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.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #930]

Please correct all of my misunderstandings of your claims.

Thank you for your questions and your willingness to understand my perspective. Here are some clarifications and additional information to address your misunderstandings:

• Regarding the idea of an unembodied mind, I think that a mind cannot exist in this universe and be unembodied, and also do not think that a mind necessarily exists outside of this universe. I am proposing that the universe itself could be the embodiment of a universal mind.

• While I do agree that something cannot be created from nothing, I do not think that a supernatural universe or mind is necessary to explain the existence of this universe. Instead, I think that the universe itself with its own mind can explain why things begin and end and can do so eternally.

• In terms of the relationship between mind and matter, I think that they are aspects of the same thing and operate within this universe. I think that the evidence of mind interacting with matter necessarily supports that notion. Unus Mundus

I hope this helps clarify my perspective. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

[The Tanager]

Regarding the idea of an unembodied mind, I think that a mind cannot exist in this universe and be unembodied, and also do not think that a mind necessarily exists outside of this universe.

To make sure we aren’t talking past each other, I agree that a mind can’t exist in the natural universe and be unembodied. I don’t see why a mind (which exists in the supernatural “universe”) couldn’t exist within reality and interact with the natural universe bit of reality, though. Do you see the distinction? If so, what do you think of my second claim here?

I am proposing that the universe itself could be the embodiment of a universal mind.

I’m just beginning to consider this in relation to the argument of the OP, but as it looks right now, I don’t think this is ruled out by this argument. It seems logically possible that there was an unembodied mind that then transformed into (or created and entered into) the natural universe. But even assuming that, the “natural” part has a beginning and there must have been an unembodied mind prior to that beginning…unless there are problems with the argument.

While I do agree that something cannot be created from nothing, I do not think that a supernatural universe or mind is necessary to explain the existence of this universe. Instead, I think that the universe itself with its own mind can explain why things begin and end and can do so eternally.

So, where do you disagree with the argument in the OP? Which premise?

In terms of the relationship between mind and matter, I think that they are aspects of the same thing and operate within this universe. I think that the evidence of mind interacting with matter necessarily supports that notion. Unus Mundus

Why does the current interaction of mind with matter necessarily support that both mind and matter are eternally aspects of the same thing? Why couldn’t mind have existed, and either created or transformed “part” of itself into matter and then interact with matter?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #932]

To make sure we aren’t talking past each other, I agree that a mind can’t exist in the natural universe and be unembodied. I don’t see why a mind (which exists in the supernatural “universe”) couldn’t exist within reality and interact with the natural universe bit of reality, though. Do you see the distinction? If so, what do you think of my second claim here?

The term "natural" is often used to distinguish the universe we observe from the supernatural or divine, which implies a dichotomy between the two. However, if we reject the idea of a supernatural realm or entity, then the term "natural" becomes redundant and perhaps even misleading. Instead, we can view the universe as a self-contained system that operates according to natural laws and principles, without any need for a supernatural intervention.

I’m just beginning to consider this in relation to the argument of the OP, but as it looks right now, I don’t think this is ruled out by this argument. It seems logically possible that there was an unembodied mind that then transformed into (or created and entered into) the natural universe. But even assuming that, the “natural” part has a beginning and there must have been an unembodied mind prior to that beginning…unless there are problems with the argument.

Thinking of the universe as a self-contained entity that is the source of all existence and consciousness can lead to the idea that any concept of a supernatural or external force or deity is unnecessary to explain its nature and origins. It is a perspective that is supported by scientific evidence and observation, and does not require any additional assumptions or beliefs beyond what can be observed and tested within the universe itself.

