God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #1

Post by 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.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #711

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #709]
And you think my statement is the same thing as the argument you presented above?
For now yes. That is the impression given through what you wrote re GOD being able to create something from outside of Itself.
What I shared wasn’t even an argument, it was an explanation of what creatio ex nihilo states because your explanation of what it means was incorrect.
You will have to deliver something a little better than what you already have then Tanager.
We are both aware that your belief and subsequent arguments derive from your thinking what creatio ex nihilo states is not only logical, but the best explanation for the existence of this universe.

That it was created.
That it was created through a particular method.
That these explanations are logical and better than all other explainations.
I never made an argument for creatio ex nihilo but have simply been responding to your claims about it being illogical.
And I have been pointing out the holes in the reasoning of your responses.
Which is why I was able to write;

Anyone arguing that "GOD" is so powerful that GOD can literally create something new out of something which doesn't exist, is basing their argument upon a faulty premise, because the creation itself doesn't support the premise that GOD is anything of the sort.

This means that Theism - in placing the horse before the cart - is based upon a premise which hasn't been established.

Faulty;
1: We exist within a creation, [not established] therefore
2: "GOD" exists, therefore
3: GOD is all powerful and can create something new using no material whatsoever.
Are you going to deny that the above [bolding] is not the premise you follow. If so, in what way would you say it, that would be aligned with you beliefs re the matter?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #712

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:18 pm No, the limit is a statement about speeds. It’s “go no faster than X” where X is the speed and “go no faster than” is a statement about that speed. The speed limit, as a limit, is not a speed.
But X is the speed limit.
Okay, but I like my bets to follow evidence.
And so do scientists, so... follow their bet?
How is this conflating the altered meaning with the previous meaning?
You tell me, that's what you said when I said words like expand, boundary and so on doesn't mean the same thing for scientists or mathematicians to what you meant.
By equivocating, we have now changed the argument and the one we’ve changed it to doesn’t result in any logical conclusion.
That's the point, it doesn't result in any logical conclusions like" universe has a current boundary" or "the universe is not infinite."
I haven’t been talking about an analogy between time and space here.
Well I was, so what's the difference between the universe being an actual infinite in space, and time being an actual infinite in events, if any? More below...
Earlier, you seemed to claim that a question like “how many events are there” required an answer of the nature of (b)...that is, giving a quantity or number. I’m saying that answering: “there are infinite events” is giving the answer of (a), using ‘infinity’ as a boundary concept rather than a quantity/number (i.e., a potential infinity, not an actual infinity).
Right, so by "actual infinity" must be talking about a quantity or number and not a boundary. That the point.
Now, when we analyze an infinite A-theory past, yes, we are assuming the number of past events would be giving an answer of type (b). What we can’t do (lest we beg the question under discussion) is assume an answer of type (b) is possible, in this specific case. My point is that you need to show (b) is a type of answer that makes sense (on A-theory). If (b) doesn’t make sense, then an actual infinite A-theory past doesn’t make sense.

