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 belief are you referring to there?

That “Even if this universe is not actually infinite, this would not exclude GOD either existing OR being the overall MIND involved with its formation of things which altogether make up what it is.” I agree that the universe not being an actual infinite doesn’t exclude GOD from existing or being the overall MIND, nor does it point to either of those things being the case.

Expanding without a limit is a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. The idea that space-time may be infinite has no evidential backing to it; these theories just assume it. The mathematical models and theories do rely on assumptions which is not a rational thing to do. This isn’t strong evidence but faith-based evidence.

Is that what you are arguing then?
I don't think such evidence is faith-based because it doesn't appear to have any motive to direct. Can you give some examples as to why you think such thinking is faith-based?

What evidence? Using infinite mathematics isn’t evidence because the definitions are assumed, not proven to be things that can or do really exist. What scientific evidence of space-time being infinite?

"Expanding without a limit" appears to accurately describe an infinite thing. An actual infinite can be seen as a process which can continue infinitely and include begin and end points as part of that overall process, so conceptually - an actual infinite number of causes or events is possible in linear fashion.

Potential infinite and actual infinite are technical mathematical terms. They are two different infinite concepts. Something that keeps expanding with no limit is, by definition, a potential infinite. It’s the concept that the expansion can always just keep going, getting bigger and bigger, never reaching the end or limit.

An actual infinite treats infinity as an actual number that can be instantiated. An actual infinite cannot have both a true beginning and a true end point. If you want to produce smaller sections within an actual infinite with beginnings and ends, that’s fine, but that’s not saying the actual infinite, as a whole, has a beginning and an end. That introduction is just going to confuse things. They are beginnings and ends of a finite series within an actual infinite series, but not beginnings and ends of the actual infinite itself. So, you haven’t shown an actual infinite number of causes or events (in a linear fashion) can possibly exist in reality.

but I think you are arguing that these are limited events in that they have timelines with beginnings and endings and so you do not see them individually as actually infinite, whereas I can conceptualize the process which creates beginnings and ends as never having had an actual beginning or an end.

What does “these” refer to? What limited events do you think I’m talking about?

Perhaps that is the significant distinction between our views.

I am keeping my conceptualizations relative to this one reality being experienced and working off of that.
In that, the idea of beginnings and endings is that these produce a reality experience. I think that the only REAL/actual thing is that which is having the experience, and it is that same actual thing, which allows for the experience of things, to be had.

And for now, the experience being had is this particular manifestation of a reality we refer to as "The Universe".

So "actual infinity" cannot exist as something which has beginnings and ends, but something which has beginnings and ends can exist as an actual infinite process.

I might be misunderstanding you here. You seem at times to be saying that “This Universe” might be a thing with beginning and end, but that it could be a part of a larger “reality” that is an actual infinite that has no beginning or end. I’m talking about the larger “reality,” whether it goes beyond “The Universe” or not. Even the larger “reality” can’t be an actual infinite in parts or events.

As to there being an "actual infinity", that would be the process through which an "actual eternal mind" could experience infinitely.

Actual infinity, as a mathematical term, is talking about an amount, not a process. To say a process is an actual infinite in number is to say that the number of events/parts to the process is an actual infinite.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #921]

I don't think such evidence is faith-based because it doesn't appear to have any motive to direct. Can you give some examples as to why you think such thinking is faith-based?

What evidence? Using infinite mathematics isn’t evidence because the definitions are assumed, not proven to be things that can or do really exist. What scientific evidence of space-time being infinite?

The evidence mentioned is based on, concerned with, and verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Obviously you know what evidence I am referring to or you wouldn't have called it "faith-based" - whether it is faith-based evidence can't be determined simply by the claim that it is, which is why you were asked for examples. I also have not argued that it is strong evidence, so you are barking up the wrong tree there.
I said that these things are evidence which can altogether help us understand the background nature of this physical reality experience.

"Expanding without a limit" appears to accurately describe an infinite thing. An actual infinite can be seen as a process which can continue infinitely and include begin and end points as part of that overall process, so conceptually - an actual infinite number of causes or events is possible in linear fashion.