So yes - an unembodied mind is specific to a mind which has not yet begun to organize Matter into objects.
My argument is that – even while Spacetime is currently considered to being something which did not exist prior to the beginning of the current universe’s manifestation, this may be an incorrect assumption/assessment/interpretation of the Matter in which our minds are involved within.
We know that time is measured through movement and that movement requires bodies of Matter AND Mind in order for time to be measured. Time is therefore dependent on Matter which has organized into objects, and is also dependent upon Mind measuring said objective Matter...
So, if we consider your assertion that there had to be mind before the objectification/organization of matter, there is no reason why the mind has to be considered “outside” of the Matter – prior to the Matter being objectified and organized.
In that sense, the matter exists in an unobjectified and unorganized manner.
The Matter, like the Mind, exist in a “timeless” space.

While I do agree that something cannot be created from nothing, I do not think that a supernatural universe or mind is necessary to explain the existence of this universe. Instead, I think that the universe itself with its own mind can explain why things begin and end and can do so eternally.

So, where do you disagree with the argument in the OP? Which premise?

I think the central point of our discussion is that the universe itself, with its own mind embodied within it, can explain why things begin and end and can do so eternally. I do not see the need for a separate supernatural universe or mind to explain the existence of this universe. Instead, I propose that the universe itself could be the embodiment of a universal mind. This Mind can be referred to as "GOD". This mind can be understood as the mind of this universe, rather than any assumption of there being an outside, supernatural mind. Therefore, I do not agree with the premise that a supernatural being, as traditionally conceived, must exist to avoid an infinite regression.

Why does the current interaction of mind with matter necessarily support that both mind and matter are eternally aspects of the same thing? Why couldn’t mind have existed, and either created or transformed “part” of itself into matter and then interact with matter?

I think the idea that a supernatural mind created this universe introduces unnecessary complexity and assumptions. Instead, it seems more reasonable to propose that matter is simply an organized manifestation of thoughts within The Mind itself.

In this sense, Matter is simply the outward manifestation of organized thoughts within The Mind, which creates the illusion of a separate physical universe in our minds experiencing the physical universe from our human perspective.

Therefore, mind and matter can be understood as different aspects of the same thing, with the universe operating within The Mind, and minds operating within the universe.

The evidence of mind interacting with matter supports this notion. Thus, the notion itself requires no 'super' natural Mind to exist, and it also allows for the valid question of why it is necessary to have an eternal God but not an eternal universe, which can be answered by recognizing that the universe is an aspect of the eternal Mind.

Unus Mundus

[The Tanager]

The term "natural" is often used to distinguish the universe we observe from the supernatural or divine, which implies a dichotomy between the two. However, if we reject the idea of a supernatural realm or entity, then the term "natural" becomes redundant and perhaps even misleading.

Then what about using terms like material and immaterial to make the same distinction?

Thinking of the universe as a self-contained entity that is the source of all existence and consciousness can lead to the idea that any concept of a supernatural or external force or deity is unnecessary to explain its nature and origins. It is a perspective that is supported by scientific evidence and observation, and does not require any additional assumptions or beliefs beyond what can be observed and tested within the universe itself.

What do you mean “self-contained entity that is the source of all existence”? That it is eternal? That it is self-created? Something else? And what scientific evidence and support are you referring to?

So yes - an unembodied mind is specific to a mind which has not yet begun to organize Matter into objects.
My argument is that – even while Spacetime is currently considered to being something which did not exist prior to the beginning of the current universe’s manifestation, this may be an incorrect assumption/assessment/interpretation of the Matter in which our minds are involved within.
We know that time is measured through movement and that movement requires bodies of Matter AND Mind in order for time to be measured. Time is therefore dependent on Matter which has organized into objects, and is also dependent upon Mind measuring said objective Matter...
So, if we consider your assertion that there had to be mind before the objectification/organization of matter, there is no reason why the mind has to be considered “outside” of the Matter – prior to the Matter being objectified and organized.
In that sense, the matter exists in an unobjectified and unorganized manner.
The Matter, like the Mind, exist in a “timeless” space.

It’s not just about the current universe’s manifestation (if by this you mean the Big Bang), but all stages of material existence. And what support do you have for your claims about time?

