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]

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.

What else are they supposed to do? Maintaining consistency is to be expected. What exactly is the problem here?

Why is “infinite” equal to “the biggest thing”?

We defined it that way / trivial outcome from the definition.

How do we know that makes sense?

We thought about it and saw no issues.

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...

Yeah, but that's might not be the same thing as infinity - infinity.

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

Okay, but why would that stop the thing being a concept in itself? The belief that atheism is without a belief, is itself a belief. Same thing applies here.

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.

If you are defining center in such a way that allows for multiple centers, then we aren't talking about the same thing.

It refers to the [traverse the eternal past (reaching the end, the infinite of that collection)] above. In that part alone, even regardless of taking one more step afterwards or not, one must reach infinity.

Again why must one reach infinity to traverse the eternal past (reaching the end, the infinite of that collection)?

[The Tanager]

What else are they supposed to do? Maintaining consistency is to be expected. What exactly is the problem here?

I’m not faulting them for doing that. The problem is that you are taking that out of context and now applying it to the question of whether actual infinites existing in reality is logically possible. Infinite math isn’t about the logical possibility of actual infinites existing in reality. It assumes the answer to that question is yes and then goes about its very helpful business. But we are asking the prior question here.

Yeah, but that's might not be the same thing as infinity - infinity.

Why not? You defined it as “the biggest thing”. Taking the entire amount of anything (small things, big things, smallest things, biggest things) from itself leaves us with nothing. If you are saying that we saw an issue here, though, then why don’t we see an issue with addition? How can the biggest thing even get bigger, much less do so and still have been the biggest thing. Seems like two issues to me.

Okay, but why would that stop the thing being a concept in itself? The belief that atheism is without a belief, is itself a belief. Same thing applies here.

I agree, but I think that undercuts much of the reason atheists define atheism as a lack of a belief, in order to get simplicity on their side, all else being equal.

If you are defining center in such a way that allows for multiple centers, then we aren't talking about the same thing.

How are you defining a center?

Again why must one reach infinity to traverse the eternal past (reaching the end, the infinite of that collection)?

Because one would have had to move through (since it’s A-theory of time, where time is akin to a moving through) every member of that collection and that collection is an actual infinite.

[Bust Nak]

I’m not faulting them for doing that. The problem is that you are taking that out of context and now applying it to the question of whether actual infinites existing in reality is logically possible. Infinite math isn’t about the logical possibility of actual infinites existing in reality. It assumes the answer to that question is yes and then goes about its very helpful business. But we are asking the prior question here.

It's literally the same thing, mathematically consistent (and therefore logically consistent) is how possibility in reality is defined.

Why not? You defined it as “the biggest thing”. Taking the entire amount of anything (small things, big things, smallest things, biggest things) from itself leaves us with nothing.

Or negative infinity because you are taking the biggest thing away from something, or still infinity because you are taking something from the biggest thing. In contrast there is no such problem with adding and multiplying infinity.

I agree, but I think that undercuts much of the reason atheists define atheism as a lack of a belief, in order to get simplicity on their side, all else being equal.

That's not the reason at all. The reason is to highlight the fact that we do not have the burden to disprove God.

How are you defining a center?

A point right in the middle of something.

Because one would have had to move through (since it’s A-theory of time, where time is akin to a moving through) every member of that collection and that collection is an actual infinite.

Right, that's reaching every member of an infinite collect, but that's still doesn't get you to reaching infinity because every member of that collect is finite.

[The Tanager]

It's literally the same thing, mathematically consistent (and therefore logically consistent) is how possibility in reality is defined.

They define it as mathematically consistent so that any prior mathematical truths that cause contradictions are ignored to keep consistency.

Or negative infinity because you are taking the biggest thing away from something, or still infinity because you are taking something from the biggest thing. In contrast there is no such problem with adding and multiplying infinity.

But we are talking about subtracting the biggest thing from the biggest thing. That should be zero, if one wanted to remain consistent with mathematics. Instead, infinite mathematicians redefine math to avoid math being inconsistent. Not by any proof, but by assumption of infinity being consistent.

A point right in the middle of something.

Yes, and the observation is that every point appears to be in the middle of the universe with everything expanding away from it. That is being equally explained, all else being equal, with two assumptions: a no-center concept or a yes-center concept.

Right, that's reaching every member of an infinite collect, but that's still doesn't get you to reaching infinity because every member of that collect is finite.

“Reaching infinity” means reaching every member, which would mean passing through an actual infinite number of members, not that just one of its members is an actual infinite amount.

Even if you think an actual infinite can exist, ones that are formed via successive addition of finite members cannot. So, if this is how the past is formed (and it is on A-theory), you could never create an actual infinite collection.

