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.

[The Tanager]

What question is it begging?

Premise 1 and 2: what it means to be a square and a circle. I’m saying let’s assume there are actually different types of squares and circles that should change how we define squares and circles, so that we can have square circles. This is what you are asking me to do with quantities to allow for both finite and infinite quantities. Just assume it or it doesn’t work. You said that was a great reason, but you won’t do it here.

I don't understand what your point is. In both cases I am appealing to the definitions. What exactly is inconsistent here? Also where are you getting the bit in the bracket from, who admitted that?

Once again, if there is a proof for infinity being a quantity, then show it. I’ve asked many times and you’ve offered none. That’s because there is no proof; it’s axiomatic within infinite mathematics. Without proof for accepting there are infinite quantities, then you are simply assuming it in the same way I could just assume there really are different kinds of squares and circles. Sure, mathematicians haven't sprung up to talk of what square circles would be like, if they were real things, but that's irrelevant.

Yes, here both are one additional assumption, you said so yourself, it's not just about the just about being numerically less assumption. No center is a smaller addition than yes center, because no something is simpler than yes something.

It’s numerically less, but not simpler; those are not synonyms. If they are both one additional assumption to the explanation, then it cannot be simpler, because simplicity there is about having fewer additional assumptions and 1 is not less than 1.

By observation, integers and real numbers are different kinds of quantities.

Real numbers and integers are examples of finite quantities, aren't they?

You’ve switched from being able to B in every circumstance to changing one circumstance to another that you can then B in; that’s useless for what you are trying to prove. Premise 2.1 is not true. What is true is:

2.1’) For all x: If there are P in circumstances of this type {..., X}, then you can B in circumstances of this type {P, …, X}.

This, in your argument, would then lead to being able to W and T and E for circumstances of the type {P, …, X, … e} not {..., X, …, e}.

Why? What is the smallest P can be? I can prove that there is no any individual P that one must start at.

I didn’t say there was any individual P that one must start at; that’s why the variable P is used.

[Bust Nak]

Premise 1 and 2: what it means to be a square and a circle. I’m saying let’s assume there are actually different types of squares and circles that should change how we define squares and circles, so that we can have square circles.

Why though? Why make up new stuff when there is a already a definition for it? Why not have another word for it, if you don't want it to mean the standard meaning?

This is what you are asking me to do with quantities to allow for both finite and infinite quantities.

No, I am asking the very opposite. I am asking you to accept existing definition, I am asking you to not assume expansion implies a boundary.

Once again, if there is a proof for infinity being a quantity, then show it.

It is literally defined as such. That's your proof. Or as you put it: it’s axiomatic within infinite mathematics. Which is why it makes no sense for you to think it is analogous to the assumption that there really are different kinds of squares and circles, no such axiom exists.

It’s numerically less, but not simpler; those are not synonyms. If they are both one additional assumption to the explanation, then it cannot be simpler, because simplicity there is about having fewer additional assumptions and 1 is not less than 1.

Why would you believe that? You are saying an assumptions cannot be simpler than another, which is clearly wrong.

Real numbers and integers are examples of finite quantities, aren't they?

Correct, hence my earlier statement, we already know there are different kinds of quantities, before we examine infinite.

I didn’t say there was any individual P that one must start at; that’s why the variable P is used.

So why would you think it isn't true for {..., X, …, e} then? If this isn't true for {..., X, …, e}, then there must be a lowest P.

[The Tanager]

It is literally defined as such. That's your proof. Or as you put it: it’s axiomatic within infinite mathematics. Which is why it makes no sense for you to think it is analogous to the assumption that there really are different kinds of squares and circles, no such axiom exists.

Why does the axiom exist, though? Because mathematicians felt the concept helpful for certain abstract calculations, not because such a thing actually exists in reality. Making up a definition isn’t good reason to believe the thing actually exists. If square circles helped calculations, an axiom would exist, but that wouldn’t mean square circles were real things.

Why would you believe that? You are saying an assumptions cannot be simpler than another, which is clearly wrong.