Potential infinite and actual infinite are technical mathematical terms. They are two different infinite concepts. Something that keeps expanding with no limit is, by definition, a potential infinite. It’s the concept that the expansion can always just keep going, getting bigger and bigger, never reaching the end or limit.

My argument is focused on the existence and nature of God in relation to the physical universe, rather than attempting to prove or disprove the existence of an eternal, infinite God beyond the bounds of this universe. I suggest that the presence of an eternal, infinite God is evident in the nature of the physical universe itself, and that evidence can be observed and experienced, rather than simply assumed or taken on faith. My argument is centered around the idea that the nature and existence of God can be conceptualized and understood in a way that is consistent with the scientific evidence and observations of the physical universe.

Potential infinite and actual infinite as mathematical terminology appears to be besides the point re the thread topic.

but I think you are arguing that these are limited events in that they have timelines with beginnings and endings and so you do not see them individually as actually infinite, whereas I can conceptualize the process which creates beginnings and ends as never having had an actual beginning or an end.

What does “these” refer to? What limited events do you think I’m talking about?

They refer to previous discussions we have had in this and in other threads which the story analogy touched on with "Mr. and Mrs. God" as I mentioned to the reader in my interaction with JK.

The beginning point of this current understanding of the universe is generally known as "The Big Bang" but the ending point is theorized as we do not know IF this CURRENT INCARNATION of this universe will end, but even that the math might suggest it will not, does not mean that it won't because the math may be pointing to a process which includes beginnings AND endings.

It may be that you are not speaking of this universe ever ending, but your argument appears to be that it will do. You can correct me on that if I am not understanding your position on the matter.

I might be misunderstanding you here. You seem at times to be saying that “This Universe” might be a thing with beginning and end, but that it could be a part of a larger “reality” that is an actual infinite that has no beginning or end. I’m talking about the larger “reality,” whether it goes beyond “The Universe” or not. Even the larger “reality” can’t be an actual infinite in parts or events.

I am speaking more directly to the idea that the stuff and the mind are of the same source. The stuff is shaped by the mind to be experienced by the mind through the mind imbuing itself into the stuff and in that way, experiencing being the stuff, even to the point of recognizing “other” stuff imbued by The Mind and even to the point of not – at least initially – recognizing the same mind is imbued in the other stuff.

Reality is not the stuff, but The Mind which imbues the stuff giving the stuff “minds” of its own.
It is The Mind which I think of as Actual Real and the stuff I think of as temporary props which enable experience to be had by said Mind.

I think that an actual infinity could exist and be experienced by The Mind as an entirely separate thing from this reality experience we are having, but I am not arguing for that concept here, preferring to keep the focus on NOT separating the Mind [God] from the matter of this universe and not wanting to complicate what is already complicated enough, by adding that extra layer.
The contradiction I mentioned, had to do with the idea of an Omni GOD being limited to only that which is not actual infinite, because you appear to be claiming that an actual infinite cannot exist and thus be experienced by any mind, including an Omni Mind.

As to there being an "actual infinity", that would be the process through which an "actual eternal mind" could experience infinitely.

Actual infinity, as a mathematical term, is talking about an amount, not a process. To say a process is an actual infinite in number is to say that the number of events/parts to the process is an actual infinite.

An actual infinity as a mathematical term and an actual infinity as a process which can allow for an eternal mind to experience infinitely appear to be two different unrelated concepts then.
If this were a discussion about mathematical terms alone, then sure. But the thread topic isn’t about mathematical terms. It is about a concept of infinite regression [and thus infinite progression] in relation to the possible existence of a God-Mind involved with the shaping of this current universe.

The original topic appears to have been somewhat hijacked by the argument re mathematical terminology, and ideas about whether actual infinity per the mathematical terminology can be regarded as a real thing.
How does this tie in with the topic of GOD? I think I have asked before. Especially since GOD is not just a thing of religious terminology but a Mind regarded as real and functional within this current universe we are experiencing.

So yes - how do these mathematical terms relate to both the thread title and the claims made in the opening post?

[William]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

Infinite regression [and infinite progression] are concepts which appear to derive from concepts of eternity/infinity.

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

Or
C. Goes through a process of beginnings and endings and has done so for eternity, in one form or another, perhaps never repeating the exact same universe, ever again.