[Bust Nak]

They define it as mathematically consistent so that any prior mathematical truths that cause contradictions are ignored to keep consistency.

You don't see a difference between "define it as mathematically consistent so that any prior mathematical truths that cause contradictions are ignored" and "define it in such a way that is mathematically consistent so that are no contradictions to ignored?"

But we are talking about subtracting the biggest thing from the biggest thing.

We are, but this is an example of taking something from the biggest thing, as well as an example of taking the biggest thing from something. So it's not necessarily zero.

Yes, and the observation is that every point appears to be in the middle of the universe with everything expanding away from it. That is being equally explained, all else being equal, with two assumptions: a no-center concept or a yes-center concept.

Not seeing how that makes a no-center concept as complicated as a yes-center concept.

“Reaching infinity” means reaching every member, which would mean passing through an actual infinite number of members, not that just one of its members is an actual infinite amount.

Okay, but that's not the same thing as counting to infinity, right? So now we no longer have a reason to think you cannot reach infinity.

Even if you think an actual infinite can exist, ones that are formed via successive addition of finite members cannot. So, if this is how the past is formed (and it is on A-theory), you could never create an actual infinite collection.

Why not?

[The Tanager]

You don't see a difference between "define it as mathematically consistent so that any prior mathematical truths that cause contradictions are ignored" and "define it in such a way that is mathematically consistent so that are no contradictions to ignored?"

Sure, there is a difference there, but they aren’t doing the latter. The mathematical rules follow the definition, not the other way around.

We are, but this is an example of taking something from the biggest thing, as well as an example of taking the biggest thing from something. So it's not necessarily zero.

The “something” and the “biggest thing” are the exact same thing: infinity. We are subtracting the biggest thing from the biggest thing. Mathematically, that gets us necessarily zero…unless we make up different mathematical rules for infinities because we get a contradiction and we can’t have that to maintain our assumption about actual infinity.

Not seeing how that makes a no-center concept as complicated as a yes-center concept.

Both explanations have one assumption that adequately explains the observation. Not seeing how that doesn’t make them equally complicated.

“Reaching infinity” means reaching every member, which would mean passing through an actual infinite number of members, not that just one of its members is an actual infinite amount.

Okay, but that's not the same thing as counting to infinity, right? So now we no longer have a reason to think you cannot reach infinity.

In the movement of A-theory time it is the same thing.

Even if you think an actual infinite can exist, ones that are formed via successive addition of finite members cannot. So, if this is how the past is formed (and it is on A-theory), you could never create an actual infinite collection.

Why not?

One cannot move from a finite amount to an infinite amount by adding one; there will always be a higher finite amount one would reach before reaching infinity, right? Once you have already got an infinite amount, we could successively add to that and get an infinite amount, but we can't go from finite to infinite by counting.

[Bust Nak]

Sure, there is a difference there, but they aren’t doing the latter. The mathematical rules follow the definition, not the other way around.

What do you mean? So what if the mathematical rules follow the definition, not the other way around?

The “something” and the “biggest thing” are the exact same thing: infinity. We are subtracting the biggest thing from the biggest thing. Mathematically, that gets us necessarily zero…unless we make up different mathematical rules for infinities because we get a contradiction and we can’t have that to maintain our assumption about actual infinity.

Alternatively we make up mathematical rules for infinities so that we don't have any contradiction to ignore.

Both explanations have one assumption that adequately explains the observation. Not seeing how that doesn’t make them equally complicated.

Because one assumption about a lack of something is less complex than an assumption about the existence of that something.

In the movement of A-theory time it is the same thing.

It's not because movement of A-theory infinite time does not involve counting to infinity at all.

One cannot move from a finite amount to an infinite amount by adding one; there will always be a higher finite amount one would reach before reaching infinity, right?

Correct, but that's not the same thing as reaching infinity, given that reaching infinity means the same thing as reaching every member of an infinite set.

Once you have already got an infinite amount, we could successively add to that and get an infinite amount, but we can't go from finite to infinite by counting.

Exactly, in the A-theory infinite time we've got an infinite amount, we could successively add to that and get an infinite amount, so we have no reason to believe it's impossible.

[The Tanager]

What do you mean? So what if the mathematical rules follow the definition, not the other way around?

If mathematical rules follow the definition, then it’s impossible for a contradiction to exist. It’s defining contradictions out of the way, whether than showing that no contradiction exists.

Alternatively we make up mathematical rules for infinities so that we don't have any contradiction to ignore.

Yes, in order to make sure there isn’t a contradiction, we define it in a way that there can’t be one. The problem is that doing this begs the question of coherency rather than showing itself to be coherent.