I think the central point of our discussion is that the universe itself, with its own mind embodied within it, can explain why things begin and end and can do so eternally. I do not see the need for a separate supernatural universe or mind to explain the existence of this universe. Instead, I propose that the universe itself could be the embodiment of a universal mind. This Mind can be referred to as "GOD". This mind can be understood as the mind of this universe, rather than any assumption of there being an outside, supernatural mind. Therefore, I do not agree with the premise that a supernatural being, as traditionally conceived, must exist to avoid an infinite regression.

As I said earlier, even assuming this GOD as the mind of the universe, the philosophical evidence is that space-time matter came into existence, an actual beginning, rather than being eternal so that GOD as Mind would have pre-existed the embodiment in the material universe.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #934]

Then what about using terms like material and immaterial to make the same distinction?

I have explained that both are present in this universe. I am not arguing that mind is “supernatural” – but as natural as matter.

The fact that both mind and matter exist within the same reality suggests that they are both part of the natural world. There is no need to posit the existence of a supernatural realm or a separate supernatural mind to explain their relationship.

The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is a human construct, used to describe and categorize different types of phenomena. As such, it is not necessarily reflective of any inherent truth about the nature of reality. In other words, the fact that we use the term "natural" to describe the universe we observe does not necessarily mean that there is a separate realm of the "supernatural".

As such, it may be more accurate and less misleading to use terms like "material" and "immaterial" to describe different aspects of reality, rather than relying on the dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural."

Thinking of the universe as a self-contained entity that is the source of all existence and consciousness can lead to the idea that any concept of a supernatural or external force or deity is unnecessary to explain its nature and origins. It is a perspective that is supported by scientific evidence and observation, and does not require any additional assumptions or beliefs beyond what can be observed and tested within the universe itself.

It seems like Jason is asking for more clarification on what you mean by the universe being a self-contained entity and the scientific evidence that supports this idea. One possible response could be:

By self-contained entity, I mean that the universe contains everything that exists within itself and has no external source or supernatural force behind its existence. As for the scientific evidence, we can look at the laws of physics, which describe how matter and energy interact and behave within the universe. We can also observe the universe through telescopes and other instruments, studying its origins, structure, and evolution. Additionally, the fact that minds and consciousness appear to arise from physical processes within the brain is evidence that consciousness is a natural phenomenon that emerges from within the universe itself, rather than being imposed from an external supernatural force or deity.

It’s not just about the current universe’s manifestation (if by this you mean the Big Bang), but all stages of material existence. And what support do you have for your claims about time?

Time is dependent on the interaction between matter and mind, and that without either, time cannot be measured or experienced. Therefore, the existence of time is tied to the existence of matter and mind, and the relationship between the two. As for support for this claim, it is based on the observation and measurement of time as we experience it, which is through the interaction between matter and mind.

As I said earlier, even assuming this GOD as the mind of the universe, the philosophical evidence is that space-time matter came into existence, an actual beginning, rather than being eternal so that GOD as Mind would have pre-existed the embodiment in the material universe.

Based on our overall discussion, it seems that the crux of the issue here is the assumption that space-time and matter came into existence at some point in the past, as opposed to being eternal.

I understand your point about the philosophical evidence suggesting that space-time matter came into existence with a beginning, but I propose that the mind itself is the source of the organization and objectification of matter, which leads to the manifestation of the universe we observe. This mind must be an organized one in order to be able to manifest the next universe it dreams up. Therefore, it can be understood that the universe and the mind are inseparable and eternally existing as different aspects of the same thing, without the need for a separate supernatural entity.