Simplicity is about which explanation requires the fewest assumptions; it’s not about the numerical comparison between one specific assumption within each explanation.

Real numbers and integers are examples of finite quantities, aren't they?

Correct, hence my earlier statement, we already know there are different kinds of quantities, before we examine infinite.

This would mean that we already know there are different kinds of finite quantities, not that there are quantities that aren’t finite.

So why would you think it isn't true for {..., X, …, e} then? If this isn't true for {..., X, …, e}, then there must be a lowest P.

That doesn’t follow. {..., X, …, e} and {P, …, X, …, e} are different kinds of circumstances. They aren’t different degrees on the same spectrum, but two entirely different spectrums. The first is a beginningless series, while the second is a series with a beginning.

[boatsnguitars]

If I apply a blowtorch to the ocean, a bubble will form. BANG! that is like our Universe. A bubble in the eternal, never ending cosmos. It just happened that in that endless, random sea of undifferentiated energy, the energy in one location was enough to spark our tiny little Universe. Randomness dictates that this would have had to happen.

Theists seem to ignore the cosmos and think our Universe - our bubble of Space-Time - is the only thing that exists, except God, Satan, Angels, who all were flying around before God decided to act, allegedly.

That's why I find it completely dishonest when WLC and others try to claim there can't be an infinite past if our Universe had a beginning. Like Morality, Christians have no business commenting on Physics.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #864]

If I apply a blowtorch to the ocean, a bubble will form. BANG! that is like our Universe.

Exactly.

A bubble in the eternal, never ending cosmos.

And if "you" didn't, then that part of the never-ending would not have begotten anything. It is a reaction to something which "you" did.

It just happened that in that endless, random sea of undifferentiated energy, the energy in one location was enough to spark our tiny little Universe.

So what happened to "you" and the "blowtorch"?

Randomness dictates that this would have had to happen.

There is no such thing "randomness." It required "you" and a "blowtorch." "Randomness" is simply a word used to describe something which otherwise remains a mystery, because it cannot easily be explained/predicted by/through human lack of knowledge.

Theists seem to ignore the cosmos and think our Universe - our bubble of Space-Time - is the only thing that exists, except God, Satan, Angels, who all were flying around before God decided to act, allegedly.

That is a sweeping statement which incorrectly lumps theists into one categorical belief system.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #864]

If I apply a blowtorch to the ocean, a bubble will form. BANG! that is like our Universe.

Exactly.

A bubble in the eternal, never ending cosmos.

And if "you" didn't, then that part of the never-ending would not have begotten anything. It is a reaction to something which "you" did.

It just happened that in that endless, random sea of undifferentiated energy, the energy in one location was enough to spark our tiny little Universe.

So what happened to "you" and the "blowtorch"?

Randomness dictates that this would have had to happen.

There is no such thing "randomness." It required "you" and a "blowtorch." "Randomness" is simply a word used to describe something which otherwise remains a mystery, because it cannot easily be explained/predicted by/through human lack of knowledge.

Very well, you got me....

OK, if a volcanic vent cracks open in the sea bed, a bubble appears. BANG!

Now what?

[The Tanager]

If I apply a blowtorch to the ocean, a bubble will form. BANG! that is like our Universe. A bubble in the eternal, never ending cosmos. It just happened that in that endless, random sea of undifferentiated energy, the energy in one location was enough to spark our tiny little Universe. Randomness dictates that this would have had to happen.

How does randomness dictate that this would have to happen?

Theists seem to ignore the cosmos and think our Universe - our bubble of Space-Time - is the only thing that exists, except God, Satan, Angels, who all were flying around before God decided to act, allegedly.

Why do you think theists’ use of “universe” refers to our bubble of space-time and not all of space-time (I think what you mean by “cosmos”)?

That's why I find it completely dishonest when WLC and others try to claim there can't be an infinite past if our Universe had a beginning. Like Morality, Christians have no business commenting on Physics.

Why don’t Christians who have expertise in physics have a business commenting on physics?