Because one assumption about a lack of something is less complex than an assumption about the existence of that something.

Simplicity is about having less assumptions in one’s theory. A theory with one assumption is less complex than a theory with two assumptions. A theory with one assumption (whatever that is) is as simple as another theory with one assumption (whatever that is).

It's not because movement of A-theory infinite time does not involve counting to infinity at all.

It’s analogical to that. The collection of past A-theory moments of time is adding one finite moment to another finite moment, over and over. That is what counting is.

Correct, but that's not the same thing as reaching infinity, given that reaching infinity means the same thing as reaching every member of an infinite set.

It is the same thing for a collection via successive addition, which involves adding one finite moment to another to another, and so on.

Exactly, in the A-theory infinite time we've got an infinite amount, we could successively add to that and get an infinite amount, so we have no reason to believe it's impossible.

You can only get an infinite amount by clunking it down all at once, so to speak. That isn’t A-theory, it’s B-theory, where there is this chunk of temporal moments all in existence. At best you are describing a view of time that is B-theory followed by or plus A-theory.

[Bust Nak]

If mathematical rules follow the definition, then it’s impossible for a contradiction to exist. It’s defining contradictions out of the way, whether than showing that no contradiction exists... The problem is that doing this begs the question of coherency rather than showing itself to be coherent.

Why does anyone need to show that no contradiction exists, if according to you, the method used means it's impossible for a contradiction to exist?

Simplicity is about having less assumptions in one’s theory. A theory with one assumption is less complex than a theory with two assumptions. A theory with one assumption (whatever that is) is as simple as another theory with one assumption (whatever that is).

That's not right, because an assumption of no god is simpler than an assumption of one god.

It’s analogical to that. The collection of past A-theory moments of time is adding one finite moment to another finite moment, over and over. That is what counting is.

Yeah, that's counting, but not counting to infinity.

It is the same thing for a collection via successive addition, which involves adding one finite moment to another to another, and so on.

That's not enough for it to be the same thing. Adding one finite moment to an infinite collection of finite moments, is very different from adding finite moment together to make an infinite collection.

You can only get an infinite amount by clunking it down all at once, so to speak. That isn’t A-theory, it’s B-theory

No no no! That's not correct at all. Both A-theory and B-theory infinite past involved "an infinite amount by clunking it down all at once, so to speak" The difference between A and B is that in A adds more new temporal moments to this chunk of temporal moments; where as in B there is one chunk of temporal moments contains all temporal moments, without any adding.

[The Tanager]

Why does anyone need to show that no contradiction exists, if according to you, the method used means it's impossible for a contradiction to exist?

If I redefined mathematical truths to where it is impossible for there to be a contradiction in a shape being a round square, you shouldn’t be okay with that. Yes, you should be okay to let me live in that assumed definition because it leads me to some helpful discoveries. But if I then make an argument that relies on this actually being possible in reality you should not be okay with me just saying “yeah, but that’s how we define it even though I have no support to show that definition is true.”

That's not right, because an assumption of no god is simpler than an assumption of one god.

It’s not simpler because 0 is less than 1. It’s simpler because in theory 1 that seeks to explain X, we have entities A, B, C, and D that all adequately account for X, while in theory 2 we have these same four entities plus an additional assumption, G = God. In this “no god” really means we have 4 entities versus 5.

That’s not the same with our no-center and yes-center. The yes-center is not an additional entity; it’s a concept just like no-center is not an entity or a lack of an entity but a concept.

It’s analogical to that. The collection of past A-theory moments of time is adding one finite moment to another finite moment, over and over. That is what counting is.

Yeah, that's counting, but not counting to infinity.

Yes, it’s counting the elements in the collection of A-theory past moments. If there were 57 past moments, that would be counting to 57. But we are talking about a collection of infinite A-theory past moments. That would be counting to actual infinity.

That's not enough for it to be the same thing. Adding one finite moment to an infinite collection of finite moments, is very different from adding finite moment together to make an infinite collection.

An actual infinite is the quantity of moments, so adding moments within an actual infinite collection is the same thing as adding finite moments to get a collection of actual infinite quantity.

No no no! That's not correct at all. Both A-theory and B-theory infinite past involved "an infinite amount by clunking it down all at once, so to speak" The difference between A and B is that in A adds more new temporal moments to this chunk of temporal moments; where as in B there is one chunk of temporal moments contains all temporal moments, without any adding.

No, that’s completely wrong. The A-theory of time does not start with an already present infinite amount of moments that exist and then add successively more to that. The A-theory of time is made up of individual finite moments that come into existence and go out of existence. You seem to be describing a time theory that has a B-theory chunk (which either stays in existence and is followed by or gets transformed) into an A-theory nature.