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

1: We cannot conclude that GOD is necessarily supernatural .
2: If so, then there is also no reason to think that infinite regression [as well as infinite progression] isn't part of this as an accompanying process the Mind of GOD is involved with/has always been involved with.
3: Magical thinking. It is enough that a being can create something out of something which wasn't there before, rather than to make magical assumptions that it can create things from a non-thing.
4: The inference appears to be that a Mind has to have a form in which to be a mind within and have free will. A Mind that is being, should suffice because material creations take up the form in which the Mind experiences things through. In this way, neither the form nor the Mind the form is experiencing being a mind through, need be thought of as "supernatural" or "magical".

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #486]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #485]

You may just be making this point in case anyone is misunderstanding (which I welcome); so is my next point. Anyone following my discussion with Bust Nak should neither think I am trying to prove God's existence in it nor that Bust Nak is trying to disprove or critique such a claim, at least not with me.

Then why help hijack a thread?

Re that, I went back through this thread until I found the post which allowed this to happen.

Re: God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible
Post #119
Post by Bust Nak » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:54 am

To carry on an off-topic discussion from another thread...

My question.

Q: How can we get this discussion back on topic?

[The Tanager]

I’m going to break these up into different posts for organization’s sake.

Potential infinite and actual infinite as mathematical terminology appears to be besides the point re the thread topic.

I think they are very much a part of the point of this thread. My discussion here has mostly been with Bust Nak. Instead of having the full conversation about the argument, we focused on one element within that argument. We weren’t explicitly drawing connections from what we said to conclusion of the argument, but those can certainly be drawn. Focusing on one element and letting others draw any connections to the larger argument the thread is based on is not hijacking the thread.

I didn’t draw those connections because I had recently done a similar conversation on the argument under discussion and I was interested in a more narrow focus on just one part of it. Bust Nak invited me and I have benefited greatly from that interaction. I’m not sure if that narrowed focus has begun to wind down, but I am ready to engage the wider ramifications and the argument as a whole, so I will do that with you as well.

They refer to previous discussions we have had in this and in other threads which the story analogy touched on with "Mr. and Mrs. God" as I mentioned to the reader in my interaction with JK.

I’m sorry for not reading those interactions. My excuse is that the bit I began to read looked like you were talking about something unrelated to what I was discussing and so I skipped them. I’m not saying they weren’t important, just different and that I was unaware of that context or that you responded to my post out of that context.

The beginning point of this current understanding of the universe is generally known as "The Big Bang" but the ending point is theorized as we do not know IF this CURRENT INCARNATION of this universe will end, but even that the math might suggest it will not, does not mean that it won't because the math may be pointing to a process which includes beginnings AND endings.

It may be that you are not speaking of this universe ever ending, but your argument appears to be that it will do. You can correct me on that if I am not understanding your position on the matter.

I have not been speaking of this universe ending or not ending. As to whether I think it will end or not, that depends on what is included in “universe”. The argument of this thread, I think, does not limit the universe to this current incarnation. It applies to space-time before the Big Bang if there was a prior stage of space-time. The “universe” refers to all of the natural world in whatever stages it has gone through.

So, if “universe” is understood as that “all,” then I don’t think it will end. But if the “universe” refers to only this current incarnation, I think it will be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth. These are my religious beliefs that I think have good reasons to back them up, but this would take us off-topic, I think, so I only share it to clarify my basic thoughts there for you.

[The Tanager]

Infinity

An actual infinity as a mathematical term and an actual infinity as a process which can allow for an eternal mind to experience infinitely appear to be two different unrelated concepts then.

If this were a discussion about mathematical terms alone, then sure. But the thread topic isn’t about mathematical terms. It is about a concept of infinite regression [and thus infinite progression] in relation to the possible existence of a God-Mind involved with the shaping of this current universe.

I don’t know what you mean by calling the process an “actual infinity” but not in its mathematical senses. Are you saying there is no beginning and no end to the complete series of events that the God-Mind has experienced? If so, then you are talking about the mathematical actual infinite as existing. Are you saying there was a beginning but no end to the series of events? Then you are talking about the mathematical potential infinite as existing. If your “actual infinity” is something else, then what do you mean by it?