Why do Christians have no business commenting on morality?

Why shouldn’t Christians who are philosophically trained comment on philosophical arguments (including relying on experts within physics for support for premises) about there not being an infinite past to all of space-time?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #864]

If I apply a blowtorch to the ocean, a bubble will form. BANG! that is like our Universe.

Exactly.

A bubble in the eternal, never ending cosmos.

And if "you" didn't, then that part of the never-ending would not have begotten anything. It is a reaction to something which "you" did.

It just happened that in that endless, random sea of undifferentiated energy, the energy in one location was enough to spark our tiny little Universe.

So what happened to "you" and the "blowtorch"?

Randomness dictates that this would have had to happen.

There is no such thing "randomness." It required "you" and a "blowtorch." "Randomness" is simply a word used to describe something which otherwise remains a mystery, because it cannot easily be explained/predicted by/through human lack of knowledge.

Very well, you got me....

You got yourself.

OK, if a volcanic vent cracks open in the sea bed, a bubble appears. BANG!

Are you suggesting that this is a way better analogy than the first one you attempted to use?

Now what?

Now you explain why you believe true randomness is what occurred.

[boatsnguitars]

If I apply a blowtorch to the ocean, a bubble will form. BANG! that is like our Universe. A bubble in the eternal, never ending cosmos. It just happened that in that endless, random sea of undifferentiated energy, the energy in one location was enough to spark our tiny little Universe. Randomness dictates that this would have had to happen.

How does randomness dictate that this would have to happen?

Theists seem to ignore the cosmos and think our Universe - our bubble of Space-Time - is the only thing that exists, except God, Satan, Angels, who all were flying around before God decided to act, allegedly.

Why do you think theists’ use of “universe” refers to our bubble of space-time and not all of space-time (I think what you mean by “cosmos”)?

That's why I find it completely dishonest when WLC and others try to claim there can't be an infinite past if our Universe had a beginning. Like Morality, Christians have no business commenting on Physics.

Why don’t Christians who have expertise in physics have a business commenting on physics?

Why do Christians have no business commenting on morality?

Why shouldn’t Christians who are philosophically trained comment on philosophical arguments (including relying on experts within physics for support for premises) about there not being an infinite past to all of space-time?

1. If I flip a coin, randomness dictates that I can't flip: HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
At some point, regardless of the odds, there has to be a grouping - a collection of TT or HH, or TTTTT or HHHHH.
Consider this in a huge sea made up of nothing but energy. In some areas, there MUST be more energy than other areas, otherwise it would be completely uniform.
Do you agree?

2. It is how Physicists talk about the Universe and Cosmos. Are you ready to contradict the consensus of experts on this?

3. Christians are not known to be good at science, in fact, there are gaining quite the reputation for being Anti-Science.

4. Christians have a horribly warped view of morality and can't understand it in any meaningful way.

[The Tanager]

1. If I flip a coin, randomness dictates that I can't flip: HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT
At some point, regardless of the odds, there has to be a grouping - a collection of TT or HH, or TTTTT or HHHHH.
Consider this in a huge sea made up of nothing but energy. In some areas, there MUST be more energy than other areas, otherwise it would be completely uniform.
Do you agree?

2. It is how Physicists talk about the Universe and Cosmos. Are you ready to contradict the consensus of experts on this?

Is there a consensus that there is an endless, random sea of undifferentiated energy? If so, then show that. Then, if you are claiming there is a consensus that this energy has eternally existed, show that as well.

3. Christians are not known to be good at science, in fact, there are gaining quite the reputation for being Anti-Science.

Do you have anything to back up your opinion that Christians cannot be good at science? Are you seriously claiming no professional scientists are Christian? If so, then back it up.

4. Christians have a horribly warped view of morality and can't understand it in any meaningful way.

Do you have anything to back up your opinion here?

And I’ll repeat this question from my last post: Why shouldn’t Christians who are philosophically trained comment on philosophical arguments (including relying on experts within physics for support for premises) about there not being an infinite past to all of space-time?