to expand away from that point.

That much is fine, but where in "traverse the eternal past (reaching the end, the infinite of that collection) and then take one more step to reach the present" amounts to reaching infinity?

It refers to the first part bolded above. In that part alone, even regardless of taking one more step afterwards or not, one must reach infinity. But the scenario we are investigating is one of traversing that eternal past AND taking the extra step to the present moment. The reaching infinity refers to the first part of that scenario.