To try to clarify the importance of the mathematical terms to this discussion, if the natural universe (in all of its incarnations) had a beginning, but may stretch on forever, this would mean that the series of space-time events would be a potential infinite. In other words, the amount of events/time segments would always be a finite number. I see no problem with potential infinites. But if the natural universe (in all of its incarnations) had no beginning (i.e., is past eternal), then the series of past space-time events would be an actual infinite.


Can an actual infinity exist?

The argument claims that the series of past space-time events cannot be an actual infinite. I think that is a sound claim. I’m not sure an actual infinite can even exist at all, but this point doesn’t require that strong of a claim. Still, I’ve talked about thinking they can’t exist in reality and you have shared some thoughts on this possibility, so I’ll respond:

Current scientific theories and observations that suggest the universe may be infinite, such as the fact that it appears to be expanding without limit, or the idea that space-time may be curved and infinite. Additionally, mathematical models and theories, such as those used in cosmology and astrophysics, often rely on assumptions about the nature of infinity and the possibility of infinite universes or timelines. While these may not provide absolute proof, they can provide strong evidence in support of the idea that infinity is a valid concept in the study of the universe.

Adding to that, the assumption of infinity is not only used in the study of the universe but in many branches of mathematics, such as calculus and set theory, which have proven to be highly successful in modeling physical phenomena. Therefore, while we may not have conclusive proof of the existence of infinity, the fact that it is such a useful and pervasive concept in mathematics and physics suggests that it is a valid and meaningful concept in the study of the universe.

The evidence mentioned is based on, concerned with, and verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Obviously you know what evidence I am referring to or you wouldn't have called it "faith-based" - whether it is faith-based evidence can't be determined simply by the claim that it is, which is why you were asked for examples. I also have not argued that it is strong evidence, so you are barking up the wrong tree there.
I said that these things are evidence which can altogether help us understand the background nature of this physical reality experience.

When I say the claim that the universe is an actual infinite is faith-based, I’m saying there is no evidence for the claim being true; that it’s built on assumptions, not evidence. I can’t give examples of evidence because I don’t think there is any evidence.

From the first quote above, I saw these four things offered in support of actual infinity:

(1) the observation that the universe appears to be expanding without a limit. This doesn’t describe an actual infinite, but a potential infinite. Therefore, this isn’t evidence for an actual infinite size to the universe.

(2) the idea that space-time may be curved and infinite. What is the evidence that shows the universe may be an actual infinite in size? Bust Nak linked to an article way back, but the authors explicitly said the observations did not show the universe’s size was an actual infinite.

(3) mathematical models and theories that “often rely on assumptions about the nature of infinity and the possibility of infinite universes or timelines…”. Assumptions are not evidence, they are blind faith. Therefore, this isn’t evidence for an actual infinite size to the universe.

(4) the assumption of infinity is helpful in giving us truths about physical phenomena. I agreed it is useful, but this tells us nothing about whether something can have an actual infinite size to it or not. Usefulness is not evidence of truth or existence. Many scientific theories that were useful have since been abandoned as true.

Which of these are evidence that can help us understand this physical reality experience to be an actual infinite in size, if you still believe this is true?

I suggest that the presence of an eternal, infinite God is evident in the nature of the physical universe itself, and that evidence can be observed and experienced, rather than simply assumed or taken on faith. My argument is centered around the idea that the nature and existence of God can be conceptualized and understood in a way that is consistent with the scientific evidence and observations of the physical universe.

Do you think one of the four observations above is that evidence? If so, why? If some other observation or experience, what?


Can the past be an actual infinite?

But, as I said above, even if an actual infinite can exist, this doesn’t mean an eternal past within space-time could be an actual infinite. If the A-theory of time is correct (that time is a succession of events that come and go) which I did talk about way, way back but we can revisit it if you want, then the series of past space-time events cannot be an actual infinite. To assert an eternal past is to say the series of past space-time events is an actual infinite. Therefore, if the A-theory of time is correct, then the natural space-time universe (in all of its stages) cannot be past eternal.