A B-theory past would have an actual infinite quantity of events, but one isn’t “passing through” these events, so an actual infinite B-theory past making sense doesn’t automatically mean an actual infinite A-theory past makes sense.
... carrying on from above, what about combining actual infinity and passing through space?
An actual infinity is a coherent concept. An actual infinity of past A-theory events is what is under question, one that adds the element of “passing through” in sequential fashion to the concept under analysis. Those elements have the possibility of changing whether something is coherent or not.
Way back where you weren't even granting the possibility of actual infinity, because that would invoke infinity as a quantity. Has that changed?
You did not prove that you can move through an infinite series. You took numbers out of an infinite series, put them in their own finite series and proved that one could move through those finite series. Then your last premise is always a jump, without proof, from these truths of finite series to making a claim about an infinite series.
Then why can't you point out any invalid step or premise you disagreed with? The closest you came was misreading 16) you can move through all members of {0, ...} as if it was talking about a series itself having some property.
Your proof shows “move through all elements in their own finite series” and then take those finite series, add them up, and get an infinite series. Thus, you move from a characteristic of each finite brick that makes up the brick wall and claim that the brick wall must have that same characteristic.
Please pin point where you think that has happened. Bearing in mind my answers to your previous attempt re: 16) does not say the whole series has the property can be moved. It says clearly all members of an infinite series. e.g. bricks of the wall having a property, as opposed to the wall having a property.
Without any analysis as to why it doesn’t fall prey to a fallacy of composition.
That's what the proof is for, step by step analysis as to how it is possible to move through all elements in of an finite series.
Yes, I accepted that a series being completed was equivalent to each and every single element of that series is counted through. Those are synonymous phrasings. That says nothing about whether all the elements in that infinite series can be counted through. Your proof, again, takes these elements out of the infinite series, puts them in a different finite series and then shows that those finite series have all elements being moved through. That says nothing about the infinite series you were tasked with showing had all of its elements moved through, in itself.
Look carefully as 16 again, you can move through all members of {0, ...}. That's not a finite series. It says all the elements can be moved through in an infinite series.
The series’ members are treated as a whole. You have broken that infinite whole into finite pieces, proved something about those finite pieces, and then made a claim about the infinite whole. You have moved from claims about parts to claims about a whole. Not all truths about parts translate to being truths about the whole.
Yes, that's what a step by step deductive argument is for, moving from one claim to the next concisely, to give you a easier time to pin point where you think I've applied a truth about parts that cannot be translate to a truth about the whole.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #713

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to William in post #711]

I would never use the argument you laid out because I don't think it is a good one. If I wanted to positively argue for creatio ex nihilo against God transforming (at least) part of Himself into matter (which I have not been doing in this thread), then I would probably give arguments that I believe show that God exists (which wouldn't include your P1), the historicity of the resurrection and what this means for Jesus, the reliability of the New Testament in giving us what Jesus taught, and then Jesus' belief in creatio ex nihilo coupled with arguments like the problem of evil against views of God transforming God's self into our universe, with its various peoples.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #714

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amBut X is the speed limit.

65 can be a speed and it can be a limit. As a limit, it's a statement about how fast one can go, not about how fast one is going, or one's speed.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amAnd so do scientists, so... follow their bet?

If you can show me the evidence that leads them there. What you’ve shown is evidence that, according to the article you gave me, they admit doesn’t lead them where you say they are placing their bet.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amYou tell me, that's what you said when I said words like expand, boundary and so on doesn't mean the same thing for scientists or mathematicians to what you meant.

If you conflated two equivocal concepts into the same term in order to try to counter the conclusion of my argument, then I was saying you were making an irrational move.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amThat's the point, it doesn't result in any logical conclusions like" universe has a current boundary" or "the universe is not infinite."

Okay, but then you’ve still got to deal with my actual argument, which does result in the logical conclusion that the universe either doesn’t have a current boundary or size of the universe is not an actual infinite.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amWell I was, so what's the difference between the universe being an actual infinite in space, and time being an actual infinite in events, if any? More below...

I’m not sure if there is a difference or not. There is a difference between time being an actual infinite in B-theory vs. A-theory, so believing in an actual infinite of space, alone, wouldn't necessarily support that there can be an actual infinite A-theory past.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amRight, so by "actual infinity" must be talking about a quantity or number and not a boundary. That the point.

Yes, but now you’ve got to show that an “actual infinity” can be applied to the number of A-theory past events.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 am... carrying on from above, what about combining actual infinity and passing through space?
The concepts seem the same there, to me. Can you show that an actual infinite of space can be "passed through"?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amWay back where you weren't even granting the possibility of actual infinity, because that would invoke infinity as a quantity. Has that changed?

I never meant to say/imply an actual infinity is a logical impossibility. I have doubted (and still doubt) whether such a thing is metaphysically possible. I have also argued that certain kinds of actual infinities are logically impossible.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:20 amPlease pin point where you think that has happened. Bearing in mind my answers to your previous attempt re: 16) does not say the whole series has the property can be moved. It says clearly all members of an infinite series. e.g. bricks of the wall having a property, as opposed to the wall having a property.