Even if we assume that GOD is the mind of the universe, the philosophical evidence shows that space-time matter had a beginning, and GOD as Mind would have pre-existed the embodiment in the material universe. However, it's important to consider that even before the material universe, there may have been an unorganized form of matter that could still be considered "matter" but not yet organized into objects. The Mind could have existed in this timeless space alongside unorganized matter.
It's also worth considering that The Mind may have created the universe not only for the purpose of organizing matter but also for the experience of forgetting and re-remembering itself within it. The re-remembering process could have been enhanced by creating smaller and smaller bodies that exhibit mindfulness/sentience, including humans. This way, The Mind could experience and understand consciousness from different perspectives and even connect with bigger aspects of the overall Mind, encountering itself from a unique position.
So, while it's true that the universe had a beginning, it's possible that the unorganized form of matter and The Mind have always existed, and that the purpose of creating the universe was not solely to organize matter but also for the experience of self-discovery and understanding consciousness from various perspectives.

[JoeyKnothead]

Thank you for your questions and your willingness to understand my perspective. Here are some clarifications and additional information to address your misunderstandings:

• Regarding the idea of an unembodied mind, I think that a mind cannot exist in this universe and be unembodied, and also do not think that a mind necessarily exists outside of this universe. I am proposing that the universe itself could be the embodiment of a universal mind.

• While I do agree that something cannot be created from nothing, I do not think that a supernatural universe or mind is necessary to explain the existence of this universe. Instead, I think that the universe itself with its own mind can explain why things begin and end and can do so eternally.

• In terms of the relationship between mind and matter, I think that they are aspects of the same thing and operate within this universe. I think that the evidence of mind interacting with matter necessarily supports that notion. Unus Mundus

I hope this helps clarify my perspective. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

I can't express how your ideas impact my thinking.

Whether presented as a scientific study, or science fiction, there's a whole encyclopedia to be writ from that big brain of yours.

I've become even more atuned to the world around me by thinking we could all be part of one grand, unified mind. It's actually really helped lessen my paranoias, this idea that you, and I, and all the universe are one.

Thanks friend. I'll say it again... Your voice is very important to our conversations and debates.

[The Tanager]

As such, it may be more accurate and less misleading to use terms like "material" and "immaterial" to describe different aspects of reality, rather than relying on the dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural."

Then replace natural/supernatural with material/immaterial in everything I’ve said here, because I’ve been using those as synonyms. In the argument in the OP, replace “universe” with “all material existence.”

1. If God does not exist, then “all of material existence” is past eternal.
2. If “all of material existence” is not past eternal, then God exists.
3. “All of material existence” is not past eternal.
4. An Uncaused Cause (UCC) to “all of material existence” must exist

Your disagreement in these last posts seems to be around #3 above. You think matter is eternal, right?

(a) Your support for matter being eternal seems to be:

As for the scientific evidence, we can look at the laws of physics, which describe how matter and energy interact and behave within the universe. We can also observe the universe through telescopes and other instruments, studying its origins, structure, and evolution. Additionally, the fact that minds and consciousness appear to arise from physical processes within the brain is evidence that consciousness is a natural phenomenon that emerges from within the universe itself, rather than being imposed from an external supernatural force or deity.

We have no evidence that minds and consciousness appear from physical processes within the brain; we simply have evidence that consciousness in material beings has natural phenomenon associated with it. Of course it does. This says nothing about whether mind and matter can exist separately from each other.

Time is dependent on the interaction between matter and mind, and that without either, time cannot be measured or experienced. Therefore, the existence of time is tied to the existence of matter and mind, and the relationship between the two. As for support for this claim, it is based on the observation and measurement of time as we experience it, which is through the interaction between matter and mind.

Why does that support this claim? Of course beings composed of matter and mind will experience time through their matter-mind composite self. This doesn’t mean the existence of time is tied to the relationship of matter and mind in general.

Thus, these do not support that matter is eternal.

(b) Your critique of the OP’s support seems to be:

Based on our overall discussion, it seems that the crux of the issue here is the assumption that space-time and matter came into existence at some point in the past, as opposed to being eternal.

It’s not an assumption. There is an argument for it. If “all of material existence” is past eternal, then the causal chain of events within “all of material existence” would be infinite. But this is impossible because infinity cannot be transversed or “reached”. What do you find wrong here?