[The Tanager]

The argument

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is past eternal.
2. If the universe is not past eternal, then God exists.
3. The universe is not past eternal
4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist

From what I said in previous posts, I think the space-time universe (whether there was a spatial-temporal stage prior to the Big Bang or not) had to have a beginning. So, 3 is true and in conjunction with 2 being true, God exists. I'd lay the argument out differently, but I agree with the basic claims.

WAV went on to describe what we can know of this UCC. It would be a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being, that is eternal, has a tremendous amount of power (at the least), has free will and, thus, a mind, a description which philosophers have traditionally called “God”.


Critique #1: Premise 1 presents a false dilemma because an infinite regression of past spatial-temporal events (i.e., an actual infinite) can be experienced

Or
C. Goes through a process of beginnings and endings and has done so for eternity, in one form or another, perhaps never repeating the exact same universe, ever again.

I think your (C) is really We_Are_VENOM’s (B). The process you describe isn’t of true multiple beginnings, but calls changes “beginnings” and changes aren’t technically beginnings. Your scenario still describes (B), that the natural universe (considered as a whole, in all of its stages) is eternal.

2: If so, then there is also no reason to think that infinite regression [as well as infinite progression] isn't part of this as an accompanying process the Mind of GOD is involved with/has always been involved with.

I have given reasons to think that infinite regression, at least concerning an eternal past could not be a part of this accompanying process. Do you have a different infinite regression in mind? I think it would fail for the same reasons, but I’ll hear it out.

Critique #2: This being wouldn’t be all-powerful

I am speaking more directly to the idea that the stuff and the mind are of the same source. The stuff is shaped by the mind to be experienced by the mind through the mind imbuing itself into the stuff and in that way, experiencing being the stuff, even to the point of recognizing “other” stuff imbued by The Mind and even to the point of not – at least initially – recognizing the same mind is imbued in the other stuff.

Reality is not the stuff, but The Mind which imbues the stuff giving the stuff “minds” of its own.
It is The Mind which I think of as Actual Real and the stuff I think of as temporary props which enable experience to be had by said Mind.

I think that an actual infinity could exist and be experienced by The Mind as an entirely separate thing from this reality experience we are having, but I am not arguing for that concept here, preferring to keep the focus on NOT separating the Mind [God] from the matter of this universe and not wanting to complicate what is already complicated enough, by adding that extra layer.
The contradiction I mentioned, had to do with the idea of an Omni GOD being limited to only that which is not actual infinite, because you appear to be claiming that an actual infinite cannot exist and thus be experienced by any mind, including an Omni Mind.

I think you are saying that this God shouldn’t be called an Omni-God because it is limited in its power, not being able to experience an actual infinite. I don’t see that as a true limitation and it's definitely not the description of a perfection because that would make one’s inability to create a married bachelor also an imperfection. All-powerful doesn’t mean being able to do the logically impossible. That would be a defect, not a perfection.

Critique #3: This being wouldn’t necessarily be supernatural

1: We cannot conclude that GOD is necessarily supernatural.

I think we can and should conclude this. If the entire natural world (including any prior stage to the Big Bang, should they exist) had a beginning, it needs a cause and that cause logically could not be something natural. Since something is either natural (in part or whole), or completely supernatural, the cause of the existence of natural stuff that had a beginning must be supernatural.

Critique #4: This being couldn’t create from nothing

3: Magical thinking. It is enough that a being can create something out of something which wasn't there before, rather than to make magical assumptions that it can create things from a non-thing.

Those sound like two ways to say the same thing to me. A something which isn’t there isn’t a thing. A unicorn that isn’t there, isn’t anywhere, isn’t actually a thing; it’s the absence of a thing, it’s a non-thing.

Critique #5: This being would have to have a (natural?) form in order to have a mind

4: The inference appears to be that a Mind has to have a form in which to be a mind within and have free will. A Mind that is being, should suffice because material creations take up the form in which the Mind experiences things through. In this way, neither the form nor the Mind the form is experiencing being a mind through, need be thought of as "supernatural" or "magical".

Why do you think that is the inference (or how did I misunderstand you)? Why can’t there be an unembodied Mind?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #927]

4: The inference appears to be that a Mind has to have a form in which to be a mind within and have free will. A Mind that is being, should suffice because material creations take up the form in which the Mind experiences things through. In this way, neither the form nor the Mind the form is experiencing being a mind through, need be thought of as "supernatural" or "magical".