Okay, but you need to get to the conclusion that the wall has that property. The issue we are discussing is whether the infinite series (the brick wall) has the property “can be moved through.” What is your argument that moves from (16) to that? It's not 1-15, because that has gotten you to 16, not beyond it.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #715

Post by William »

Tanager: I would never use the argument you laid out because I don't think it is a good one. If I wanted to positively argue for creatio ex nihilo against God transforming (at least) part of Himself into matter (which I have not been doing in this thread), then I would probably give arguments that I believe show that God exists (which wouldn't include your P1), the historicity of the resurrection and what this means for Jesus, the reliability of the New Testament in giving us what Jesus taught, and then Jesus' belief in creatio ex nihilo coupled with arguments like the problem of evil against views of God transforming God's self into our universe, with its various peoples.
_______

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

I have shown that Infinite Regression AND Infinite Progression is possible, and logically so.

The question of whether a creator [GOD] exists is implied if we exist within a creation - something which has yet to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Even if it is the case, religious arguments based upon belief - be they "belief in creatio ex nihilo, the historicity of the resurrection, the reliability of the New Testament in giving what Jesus taught, Jesus' alleged belief in creatio ex nihilo, the problem of evil et al," are all besides the point in that regard.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #716

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:36 pm 65 can be a speed and it can be a limit. As a limit, it's a statement about how fast one can go, not about how fast one is going, or one's speed.
You are saying as a limit it is not a speed, I am saying it is a speed.
If you can show me the evidence that leads them there. What you’ve shown is evidence that, according to the article you gave me, they admit doesn’t lead them where you say they are placing their bet.
The article says they can't be sure, I was talking about betting on it though.
If you conflated two equivocal concepts into the same term in order to try to counter the conclusion of my argument, then I was saying you were making an irrational move.
I am saying there are multiple different concepts within one term, terms such as "boundary" and "expand" so expanding doesn't imply having a boundary. That's when if by boundary, I don't mean the same thing you do, I was conflating.
Okay, but then you’ve still got to deal with my actual argument, which does result in the logical conclusion that the universe either doesn’t have a current boundary or size of the universe is not an actual infinite.
Same reasoning as the rational animal analogy, growing in size doesn't imply having a boundary, so the "expanding" in premise 1 doesn't mean the same thing as the "expanding" in premise 2.
I’m not sure if there is a difference or not. There is a difference between time being an actual infinite in B-theory vs. A-theory, so believing in an actual infinite of space, alone, wouldn't necessarily support that there can be an actual infinite A-theory past.
But B-theory is fine?
Yes, but now you’ve got to show that an “actual infinity” can be applied to the number of A-theory past events.

The concepts seem the same there, to me. Can you show that an actual infinite of space can be "passed through"?
That's what the proof is for.
I never meant to say/imply an actual infinity is a logical impossibility. I have doubted (and still doubt) whether such a thing is metaphysically possible. I have also argued that certain kinds of actual infinities are logically impossible.
Okay, but can you confirm for me that infinity as a quantity is coherent and hence a logical possibility? If actual infinity is coherent then so must infinity as a quantity.
Okay, but you need to get to the conclusion that the wall has that property. The issue we are discussing is whether the infinite series (the brick wall) has the property “can be moved through.” What is your argument that moves from (16) to that? It's not 1-15, because that has gotten you to 16, not beyond it.
You stated a series being completed was equivalent to each and every single element of that series is counted through, that's the link from bricks of the wall to the wall itself.

16) You can move through all members of {0, ...}. (This is where we left off, bricks of wall all have property P)
17) Each and every single last of {0, ...}'s elements can be counted through. (from 16, rephrase of the above)
18) {0, ...} can be completed if each and every single last one of {0, ...}'s element can be counted through. (premise, wall has property Q if all bricks of wall has property P)
19) {0, ...} can be completed. (from 17 and 18, wall has property Q)

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #717

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amYou are saying as a limit it is not a speed, I am saying it is a speed.