[Bust Nak]

Who knows? Maybe the differences mean it should be called something else. You seem to want to still treat it as a number in some ways, but say it shouldn’t be treated like other numbers in other ways. How do we objectively draw the line as to what is allowed and what isn’t?

Simply by following the rules of mathematics.

Is it? Applying math to a square circle may get us some answers and some contradictions, but this doesn’t mean the definition is of a consistent object.

If you don't any contradiction then it is a consistent object.

That’s the point. If the definition has a later-found-out contradiction that it leads to, it was never consistent.

So when there isn't, it is enough to prove that it is consistent.

But it’s not. It’s 1 concept (no-center) and the rest of the claims about the universe versus 1 concept (yes-center) and the rest of the claims about the universe.

Okay, then this 1 concept (no-center) is simpler than this other concept (yes-center.) It's still the same result any way you look at it.

I’m sorry for my previous misunderstandings that also confused things. So, we are back to what your proof for being able to reach E in a beginningless series is.

I am all out. I don't have a proof.

[The Tanager]

Simply by following the rules of mathematics.

Following the rules gives us both that infinity is like a number in some ways and it’s not like a number in other ways. Therefore, we can’t draw the line simply by following the rules of mathematics.

If you don't any contradiction then it is a consistent object.

Yes, and I’m pointing out contradictions with actual infinity being an amount. But in this case you are saying, no we can just brush that contradiction aside and say it’s not like an amount in that way. So why not with square circles?

Okay, then this 1 concept (no-center) is simpler than this other concept (yes-center.) It's still the same result any way you look at it.

Why is it a simpler explanation for the phenomena? Why does no-center have less assumptions than yes-center. No-center has the assumption that there is no center point; it’s not just an absence of assumptions. Yes-center has the assumption that there is a center point; it, too, isn’t an absence of assumptions. Each has one assumption. One assumption isn’t simpler than one assumption.

I am all out. I don't have a proof.

So, then, do you tentatively change your view to the belief that one cannot reach the present from an eternal past (assuming the A-theory of time) or are you holding this belief on faith alone?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #936]

I can't express how your ideas impact my thinking.

Whether presented as a scientific study, or science fiction, there's a whole encyclopedia to be writ from that big brain of yours.

I've become even more atuned to the world around me by thinking we could all be part of one grand, unified mind. It's actually really helped lessen my paranoias, this idea that you, and I, and all the universe are one.

Thanks friend. I'll say it again... Your voice is very important to our conversations and debates.

♫When we've got nobody to hold us - Take a good hold on the self.
There is treasure inside - so why let it hide?
Why should we bury such wealth?

I don;t wanna watch folk go through these motions
I want to see how we behave when we are free.
Just like the land is part of the ocean
You! You are a part of me...♫

I hear ya Friend. Backatcha.


It is a storm-calmer when one views one's existence in that manner. A balanced state of Mental Health is crucial to that revelation.
Minds reflect off Minds.

I read your message out to my Pretty Thing and she went all squishy and I even think I detected a wee tear in 'er eye.

She's knows that I can do with all the support I can reach out for right now as I am seeking therapy to tie off some lose ends from way back in my childhood and early teens and first marriage to another Pretty Thing who turned out to be ugly inside and I wore it [as a good 'ubby should] for 12 long years so I need to find a way to deal with something I inherited from others which never belonged to me but I took 'em on as if they were my own - because that is what we do.
Time to deal with those things and thinking in terms which allow me to understand that in dealing with The Universe I am dealing with my Self...its a warm fuzzy in a cold blizzard sometimes...as I learn that Life is Good...even though sometimes it has appear otherwise.

Thank You for your words JK. They witness awesomeness all around us.

PS. Its not my brain that is big but the way I have learnt to as-fully-utilize-it-as-possible, so am still learning how to organize all dooficity into its own special department...and away from the serious stuff.

Keep on shining yer light Friend.