Why do you think that is the inference (or how did I misunderstand you)?

Your questions show me that you have misunderstood me.

The OP states:

4. A being with free will, thus, a being with a mind

The statement itself appears to be back-the-front as "a being with a mind, and thus a being with free will" would be a better way of saying it.

But essentially - a sentient being. Aware that it exists.

The being with form has to do with the religious aspect and declarations regarding this Mind.
The inference appears to be that a Mind has to have a form in which to be a mind within and have free will.
Re that, the wording implies form in the "a being" then continues with an assumption that this being of form "has free will" and then carries on to state that the free will the being is presumed to have, is because it "has a mind"

Why can’t there be an unembodied Mind?

As I wrote. "A Mind that is being, should suffice." That is another way of saying "an unembodied Mind".

However, that is a concept which does not apply to our current universe, unless you can show me a point in said universe which clearly a mind would be in an actual unembodied state.

As far as I can tell, there is no such place in the universe, where any mind could be free from being embodied.

Critique #4: This being couldn’t create from nothing

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).

3: Magical thinking. It is enough that a being can create something out of something which wasn't there before, rather than to make magical assumptions that it can create things from a non-thing.

Those sound like two ways to say the same thing to me. A something which isn’t there isn’t a thing. A unicorn that isn’t there, isn’t anywhere, isn’t actually a thing; it’s the absence of a thing, it’s a non-thing.

I am saying that just because said something may be formless does not mean that it is a “no thing”. Therefore, even the something which is visible is made of that which is not, but is nonetheless still something.
Indeed, your "Unembodied Mind" would be an example of something rather than a "non-thing"

1. It is a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being

We cannot conclude that GOD is necessarily supernatural.

Critique #3: This being wouldn’t necessarily be supernatural

I think we can and should conclude this. If the entire natural world (including any prior stage to the Big Bang, should they exist) had a beginning, it needs a cause and that cause logically could not be something natural. Since something is either natural (in part or whole), or completely supernatural, the cause of the existence of natural stuff that had a beginning must be supernatural.

My argument is that the concept of "supernatural" may not be accurate because it assumes a separation between the creator and the creation. If the act of creation is natural to the God-Mind, then it does not need to be regarded as supernatural. Furthermore, I argue that the use of the term "supernatural" may be a product of faulty thinking and that it may not accurately reflect the nature of the universe and the relationship between the creator and the creation.

3. A being with the greatest power imaginable (being able to create from nothing)

I am speaking more directly to the idea that the stuff and the mind are of the same source. The stuff is shaped by the mind to be experienced by the mind through the mind imbuing itself into the stuff and in that way, experiencing being the stuff, even to the point of recognizing “other” stuff imbued by The Mind and even to the point of not – at least initially – recognizing the same mind is imbued in the other stuff.

Reality is not the stuff, but The Mind which imbues the stuff giving the stuff “minds” of its own.
It is The Mind which I think of as Actual Real and the stuff I think of as temporary props which enable experience to be had by said Mind.

I think that an actual infinity could exist and be experienced by The Mind as an entirely separate thing from this reality experience we are having, but I am not arguing for that concept here, preferring to keep the focus on NOT separating the Mind [God] from the matter of this universe and not wanting to complicate what is already complicated enough, by adding that extra layer.
The contradiction I mentioned, had to do with the idea of an Omni GOD being limited to only that which is not actual infinite, because you appear to be claiming that an actual infinite cannot exist and thus be experienced by any mind, including an Omni Mind.

Critique #2: This being wouldn’t be all-powerful
I think you are saying that this God shouldn’t be called an Omni-God because it is limited in its power, not being able to experience an actual infinite. I don’t see that as a true limitation and it's definitely not the description of a perfection because that would make one’s inability to create a married bachelor also an imperfection. All-powerful doesn’t mean being able to do the logically impossible. That would be a defect, not a perfection.

While you are arguing that when calling the God-Mind "Omni" this shouldn't include anything which is logically impossible and that it is also logically impossibly for an actual infinity to exist.