Are you saying that, as a limit, it is a speed? If so, then it seems what we are each saying is clear enough.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amThe article says they can't be sure, I was talking about betting on it though.

That article does not say that one should bet that way, at least that I saw.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amI am saying there are multiple different concepts within one term, terms such as "boundary" and "expand" so expanding doesn't imply having a boundary. That's when if by boundary, I don't mean the same thing you do, I was conflating.

Instilling a term with a concept that it doesn’t have within the argument being discussed in order to get around the conclusion is the fallacy of equivocation.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amSame reasoning as the rational animal analogy, growing in size doesn't imply having a boundary, so the "expanding" in premise 1 doesn't mean the same thing as the "expanding" in premise 2.

But, in my argument, it does imply having a boundary. To address that argument, should one wish to logically avoid the conclusion, one needs to address the premise as it is meant. Otherwise you are getting around the conclusion by the fallacy of equivocation.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amBut B-theory is fine?

An actual infinite B-theory past is logically possible, as far as I can tell. I still doubt whether it is metaphysically possible, however.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amThat's what the proof is for.

But you have admitted that premise 16 isn’t saying anything about an actual infinite. Your premise 17, then, doesn’t logically follow from anything said in 1-15 because none of that is saying anything about an actual infinite.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amOkay, but can you confirm for me that infinity as a quantity is coherent and hence a logical possibility? If actual infinity is coherent then so must infinity as a quantity.

I guess I’m trying to say that I don’t, as of right now, think it’s logically impossible in as clear a way as a round square or an actual infinite A-theory past is. I still question whether infinity as a quantity is coherent, so I guess I am questioning whether actual infinity is coherent. That a quantity, when subtracted from another quantity can result in different quantities as answers, for instance.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 amYou stated a series being completed was equivalent to each and every single element of that series is counted through, that's the link from bricks of the wall to the wall itself.

I did not state that. I stated that a series being completed is a synonymous phrase to a series having each and every element of that series, as members of that series, being counted through. Both of those statements are about the entire wall. Your attempt at a proof takes bricks out of the wall, makes statements about the bricks individually, and then jumps to say the same thing is true of the whole wall they were taken out of (or put together to form).
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:17 am16) You can move through all members of {0, ...}. (This is where we left off, bricks of wall all have property P)
17) Each and every single last of {0, ...}'s elements can be counted through. (from 16, rephrase of the above)
18) {0, ...} can be completed if each and every single last one of {0, ...}'s element can be counted through. (premise, wall has property Q if all bricks of wall has property P)
19) {0, ...} can be completed. (from 17 and 18, wall has property Q)

In 18) is “can be completed” a synonymous phrase to “move through all members” in 16)? Or a distinct concept?

If it is a synonymous concept, then it is a concept about the bricks of the wall having property P and, thus, a rephrasing of 16) just like 17) was.

If it is a distinct concept, then what does it mean?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #718

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to William in post #715]

I shared why I don't think you showed infinite regression and progression is possible. As to the flow of the argument you are wanting to pursue, I don't think it's a good argument, so I guess we agree there. Since I didn't use that argument to support my belief in creatio ex nihilo, I'm unclear on why you are critiquing my belief in creatio ex nihilo via the weakness of that argument. Are you claiming that would be the only way to establish creatio ex nihilo? Are you wanting me to talk about some issue I haven't been? Something else?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #719

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #718]

What makes you think I am wanting you to do anything?

I have shown that Infinite Regression AND Infinite Progression is possible, and logically so.

The question of whether a creator [GOD] exists is implied if we exist within a creation - something which has yet to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Even if it is the case, religious arguments based upon belief - be they "belief in creatio ex nihilo, the historicity of the resurrection, the reliability of the New Testament in giving what Jesus taught, Jesus' alleged belief in creatio ex nihilo, the problem of evil et al," are all besides the point in that regard.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Post #720

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:07 pmWhat makes you think I am wanting you to do anything?
I'm probably projecting. When I critique a view, in a forum, it's for the purpose of discussion, especially if I keep responding to a particular person's posts. I'm sorry for that assumption on my part.

Post Reply