My argument is that saying that the concept of an actual infinity might be possible but not relevant to the discussion of the existence of a God-Mind in this particular universe, and therefore it is not necessary to consider it as an additional layer. Instead, the focus should be on the properties and limitations of the universe and the God-Mind within it.
Further to that my argument is that "Supernatural" need not be regarded as an actual thing and the premises in the OP rely upon that being the case, as way of explaining why this universe exists.
In this, I am arguing that "supernatural" is a logical impossibility, and should be grouped in with "Married bachelors" "Square circles" and "Actual infinities"

Where we appear to be in some kind of agreement, is;
Something cannot be created from nothing.

Where we have yet to agree is that a mind can exist in this universe AND be unembodied...as that too should be on the logical impossibility list.

The OP's premises are being examined, and critiques are being made based on logical consistency and soundness.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #925]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #926]

Thanks for your explaining why the subject of actual infinity has been included in this thread.

For now, I have nothing to comment on either of those posts, but may refer back to them if I think there is something which can be tied into the 3rd post you made and my reply to that.

It is the subject matter being argued in the 3rd post which ties in with what I was answering JK's question as to why we have to consider an unmade entity being responsible for creating our universe, when we are not willing to grant that our universe might also have the properties of being unmade - or in other words - the product of its own creation.

I agreed with JK on this point, IF it could also be accepted that a MIND is also involved and it is that Mind which shapes into "things" and that the Mind is as much a product of the matter, as the matter is a product of the Mind.

In this manner, Mind and Matter are of the same "Thing" rather than the one being separate from the other, and in that - having the Separate Mind thus create the universe as a separate thing from itself, by the Mind being claimed as existing outside of the actual universe, as the premises of the OP are clearly claiming.

The theory being, that for JK to have his cake and eat it, this can be achieved by NOT separating the Mind from the Matter, [or claiming the Matter has no Mind] which requires that we NOT claim a "supernatural" Mind outside of the Natural Universe, and do not need to if there is ANY evidence of Mind interacting with Matter, of which we can all agree that there IS, because - well -that is the nature of our experience. We humans are among the forms which display said Mind, but not that alone, as it is also my observation that The Planet itself can be attributed with having a Mind, since what comes from the planet as formations, also have minds.

This also leads to the argument that if planet earth has a mind, why shouldn't all the planets and stars and galaxies have minds?
This is also valid, given our particular biological state re how the earth produces forms which can house minds.
However, we are limited re those forms and thus can only detect mindfulness -primarily in biological life forms, of which the earth is altogether one such example.
We cannot so easily detect mindfulness in the Sun, or in the planet Saturn, because we are primarily focused upon looking for and finding said Mind working through the activities of biological life forms.

So, while it may be possible for the Sun to be sentient, it is not so easy to verify.
And likewise for a gas giant, as it may be possible for one to place mindfulness into gaseous forms, but there is no known way as yet, in how to verify mindfulness in such structures.

What we do have, is clearly enough evidence to allow for the idea to be on the table, which is what my overall point re JK's question, is making.

[The Tanager]

Your questions show me that you have misunderstood me.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify for me.

The statement itself appears to be back-the-front as "a being with a mind, and thus a being with free will" would be a better way of saying it.

But essentially - a sentient being. Aware that it exists.

The being with form has to do with the religious aspect and declarations regarding this Mind.
The inference appears to be that a Mind has to have a form in which to be a mind within and have free will.
Re that, the wording implies form in the "a being" then continues with an assumption that this being of form "has free will" and then carries on to state that the free will the being is presumed to have, is because it "has a mind"

I think it’s worded the right way up and, in the OP, doesn’t consist of assumptions (it is a sketch of the reasoning that could be fleshed out more, yes). WAV argues first for free will (because the eternal cause of the universe would need free will in order to produce the temporal effect that is the universe…only a being with free will could do that). WAV then states that having a free will necessitates having a mind. You must have a mind in order to have a free will.

As I wrote. "A Mind that is being, should suffice." That is another way of saying "an unembodied Mind".

However, that is a concept which does not apply to our current universe, unless you can show me a point in said universe which clearly a mind would be in an actual unembodied state.

As far as I can tell, there is no such place in the universe, where any mind could be free from being embodied.

It definitely applies to our current universe. The argument in the OP is the showing of this. If the argument is sound, then the spatial-temporal universe must have an unembodied Mind as its cause.

Is that what you mean by “show me a point in said universe”? Or do you mean actually show you a physical space within this universe that this Mind exists in, in an unembodied way. I don’t think you can mean that because that would be illogical; an unembodied or immaterial thing couldn’t have a physical location and physical evidence like that. So, I’m not sure what you mean by this request.

I am saying that just because said something may be formless does not mean that it is a “no thing”. Therefore, even the something which is visible is made of that which is not, but is nonetheless still something.
Indeed, your "Unembodied Mind" would be an example of something rather than a "non-thing"

Creation from nothing is simply the belief that God created a new “stuff” that didn’t exist as any prior “stuff”. Even if you want to say it was an idea in the Mind first, this idea itself wasn’t a transformation of some prior “stuff”. But perhaps I’m still misunderstanding you here.

My argument is that the concept of "supernatural" may not be accurate because it assumes a separation between the creator and the creation. If the act of creation is natural to the God-Mind, then it does not need to be regarded as supernatural. Furthermore, I argue that the use of the term "supernatural" may be a product of faulty thinking and that it may not accurately reflect the nature of the universe and the relationship between the creator and the creation.

Even if God transformed Itself (or part of Itself) into the Universe, God (prior to this transformation that first brought what we call natural/physical/material stuff into being) would rightly be called non-natural/supernatural/non-physical/immaterial. Logic requires it. If the “natural” had a ‘beginning’ point (even within a longer series of events, so as not to be the first ‘beginning’), then what existed prior to that could not be natural, even in part. Thus, supernatural and its synonyms are completely accurate.

While you are arguing that when calling the God-Mind "Omni" this shouldn't include anything which is logically impossible and that it is also logically impossibly for an actual infinity to exist.

My argument is that saying that the concept of an actual infinity might be possible but not relevant to the discussion of the existence of a God-Mind in this particular universe, and therefore it is not necessary to consider it as an additional layer. Instead, the focus should be on the properties and limitations of the universe and the God-Mind within it.

I think it is very relevant to the argument in the OP. Yes, it doesn’t have to be a part of every discussion about the existence of a God/Mind, but it is a part of the reason this thread was set up. I don’t think this is adding an additional layer to one’s reality.

Further to that my argument is that "Supernatural" need not be regarded as an actual thing and the premises in the OP rely upon that being the case, as way of explaining why this universe exists.
In this, I am arguing that "supernatural" is a logical impossibility, and should be grouped in with "Married bachelors" "Square circles" and "Actual infinities"

The very definitions that are being discussed necessitate that existence of a category rightly called “supernatural” and the argument leads to the conclusion (via rational support) that at least one being (the ultimate cause of the spatial-temporal universe) populates that category. The “supernatural” is not only not logically impossible, but logically required.

Where we appear to be in some kind of agreement, is;
Something cannot be created from nothing.

Where we have yet to agree is that a mind can exist in this universe AND be unembodied...as that too should be on the logical impossibility list.

I see no reason to think it is logically impossible for an unembodied being to interact with a material universe. Why do you think that is logically impossible?

It is the subject matter being argued in the 3rd post which ties in with what I was answering JK's question as to why we have to consider an unmade entity being responsible for creating our universe, when we are not willing to grant that our universe might also have the properties of being unmade - or in other words - the product of its own creation.

Being ‘unmade’ is not the same thing as being “the product of its own creation”. Synonyms for these two concepts are “uncaused” and “self-caused”. Self-causation is logically impossible; being uncaused is not.

...What we do have, is clearly enough evidence to allow for the idea to be on the table, which is what my overall point re JK's question, is making.

I’m trying to make sure I understand your claim. I think you are saying both Mind and Matter are eternal and that it’s the same one thing. If that is correct, I just don’t see why you believe that. Matter has to have had a beginning, if the argument is sound and I haven’t seen a valid critique of that argument from you here.

The evidence of mind interacting with matter does not support that mind and matter are the same thing. It sounded like you said it would, but maybe I’m misunderstanding you there.

Please correct all of my misunderstandings of your claims.